Re: [AVT] Working group last call: JPEG-2000 payload format

[Satoshi Futemma <satosi-f at sm.sony.co.jp>]

Dear Colin,

Thank you for the wrapping up.
I agree with you.

All right, I will submit a new draft soon.

Best Regards,

Futemma

Colin Perkins wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 09:03, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > Colin Perkins skrev:
> > > Wrapping up, I believe the rough consensus is that the JPEG-2000 
> > > draft should be updated to allow non-90kHz timestamp rates, as follows:
> > > - Senders and receivers MUST support a 90kHz RTP timestamp rate, and MAY
> > >   support other rates.
> > > - Senders SHOULD use 90kHz timestamp where possible, and the draft 
> > > needs to
> > >   be updated to include strong guidance on choosing the timestamp 
> > > rate, and
> > >   the implications of using a rate other than 90kHz.
> > > - The timestamp rate MUST be negotiated. The offer/answer considerations
> > >   should explain how this is done.
> > > - Senders that wish to use a non-90kHz rate SHOULD also offer the 
> > > same stream
> > >   using a 90kHz timestamp rate, with a different RTP payload type, e.g.:
> > >     m=video 5004 RTP/AVP 98 99
> > >     a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000
> > >     a=rtpmap:99 jpeg2000/27000000
> > >   allowing graceful fallback to 90kHz if the receiver doesn't support 
> > > the high
> > >   rate.
> > > To check the consensus, please reply to this message by the end of 
> > > this week, stating if you agree or disagree with this proposal, and 
> > > giving your reasons. Please do this even if you believe you have 
> > > already stated your preference.
> >
> > I am fine with this. However, I think the SDP example should switch 
> > the priority order of the two payload formats to indicate that one 
> > does like to use 27 MHz rather then 90k. So if including an example 
> > with this, change the m= line to:
> > m=video 5004 RTP/AVP 99 98
>
> There seems to be consensus that more flexibility should be allowed in 
> the choice of timestamp rate for the JPEG2000 payload format.  Authors, 
> could you please therefore submit an update reflecting this.
>
> Thanks,

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt