IETF
avtext@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, 27 March 2012< ^ >
Jonathan Lennox has set the subject to: AVTExt working group at IETF 82
Room Configuration

GMT+0
[13:12:35] brian.bnsmith joins the room
[13:24:05] Magnus joins the room
[13:29:01] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[13:32:28] <Magnus> Brian, are you in the room or remote?
[13:52:58] kpfleming joins the room
[13:54:50] <kpfleming> sorry, joining late. agenda still going as published?
[13:55:38] <Magnus> Yes, we are on on COP. On slide 17.
[13:55:49] <kpfleming> thanks!
[13:57:07] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[13:57:22] <Cullen Jennings> is there a jabber scribe ?
[13:57:28] <Magnus> No.
[13:58:28] <Cullen Jennings> hmm - that's too bad to hear given the two other conflicting meetings at same time
[14:00:01] <Jonathan Lennox> I would but I'm notetaker, hard to do both at once
[14:00:01] <Magnus> the WG was asked if there was interest for the functionality of COP. The answer was so far was yes. Some questioning if RTCP is the most suitable solution. There will be a message sent to the list to ask for interest and let people read the proposal properly.
[14:00:41] <Magnus> Now goinging through the solution overview. Slide 20.
[14:01:07] danwing joins the room
[14:01:55] <danwing> Sorry, just joined the Jabber room. Where is avtext in its agenda?
[14:02:10] <Jonathan Lennox> Codec Operation Point
[14:02:19] <Magnus> Codec Operation Pont, slide 21 out of 26.
[14:02:37] <danwing> Tx.
[14:02:43] <Jonathan Lennox> out of 28 actually
[14:02:49] <Jonathan Lennox> If the slide footer is correct
[14:03:24] <Magnus> Charles asked if Notification was just which parameters are supported, but the answer is the actual parameter value being used in that instant the notificiation is being sent.
[14:06:22] <Magnus> The footer was wrong, there where 22 slides. Now end discussion going on.
[14:14:27] <Magnus> Now Payload chairs.
[14:15:39] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[14:15:56] <danwing> tx. seems about 7 minutes behind schedule.
[14:16:28] <Magnus> Yes, we have slack time so we that is not an issue.
[14:22:12] <Magnus> H.265 payload format presentation going on Slide 5.
[14:22:18] <danwing> tx
[14:22:31] danwing leaves the room
[14:35:14] <Magnus> Moving on to O/A considerations for G.723
[14:35:19] <Magnus> and G.729
[14:40:13] <kpfleming> mic: The real issue here is whether the parameters are declared or negotiated. If the draft wants to propose changing them to negotiated, it should clearly state that, rather than talking about 'least common denominator' and such. However, changing to negotiated is a very significant change.
[14:48:23] <Magnus> Now G7110
[14:48:50] <kpfleming> maybe i'm mistaken, but the current RFC language for how the 'annexb' parameter is to be handled is very clear and understandable. implementations that don't work together when 'annexb' is specified, not specified, or has differing values in the offer/answer are just plain broken.
[14:51:46] <Jonathan Lennox> kpfleming: sorry, didn't notice your mic comments - am also note taker. Suggest sending mail to the list?
[14:51:58] <kpfleming> i have already, and will continue when the discussion is revived :-)
[14:52:20] <kpfleming> it's just unfortunate that the presentation in the meeting did not take into account the list discussion much at all
[14:52:46] <Magnus> I am also sorry for missing your mic comment.
[14:52:58] <kpfleming> no worries... i am sorry for not being there, i really wanted to be :-)
[15:05:37] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[15:10:21] danwing joins the room
[15:10:42] danwing leaves the room
[15:15:15] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[15:15:33] kpfleming leaves the room
[15:19:28] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[16:21:33] Magnus leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/.
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!