* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Avtcore Status Pages

Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2011-Jan-26 —  

IETF-99 avtcore minutes

Session 2017-07-21 1150-1320: Berlin/Brussels - Audio stream - avtcore chatroom


minutes-99-avtcore-00 minutes

          AVTCORE Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
          11:50pm - 13:20pm   July21, 2017   Room: Berlin/Brussels
          Chairs: Jonathan Lennox and Rachel Huang
          Responsible Area Director: Ben Campbell
          Notetakers: Varun Singh
          Agenda bash and status update
          RFC5285bis: mux-category be of extmap-allowed-mixed: Normal or Identical
              Roni: if you do normal, you can do idenentical, but not vice-versa
              Magnus: This represents an RTP session, and there is no reason why
              all implementations need to pay the price for this complexity
              Jonathan: We want to move to mixed. I would argue for identical
              because the goal is to move everyone to do this.
              Mo: not add the attribute and have everyone do this. All RTP stacks
              with bundled, we have to do this, because the stack needs to handle
              this any way.
              Roni: just to respond to the criticism, i.e., if you have the problem,
              then the burden of implementation is on the endpoint, but it will
              break a few of the existing products.
              Chairs: Is there a strong objection to Identical? None, so Lets go
              with IDENTICAL
              DECISION: Roni will update the to IDENTICAL
          ARIA SDES
              Roni will confirm if ARIA needs SDES or not... (??? confirm with
             (Varun): Security needs some help
              Chairs: more people should review it
          Multiplex guidelines
              Roni: needs to do some work, not blocked on anything
          Frame Marking RTP Header Extension (Mo Zanaty)
          Use only H.264 and VP8, the new codecs will add this to their respective
          payload formats. So VP9 LID mapping moved to their own draft
             Mo: so we can clarify that they should depend on the temporal layers
             Slide ???
             Jonathan: make sure we say it applies to future codecs that use
             spatial and temporal scalable.
          Discard Priority
             Complex Scalability Structure: it is not recommended
             Bernard: will need more guidance on what is considered more complex,
             for example, the ones in LRR diagrams?
             Jonathan: Not the ones in the draft but maybe the ones I had in the
             slide, yet. So maybe we need to define this
             Bernard: spatial diagrams in LRR are not hierarchical. so???
             Jonathan: the higher frams depend on the frames on the same layers
             and not the lower layers. need to specifically say what an endpoint
             can depend on
             Colin: the problem with the text, is that it is not specific, then
             ideally, it should say that we should do X if these characteristics
             exist, else not do it.
             Mo: slamdunk for temporal layers, we do not have names for the other
             Colin: we know the following things work, so lets document that
             instead of saying what does not.
             Jonathan: "these are things it is for" +1
          VP9 P and U bits vs I and B bits
             bernard: related to the previous bits on spatial... when we drop a
             higher spatial layer, when do you get it back? that is where the P
             and U bits come in. Especially when you have multiple spatial layers
             Jonathan: In the temporal hierarchical structure, the U bit needs to
             be set.
             Jonathan/Bernard: P is more interesting, and the B bit could be
             redefined for (non-spatial base layer)??.
             Mo: it has no temporal dependency on another layer.
             Jonathan: LRR calls it, Layer refresh, and that is what is marked?
          Other issue
             Roni: we are missing a priority request for the non-scalable codecs,1
             bit for: low motion vs high motion. Some B-frames are droppable? maybe
             need two bits
             ... (was at the mic)
             hum for the additional bits
             do the people think in the need a priority bit for non-scalable
             DECISION: moderately opposed, no concensus. Not do it now, and use
             colin's proposal: progress the current draft as it is, if there's
             any interest in the priority, submit another draft to extend it.
          RTCP feedback for congestion control (Zahed)
             no objections to doing the work
             no objection to adopting the draft
             205 vs XR vs new RTCP --> leaning towards 205?
             DECISION: submit a new version and use that as the starting point of
             the WG draft for avtcore

Generated from PyHt script /wg/avtcore/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -