[foms] Fwd: [RTW] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt

[Christopher Blizzard]

On 11/3/2010 2:32 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> It's relevant, but that document does contain quite a number of errors 
> and omissions - not least that it is very out-of-date with respect to 
> MPEG DASH. Some of these have been pointed out on the IETF list 
> discussing this issue (httpstreaming at ietf.org 
> <mailto:httpstreaming at ietf.org>). I think quite a few people are 
> skeptical about the need for any work on this in the IETF.
>

Are you part of the DASH group?

There was an earlier question about DASH and if we knew about it and 
about MPEG in general which I meant to respond to.

I can't speak for others but I can't say that I haven't been involved 
there.  I'm generally skeptical of MPEG because they failed in their 
attempt to make an H.264 baseline available on an RF basis.  (One of 
their original goals, as I understand it.)  It's clear they are 
relevant.  It's not clear to me if I should spend any time or effort 
working with them, even on something like DASH.

So if the IETF is working in that space it's fine with me, especially if 
there's some harmony between various specs.

--Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.annodex.net/cgi-bin/mailman/private/foms/attachments/20101103/1ec71ebb/attachment.htm