[vorbis-dev] RFC draft for Vorbis over RTP

[Conrad Parker]

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:01:54PM +0200, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> 
> Ok, so what are you seeing, which I am not able to find there either? A 
> resume of the articles found there since last summer would be:
> 
> - July 2003: A discussion around version 02 as a preparation for the AVT 
> meeting in Vienna. Magnus Westerlund pointed out a lot of problems in 
> version 02, which were acknowledged by Phil Kerr. As I understand it, 
> these issues were corrected in version 03.
> 
> - Early October 2003: Linus Walleij started a discussion on 
> gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg.vorbis.devel 
> <http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg.vorbis.devel> about the 
> draft state. He writes "that they (IETF) were not impressed by the 
> previous draft" and Jack Moffits adds a comment about the variable 
> codebooks: "Since they (again IETF) didn't think about this possibility 
> way back when, some feel (Ross Finlayson in particular) that our way is 
> clearly wrong."
> 
> To me, this starts to sound as a political argument...
> 
> - End of October 2003: Version 03 is merely listed in the agenda from 
> the AVT meeting in Minneapolis. There are no discussions around it or 
> any references to what AVT disliked and any reasons for it not to be 
> accepted.
> 
> - March 2004: Also just a brief mention of version 03 in the agenda and 
> minutes from the AVT meeting in Seoul: 
> "*draft*-kerr-avt-*vorbis*-*rtp*-03.txt needs review. Please comment to 
> the mailing list." (Magnus Westerlund)
> 
> After this, there was just a question about the draft state from a 
> French guy a week ago and the discussion I started now.

yes, that's a pretty good summary of the current state.

I was present at the Vienna meeting last July (where Phil presented both
this and the Speex draft), and also at the Seoul meeting in March, where
they were basically skipped over, and hence allowed to expire, as no
further work had been done by the draft authors.

The next steps are:

        1. ensure that all outstanding issues are resolved in the
        working version of the draft (ie. the one in vorbis svn).

        2. submit that amended draft to the IETF

        3. ask for feedback on the avt list

        4. if there are issues that cannot be resolved on the avt
        mailing list, someone needs to go to the next IETF meeting
        (August 1-6, in San Diego) and discuss them.

As I recall the main outstanding issue is the delivery of codebooks as an
RTP payload. As these are critical for stream decode it was suggested that
they instead be referenced during setup and retrieved via a reliable
mechanism, such as HTTP. It is a technical argument, not political.

Conrad.
--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.