Subject: MPEG-4 A/V RTP I/D update: summary of discussion

From: "Yoshihiro Kikuchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:17:27 +0900

Dear all MPEG-4 over IP experts,

Please find bellow a summary of discussions about the updated I/D of MPEG-4
Audio/Visual RTP/RTCP. We will prepare the final version of the
Internet-Draft by the end of this week. The conclusions bellow are what the
authors are thinking about now. But we should finally follow the consensus
of the group. If someone is not satisfied the summary and conclusions
bellow, especially on (2), please let us know your comment through the
reflector ASAP.

What I would like to have a consensus now is that the final I/D will contain
ONLY items that will reach to a consensus among the group before preparing
the final text. In other words, a part of the I/D which cannot reach to a
consensus may be removed or revised.

If there is no further comment, the authors will prepare the final version
of I/D following the conclusions bellow.

(1) FIR (Stephan's proposal)
There was a proposal by Stephan Wenger about a new feedback scheme using
FIR. It tries to cover all MPEG-4 Visual profiles, including profiles which
are not covered by NEWPRED. However, there is no specific description so
far. It lacks of discussions about the idea. Concerns were raised to add a
new technical item without having enough discussions. It needs further
discussions and may needs comparisons with other proposals to adopt the
idea.

[Conclusion]
Not to include FIR proposal into the I/D. The proposal may be discussed in
future.

(2) NEWPRED RTCP (section 5)
There was a concern raised by Stephan Wenger to keep the RTCP part in the
I/D. The reason was that this RTCP concerns only NEWPRED, which covers only
ARTS Profile. He proposed that the addition of FIR based feedback scheme may
resolve the problem. He proposed three ways to proceed: 1) someone convince
him to keep the NEWPRED RTCP as is, 2) move NEWPRED RTCP part (section 5) to
a separate I/D and work together with FIR proposal, and 3) put FIR together
with NEWPRED into the I/D. (But FIR proposal definitely needs further
discussions. See (1) above.)
The discussion at the Adelaide meeting was explained by Sigeru Fukunaga, a
proponent of the NEWPRED.
(Note: Conclusion from the draft minutes is: "Steve Casner concluded with
the chairs' view that we should proceed with the definition of this
backchannel scheme as is, and consider a more general solution in future.")
There is a strong desire by Sigeru Fukunaga to use MPEG-4 NEWPRED on H.323
systems soon in their company's products. It requires RFC for the NEWPRED
RTCP be ready before the
Nov. SG16 meeting.
(Note: It is a common desire among authors to have an RFC for the RTP part
soon. However, it should be remarked that all products may not use NEWPRED.)
It was proposed by Yoshihiro Kikuchi, an editor of the I/D to add the
description to clarify that the NEWPRED RTCP is optional, and nothing to
prevent the future discussions about new feedback schemes.

[Conclusion]
If the conclusion at the Adelaide meeting is agreeable, the authors will
follow this. The final conclusion should be made depend on the discussions
and the consensus among the whole group. In any case, it should be clarified
that the NEWPRED RTCP is nothing to prevent the future discussions on new
feedback schemes.

(3) Other items
There was a suggestion by Stephan Wenger that the English quality may need
improvement. There is no technical comment on the parts other than RTCP.

[Conclusion]
The authors are now working on the improvement of the English quality. The
text should be ready by the end of this week.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro

----
        Yoshihiro Kikuchi

E-mail: [email-masked]
Corporate Research and Development Center
TOSHIBA Corporation
TEL: +81 +44 549 2288    FAX: +81 +44 520 1267

---

From: "Yoshihiro Kikuchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:20:33 +0900

Dear MPEG-4 over IP experts,

The authors of the MPEG-4 Audio/Visual RTP are about to prepare the final
version of the Internet-Draft. We have not get any comment since I sent the
summary and conclusion of the discussion. Can we understand that the
conclusion is now satisfied by the whole group?

If there is any comment, please let us know ASAP. If there is no further
comment, the author will understand that the conclusion is approved and will
prepare the final I/D following this.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro

----- Original Message -----
From: Yoshihiro Kikuchi <[email-masked]>
To: 4on2andIP-sys <[email-masked]>; IETF AVT
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Yoshihiro Kikuchi <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 6:17 PM
Subject: MPEG-4 A/V RTP I/D update: summary of discussion