Subject: [clue] proposal for rephrasing Req 3a - based on Iterim meeting discussion

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:14:16 +0300

Hi,

There was a comment from Stephan Wenger on Req 3a on the mailing list

" 

Req 3a fine with me as written.  However, have you thought about the
implications when considering centralized mixing?  In order to fulfill the
use cases behind the requirements, the mixer needs to be aware of both
capture info and rendering info.  Not an issue for me, but there may be IPR
implications, and I would prefer to see a "SHOULD" level of mandation for
the centralized audio mixing use case (only).

"

The Requirement  was discussed in the interim meeting.

My view is that the requirement as written 

" The solution MUST enable individual audio streams to be associated with
one or more video image captures, and individual video image captures to be
associated with one or more audio captures, for the purpose of rendering
proper position."
 
may hint that it MUST be always possible to associate individual audio
streams with video image captures which is not what always possible or
preferred. I suggest that the text will talk about "Must have mechanism that
will enable" which will make it clear that the mechanism will be there but
this is not a guarantee that such association will always be available.
Another comment that was made in the Interim meeting is that the first part
should say "audio captures" and not "audio streams".
 
My proposal is to change Req 3a to

"The solution MUST have a mechanism that will enable individual audio
captures to be associated with one or more video   image captures, and
individual video image   captures to be associated with one or more  audio
captures, for the purpose of rendering  proper position."

We also discuss the EDT note and I assume that this will be covered in a
separate email thread.
 
Thanks
Roni Even

---

From: "Allyn Romanow (allyn)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:40:56 -0700

Hi Roni,

I like your change and would like to adopt it.

I'd also like to change 

 for the purpose of rendering  proper position 

to

 for the purpose of rendering  position

how do you feel about that?

thanks,

Allyn

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Roni Even
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 8:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [clue] proposal for rephrasing Req 3a - based on Iterim
meetingdiscussion

Hi,

" 

Req 3a fine with me as written.  However, have you thought about the
implications when considering centralized mixing?  In order to fulfill
the use cases behind the requirements, the mixer needs to be aware of
both capture info and rendering info...  Not an issue for me, but there
may be IPR implications, and I would prefer to see a "SHOULD" level of
mandation for the centralized audio mixing use case (only).

"

" The solution MUST enable individual audio streams to be associated
with one or more video image captures, and individual video image
captures to be associated with one or more audio captures, for the
purpose of rendering proper position."
 
Another comment that was made in the Interim meeting is that the first
part should say "audio captures" and not "audio streams".
 
My proposal is to change Req 3a to
< 
0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>
 
"The solution MUST have a mechanism that will enable individual audio
captures to be associated with one or more video   image captures, and
individual video image   captures to be associated with one or more
audio captures, for the purpose of rendering  proper position."

Thanks
Roni Even