Subject: [Rmt] MPEG liaison to IETF

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:28:04 -0700

Hi AVT, MMUSIC, FECFRAME, RMT, and all,

MPEG sent another liaison to the IETF, again with the subject of MPEG
possibly becoming engaged in new media transport work.  I have attached a
PDF version; the usual ZIP file should show up in the IETF liaison archives
shortly.   

I have not been in London and, therefore, I¹m unable to provide more insight
into the relevance, or seriousness, of this exercise.  However, reading the
statement (and between its lines), it appears that at least some folks in
MPEG would want to work on topics the IETF would normally be interested in,
whereas others are perhaps happy with the current worksplit.  I¹m fairly
sure that now would be a good time to clarify the IETF¹s view on
standardization territory to MPEG.

MPEG asks for the IETF¹s input by their October meeting, and my suggestion
would be that the chairs of the WGs possibly affected (to which this email
is addressed) should coordinate and send them a response by that timeframe.

Stephan

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:11:33 -0700

Stephan,

The grafting of the TV mentality onto the Internet is a cultural
collision that has not been clean.  So it's appropriate to discuss
cleaning up a bit.  One line clipped out of the attachment:

•
     delivery of media over IP-based networks, fitting into traffic
management, content distribution, and network management, by using or
living with TCP

MPEG's letter seems to use the term 'transport' pretty loosely.  But I
think we can get past that.  Most multicast distribution runs over UDP
and we all know that 1) that works ... at least some of the time and 2)
jettisoning the transport layer functionality in order to support
multicast is a tradeoff that we know there is a better way.  Might this
be the place to discuss reliable multicast protocols with MPEG?

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:28 -0700, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> possibly becoming engaged in new media transport work.  I have
> attached a PDF version; the usual ZIP file should show up in the IETF
> liaison archives shortly.   
> 
> I have not been in London and, therefore, I’m unable to provide more
> insight into the relevance, or seriousness, of this exercise.
>  However, reading the statement (and between its lines), it appears
> that at least some folks in MPEG would want to work on topics the IETF
> would normally be interested in, whereas others are perhaps happy with
> the current worksplit.  I’m fairly sure that now would be a good time
> to clarify the IETF’s view on standardization territory to MPEG.
> 
> MPEG asks for the IETF’s input by their October meeting, and my
> suggestion would be that the chairs of the WGs possibly affected (to
> which this email is addressed) should coordinate and send them a
> response by that timeframe.
> 
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
>    
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
-- 
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:22:06 -0700

I'm sure this series of workshops MPEG is putting together is an adequate
venue to introduce MPEG to IETF technologies, including to RMT's work.
Whether MPEG would be the right venue to work on such protocols themselves,
would IMHO be subject to discussion (at least).  I believe that this is the
main background of the workshop.
Regards,
Stephan

On 7/9/09 10:11 AM, "Rex Buddenberg" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> €
>> I have not been in London and, therefore, I¹m unable to provide more
>> the current worksplit.  I¹m fairly sure that now would be a good time
>> to clarify the IETF¹s view on standardization territory to MPEG.
>> 
>> MPEG asks for the IETF¹s input by their October meeting, and my