Subject: RE: [AVT] RE: Comments on draft-singer-mpeg4-ip-03.txt

From: CURET Dominique FTRD/DMI/REN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:41:11 +0100

dear all, dear Young-Kwon,

MPEG needs certainly to issue a COR, and the preceeding answer from 
Dave is a good starting point.
We can leave the exact SDP declarations in the payloads.
However, An IANA consideration is may be needed in the Framework?

best regards 

dominique

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lim, Young-Kwon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2001 09:32
À : CURET Dominique FTRD/DMI/REN; 'Colin Perkins'
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [AVT] RE: Comments on draft-singer-mpeg4-ip-03.txt

Dear Dominique,

Sorry for late comments.

> As the MultipleSL draft payload and the Flexmux draft payload have
recently
> evolved, and as the framework draft does not seem to have been updated, it
> is right and obvious that the framework draft may be inconsistent with the
> recent draft payloads.

As I mentioned several times, framework doesn't specify any technical
detailes related to specific payload formats. It only fill the holes which
can not be filled by payload formats and provide a guideline to design
efficient payload formats providing minimum compatibility.

Would you please provide a detailed list of inconsistent descriptions? They
should be fixed before it is publised if they are editorial. If not, we need
to issue COR.

>
> From a FlexMux payload's author point of view, as I am not directly one of
> the authors of the framework draft, I didn't feel the necessity informing
> the authors (David & Young-Kwon) of the framework, on the evolution of the
> details of the Flexmux draft payload.
>

I repeat. It should not be needed.

> The text of the framework draft is quite difficult to finalize, as it
tries
> to present a digest of the different payloads. Inconsistency is difficult
to
> avoid in such cases. As far as SDP declaration is concerned, may be should
> we give the exact details within the different payloads, without repeating
> (which is always inconsistent!) such details in the framework.

This is not true, Dominique.

> It is also
> certainly possible to have the IANA considerations only within that
> framework, and get rid of the IANA considerations in the draft payloads?

What do you mean by this? I can't catch your point.

>
> I think that keeping consistent our drafts is one task of the 4on2andIP Ad
> Hoc group.

I agree.

Sincerely,
Young.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:12:17 -0500

>However, An IANA consideration is may be needed in the Framework?

Yes, definitely.

Colin