Subject: [AVT] New I-D on JVT packetization

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:29:12 +0200

Folks,

we have updated the JVT packetization I-D.  The new version
reflects the comments we received in Minneapolis (especially
the timestamp issue) and the JVT WD of Fairfax.

Abstract

    This memo describes an RTP Payload format for the JVT codec.  This
    codec is designed as a joint project of the ITU-T SG 16 VCEG, and
    the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG groups.  The most up-to-date draft
    of the video codec was specified in early May 2002, is due for
    revision in late July 2002, and is available for public review [2].

The URL is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wenger-avt-rtp-jvt-01.txt

Regards
Stephan

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

---

From: "M. Reha Civanlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:00:34 -0400

Stephan,

It seems like, the "parameter set concept" utilized in this draft has been
described in our informational RFC2448 published in 1998. Moreover, there
are some patents (ref. 1 and particularly 2 of the RFC), now owned by
Lucent, upon which the approach described in the draft may be infringing. I
believe, according to the IETF procedures, it is my obligation to indicate
this situation. So, here it goes.

M. Reha Civanlar
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:18:38 +0200

Dear Reha,

Thanks for your comments.  I was unaware of the RFC, however I did know 
about the patents.  I doubt that the existence of the patents pose a 
problem to the process in AVT.  After all, the discussion in the draft 
about the Parameter Sets is merely a description of mechanisms available in 
JVT.  In JVT, however, we may have a problem (though I doubt it) with the 
license free baseline policy.  For the payload spec, we are simply talking 
about a bit stream content.  So far I haven't heard of any mechanisms 
defined in the RFC that are patent protected.

Regarding the problem of the license free baseline, I plan to comment on 
the JVT reflector (after Wednesday, I'm on travel now).

Best regards,
Stephan