Subject: [AVT] Status of draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:01:50 -0500

Hello,

The AVT Profile draft draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt has expired on May
2002. Is there a plan to come out with a new draft replacing this?

Thanks,

Bala

______________________

Bala Pitchandi

UTStarcom Inc.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:09:31 +0100

Hi,

draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt is not expired as it is tentatively 
approved by IESG. It awaits a few small clarifications on 
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt. When these are performed the both of them 
will go to publication, if IESG approves these changes.

Cheers

Magnus

Balasubramanian Pitchandi wrote:

> Hello,
>
>  
>
> The AVT Profile draft draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt has expired on 
> May 2002. Is there a plan to come out with a new draft replacing this?
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bala
>
> ______________________
>
> Bala Pitchandi
>
> UTStarcom Inc.
>

-- 

Magnus Westerlund 

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research ERA/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:55:32 -0800 (PST)

> will go to publication, if IESG approves these changes.

What Magnus says is true.  But in addition, I have submitted updated
drafts rtp-new-12 and profile-new-13 as the means to convey the
clarifications to the IESG and the RFC Editor.  I did this after
receiving permission from our AD, Allison Mankin, since normally a
draft should not be updated after it is reviewed and approved by the
IESG.  The clarifications we have discussed are substantial enough,
especially when combined with the things I fixed to comply with the
ID-nits requirements (like fixing two spaces at the end of sentences,
and changing the order of some of the sections) that I decided trying
to convey all of that to the RFC Editor in the form of edit notes to
be applied to the previous drafts would not be efficient, effective,
or pleasant.  I am preparing a set of files for the IESG to explain
the significant clarifications and to make it easy to verify that the
other changes are insignificant.

Having refreshed expiration dates should also help folks like Bala who
have been concerned and asked about it.

The new drafts will work their way through the I-D administrator's
queue.  In the meantime, you can get them at:

ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13.ps
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13.txt
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.ps
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.txt

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:05:27 -0500

Thanks Magnus and Steve. Updating the expiration date and issuing a new
draft would be the ideal solution that would help folks who may not be
subscribing to this mailing list but use the document as a reference.

-- Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen
Casner
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AVT] Status of draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: "Alan Duric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:03:45 +0100

Hi Steve,

one further comment, in section 4.5.9:

"4.5.9 GSM-EFR

   ... The packing is specified in ETSI Technical Specification TS 101
318."

packing is referring to document that is made historical (since
Dec-2001, see
http://webapp.etsi.org/workprogram/Report_WorkItem.asp?WKI_ID=5874), and
I'm not sure how good practice is to use historical document as
reference.

Regards,
Alan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Casner
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:56 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> > draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt. When these are performed the both of 
> > them will go to publication, if IESG approves these changes.
> 
> What Magnus says is true.  But in addition, I have submitted 
> updated drafts rtp-new-12 and profile-new-13 as the means to 
> convey the clarifications to the IESG and the RFC Editor.  I 
> did this after receiving permission from our AD, Allison 
> Mankin, since normally a draft should not be updated after it 
> is reviewed and approved by the IESG.  The clarifications we 
> have discussed are substantial enough, especially when 
> combined with the things I fixed to comply with the ID-nits 
> requirements (like fixing two spaces at the end of sentences, 
> and changing the order of some of the sections) that I 
> decided trying to convey all of that to the RFC Editor in the 
> form of edit notes to be applied to the previous drafts would 
> not be efficient, effective, or pleasant.  I am preparing a 
> set of files for the IESG to explain the significant 
> clarifications and to make it easy to verify that the other 
> changes are insignificant.
> 
> Having refreshed expiration dates should also help folks like 
> Bala who have been concerned and asked about it.
> 
> The new drafts will work their way through the I-D 
> administrator's queue.  In the meantime, you can get them at:
> 
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13
.ps
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13
.txt
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.ps
ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.txt

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: "Alan Duric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:04:57 +0100

yHi Steve,

"4.5.9 GSM-EFR

Regards,
Alan

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:23:08 -0800 (PST)

Alan,

> I'm not sure how good practice is to use historical document as

Does that mean GSM-EFR encoding is also historic?  Or just the
packing?

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: "Alan Duric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 00:05:34 +0100

Hi Steve,

> Does that mean GSM-EFR encoding is also historic?  Or just 
> the packing?

ETSI Technical Specification TS 101 318 refers just to packing of GSM
EFR (as well as for packing of GSM FR - 06.10 and GSM HR - 06.20). 
Possible "work around" could be if packing for GSM EFR is explained in a
same way as packing for GSM FR in section 4.5.8

Regards,
Alan

---

From: Chuck Harrison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:59:30 -0800

Hi,

Does anyone know of a plan to map Gibson Magic, which
is a layer-2 Ethernet audio/video LAN protocol, into RTP for
extension into the WAN environment?

http://www.gibsonmagic.com/specification.html

Cheers,
  Chuck Harrison
  Far Field Associates, LLC
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt