Subject: Re: [AVT] Proposal for update of AVT charter and milestones

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:22:16 +0100

Hi,

We chairs have updated the charter and milestones based on the feedback. 
The new charter proposal is included below. If you have any final 
comments before we submit it, please provide them before 25th of February.

Cheers

Magnus

-- New charter and Mile stone proposal ---

The Audio/Video Transport Working Group was formed to specify a
protocol for real-time transmission of audio and video over unicast
and multicast UDP/IP. This is the Real-time Transport Protocol, RTP,
together with its associated profiles and payload formats. The
current aims of the working group are:

- to review and revise existing payload formats to advance those
   which are useful to Draft Standard, and to declare others
   as Historic. Milestones will be established as a champion for
   each payload format is identified.

- to develop payload formats for new media codecs, and to
   document best-current practices in payload format design.
   The group continues to be precluded from work on codecs
   themselves because of overlap with the other standards
   bodies, and because the IETF does not have the ability
   to effectively review new codecs. An exception was made
   for the freeware iLBC codec on a highly experimental basis,
   but acceptance of new codec work is unexpected and subject
   to rechartering.

- to complete the forward error correction work to update
   RFC 2733 in the form of the ULP payload format

- to investigate and if suitable develop a framework for advanced
   FEC codes and their usage for RTP, possibly with alignment to
   the RMT WG's FEC building block.

- to extend RTP to work with Source-Specific Multicast sessions
   with unicast feedback

- to provide a framing mechanism for RTP over TCP and TLS

- to in collaboration with the MPLS and ROHC WG develop a solution
   for header compression of RTP across MPLS networks that avoid
   decompression and compression at each MPLS node.

- to develop a new RTP profile as the combination of the SRTP
   profile and the Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
   (RTP/SAVPF)

- to develop a new RTP profile for usage of TFRC (RFC 3448) with
   RTP over UDP to allow application developers to gain experience
   with TCP friendly congestion control.

- to develop an MIB for RTCP XR (RFC 3611).

- to update the RTP MIB, including aligning it with RFC 3550.

The longer term goals of the working group are to advance the
SRTP Profile, the Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback,
the Compressed RTP framework, and the RTP MIB to Draft Standard.

The group has no plans to develop new RTP profiles beyond those
listed above, but will consider rechartering to produce profile
level extensions if appropriate.

Goals and Milestones:

May 05	  	Submit RTP/SAVPF profile for Proposed Standard
May 05	  	Submit RTCP/SSM draft for Proposed Standard
Nov 05	  	Submit ULP Payload Format for Proposed Standard
Nov 05	  	Submit Framing of RTP for TLS for Proposed Standard
Nov 05	  	Submit update of RTP MIB for Proposed or Draft Standard
Nov 05		Submit RTCP XR MIB for Proposed Standard
Nov 05 		Submit RTP Profile for TFRC for Proposed Standard
Nov 05	  	Finished investigation of advanced FEC codes for RTP,
                 update plan
Dec 05		Submit any extensions for RTP HC on MPLS networks for
                 Proposed Standard
Mar 06	  	Submit SRTP for Draft Standard
Sep 06	  	Submit RTP/AVPF for Draft Standard

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/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: lazzaro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:19:28 -0800

> - to provide a framing mechanism for RTP over TCP and TLS

In case there's any misunderstanding here, I'm not planning to
take on TLS personally -- I think its important that we have some
secure TCP variant (be it SRTP over TCP or TLS or perhaps both),
but I take seriously the idea that only those well versed in security
issues should be writing I-Ds that focus on security ... and I'm not
well versed on security issues.

So, for this item to move forward, we need a volunteer ...

---
John Lazzaro
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
---