Subject: [AVT] Updated I-Ds for Codec Control Commands and SVC payload

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:40:02 +0200 (CEST)

Folks,
shortly, the updated I-Ds for the SVC payload and for the Codec Control
Commands should be available from the IETF I-D archive.  The filenames are
draft-wenger-avt-rtp-svc-02.txt and draft-wenger-avt-avpf-ccm-04.txt,
repsectively.
The SVC draft reflects the discussions/decisions made in Dallas, and also
contains re-alignment with recent changes of the SVC spec.
The CCM draft adds a new codepoint for ITU-T Rec. H.271 coded payload
(which is a generic syntax for video feedback).  The Topology section has
been removed as per Dallas agreement.
Note that I also wanted to submit a -00 draft for the Topologies.  Because
of an unscheduled trip, I missed the -00 deadline; therefore, we cannot
discuss this draft in Montreal.
I'm going to ask for WG status of the SVC draft in Montreal; please read
that draft.
Regards,
Stephan

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

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:55:42 -0400

[email-masked] writes:

>From the -03 version of CCM:
           In H.264, for example, a decoder refresh point contains
           parameter set NAL units that generate parameter sets necessary
           for the decoding of the following slice/data partition NAL units
           (and that are not conveyed out of band).>

Versus RFC 3984 (H.264 RTP format):
   The picture and sequence parameter set NALUs SHOULD NOT be
   transmitted in the RTP payload unless reliable transport is provided
   for RTP ...

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga OS team
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:57:55 +0300

HI Randell,

RFC 3984 suggests sending parameter sets out of band, but does not  
mandate it, not even in unreliable transport.  At the time, folks had  
architectural concerns that made us keeping the door open for in-band  
transmission.  Wise decision as it turned out, because, today, in- 
band parameter sets are commonly used in H.323 systems and in  
broadcast.  Out-of-band transmission is also used, namely in 3GPP.   
There are valid reasons for both ways.

The definition of an instantaneous  decoder refresh point in H.264  
and in MPEG standards is such that it includes all necessary header  
information (in H.264 regardless of the transmission mechanics for  
those headers).

Therefore, there is no contradiction  between the two drafts.  But  
perhaps the situation would be clearer if we would change the  
parentheses as follows

>            (and that are not conveyed out of band).>

"(and that have not been made available by other means, e.g. by hard- 
coding or out-of-band transmission"

Would that be better?

Regards,
Stephan