Subject: RE: [AVT] WGLC: draft-ietf.avt-ulp-19.txt

From: "Allison, Art" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:59:00 -0500

Interesting.  Will gather more data off reflector.
For now, if the use of these tools is required in the RFC, then their
overhead seems to be the trade-off vs. FEC overhead, yes? 

_____________
Art Allison
Director, Advanced Engineering
Science & Technology
National Association of Broadcasters
1771 N Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202.429.5418
Fax: 202.777.4981
[email-masked]

The National Association of Broadcasters is a trade association that
advocates on behalf of more than 8,300 free, local radio and television
stations and also broadcast networks before Congress, the Federal
Communications Commission and the Courts.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:04 AM
To: Allison, Art; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [AVT] WGLC: draft-ietf.avt-ulp-19.txt

>>From work in other fora, I have seen some indications that AVC has a
>lower tolerance for errors than MPEG-2.

This sounds incorrect - AVC has many more error resilient coding tools
than MPEG-2. 

BR, YK

---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ye-Kui Wang
  Senior Research Engineer, Ph.D
  Multimedia Technologies Laboratory
  Nokia Research Center
  P.O. Box 100, FIN-33721 Tampere, Finland
  Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland
  Mobile: +358-50-486-7004
  Fax: +358-7180-35935
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 

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

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