Subject: [AVT] SVC and multiscreen

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:47:13 -0500

Given that SVC hasn't quite been put to bed, I would like to draw the WG's 
attention to draft-nanwang-avt-svc-multiscreen-00.txt.

The original intention of the author was that this text be added to the SVC 
draft. Could I ask for comment from the WG on whether that is sensible or 
whether it is better to develop a separate document? Further: how does this 
relate to draft-wang-avt-rtp-mvc, which was agreed to be a WG item at the Dublin 
meeting once the SVC work was done?

Tom Taylor

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:06:33 -0800

Hi,

I have privately communicated my skepticism about this draft before.

The content of this draft may have been appropriate in an SVC requirements
document, published in 2005 or so.  Indeed, most (if not all) of the
information presented here is available in the SVC requirements documents
used in JVT.  

There is nothing in the document that refers to RTP, related signaling, the
transport of SVC over IP, or other aspects the IETF is concerned about.  No
codepoints are defined, no novel technical concepts are described.  No
normative content is presented.  At best, the draft contains an IMO quite
obvious application example for the use of SVC.

As the draft adds or removes nothing of substance, I have no concern that it
would create a problem for the technology defined in the SVC payload draft.
Therefore, I'm not violently objecting its inclusion.  At the same time,
though, I believe that the signal to noise ratio of the SVC draft, after
inclusion, would go down.  Therefore, I'm mildly against including it.

As for the relationship with MVC: there is none, except perhaps for the well
understood feature of MVC that allows stereo/3d content to be also displayed
as flat content on a 2d display.  Which, again, has been documented in JVT.

Stephan

On 12/13/09 8:47 AM, "Tom Taylor" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:06:54 +0200

Hi,
The current text in the draft describe a possible use case for SVC and does
not add any value to the SVC draft.
I got some impression that the authors would like to describe such
application where the receiver will be able to request specific layers
compositions using some parameters which are not specified, this is not for
SVC but should be a separate draft that may expand the image attribute draft
in MMUSIC.

Roni Even as individual

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Tom Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:47 PM
> To: IETF AVT WG
> Subject: [AVT] SVC and multiscreen
>

---

From: "Stuart Taylor (sttaylor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:51:19 -0600

The multiscreen draft appears to related to my proposal from 12/3: "SST
switched multipoint conferences indraft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-20",
specifically that an endpoint should be able to represent the needs of a
heterogeneous set of receivers.  I was hoping that the authors of
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-20 would at least respond to this proposal, but
apparently it has been ignored.

Stuart Taylor
Cisco Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Roni Even
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 4:07 PM
To: 'Tom Taylor'; 'IETF AVT WG'
Subject: Re: [AVT] SVC and multiscreen

Hi,
The current text in the draft describe a possible use case for SVC and
does
not add any value to the SVC draft.
I got some impression that the authors would like to describe such
application where the receiver will be able to request specific layers
compositions using some parameters which are not specified, this is not
for
SVC but should be a separate draft that may expand the image attribute
draft
in MMUSIC.

Roni Even as individual

> The original intention of the author was that this text be added to
the
> SVC

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:01:55 -0800

Stuart,

On 12/14/09 9:51 AM, "Stuart Taylor (sttaylor)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [...]
> I was hoping that the authors of

You are jumping to conclusions.  Give us some more time.

Stephan

---

From: Ye-Kui Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:03:16 +0200

Hi Stuart,

We authors have had a conference call last Friday on your draft, and will
have another one later this week. So, as Stephan said, please give us a bit
more time, then we will form our common opinion and come back to you.

BR, YK 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:02 PM
> To: Stuart Taylor (sttaylor); IETF AVT WG
> > does not add any value to the SVC draft.
> > compositions using some parameters which are not specified, this is 
> > not for SVC but should be a separate draft that may expand 
> the image 
> > attribute draft in MMUSIC.
> > 
> > Roni Even as individual
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Given that SVC hasn't quite been put to bed, I would like 
> to draw the 
> >> WG's attention to draft-nanwang-avt-svc-multiscreen-00.txt.
> >> 
> >> draft. Could I ask for comment from the WG on whether that is 
> >> sensible or whether it is better to develop a separate document? 
> >> Further: how does this relate to draft-wang-avt-rtp-mvc, which was 
> >> agreed to be a WG item at the Dublin meeting once the SVC work was 
> >> done?
> >> 
> >> Tom Taylor
> >>