* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Avtcore Status Pages

Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance (Active WG)
Art Area: Barry Leiba, Murray Kucherawy | 2011-Jan-26 —  

IETF-109 avtcore minutes

Session 2020-11-19 1200-1400: Room 1 - avtcore chatroom


minutes-109-avtcore-02 minutes

          Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance (avtcore) Working Group
          CHAIRS:  Jonathan Lennox
                   Bernard Aboba
          IETC 109 AGENDA
          Wednesday, November 18, 2020 21:00 - 23:00 Pacific Time
          Thursday, November 19, 2020, 5:00  -  7:00 UTC
          Thursday, November 19, 2020 12:00  - 14:00 Banghok Time
          1. Note Well, Note Takers, Agenda Bashing, Draft status - (Chairs, 12:00,
          Brian Rosen will be jabber scribe.
          Stephan Wenger will be providing notes in Word form.
          Bumping Colin to later as his IRTF chair duties keep him elsewhere.
          Stephan: We need guidance on ?
          Action item: Chairs to follow up on WGLC for VP9 and frame marking draft.
          Action: Chairs to follow up with authors on tetra draft and maybe revise
          Action: Authors of rtp-evc draft to submit as a WG draft.
          Agenda bash to add discussion of evc draft after the VVC draft.
          All times in PST
          21:03 Start
          Meeting tips
          Note Well
          Change of presenter for JPEG-XS
          AI to chairs for payload-vp9 (send to IESG?)
          AI for draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking (send to IESG?)
          AI chairs: follow up on tetra: chairs to follow w/ authors and remove
          as needed.
          EVC adoption: AI authors: resubmit as WG draft
          Stephan Requests one minute for EVC payload
          2.  RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control (Colin
          12:10, 10 min)
          21:50 Presentation
          Magnus: ECN problem is now solved, DISCUSS cleared.
          Jonathan: as an individual, this is all fine.  WG is fine with it (no
          on the list).
          Colin: if people are OK with signaling, then no further involvement of
          WG needed
          Jonathan: WG is ok with the changes.
          Barry: post link to diffs on mailing list.  That was done.
          Barry: will give final look and approve it.
          Action: Colin posted the diffs, no objections. WG OK with the changes.
          3. Multi-party real-time text (Gunnar Hellström, 12:20, 15 min)
          21:26: Daniel Havey: How will this lose 3 work with new packet recovery
          like RACK? Gunnar: what is RACK?
          Daniel: RACK is a new recovery mechanism.  Wants to know interaction.
          Gunnar: don’t know. Isn't RACK for TCP, not RTP?
          Brian Rosen: will look at v10 how his previous comments are addressed;
          but likely read to WGLC.  High priority work, emergency services
          implementations waiting.
          Jonathan: What was the problem with loss detection?
          Gunnar: With the new much more efficient packet interleaving method,
          it is in most cases not possible to deduce if loss of multiple packets
          resulted in real loss of text.
          WGLC will be issued shortly after this meeting.  Main RTP text first,
          informational text later or never.
          Brian wants opportunity to review 10.  WGLC after that review
          Action: Chairs to follow up with WGLC after review of -10 by Brian Rosen.
          4. RTP Header Extension Encryption (Justin Uberti, 12:35, 15 min)
          21:35 Presentation
          21:44 Q: should we adopt this as WG item?
          21:45 Harald : Can we lose 1-byte header extensions while we're at it?
          Justin: perhaps not
          Harald: would not like to see people turning off extensions just to
          conditions of 1 byte header
          Jonathan: Let's discuss this on the list.
          21:46: Mo: mechanism expects all middleboxes to be aware of this?
          Justin: Not everything, packet capture tools and such would work, but
          if you
          try to understand the packet SFUs need to decrypt.  CSRC concerns not
          that big
          a deal.  Can be used in a Point to point encryption system as
          well. Cryptex is
          not end-to end like PERC, its hop-to-hop.
          Cullen: The 1 byte header issue is orthogonal to this draft. Let's handle
          Action: Chairs to issue a call for adoption.
          5. SFrame RTP Encapsulation (Sergio Garcia Murillo, 12:50, 15 min)
          22:00 Presentation
          22:06: Magnus: clarification sframe on decoders smallest independent
          Relation on RTP depends on things like scalability.  Need to be careful
          Justin: notion of “IDU” “independently decodable unit”.
          Action: Sergio, et al. to submit a draft on Sframe generic RTP
          as well as SDP negotiation.  (No guarantee that this would be accepted.)
          22:16 Colin: payload formats are explicitly designed not to be payload
          agnostic.  Declined to standardized codec agnostic payload formats in
          number of
          cases.  If that is to be changed, needs to be done deliberately. Are we
          to have to define Sframe RTP payload formats for each codec?
          Sergio: that would be an implementation and interoperability nightmare.
          Mo: (not recorded)
          Magnus: echo Colin.  Need to support “smallest independent decodable
          Sergio: The Insertable Streams API provides access to frames, but
          can parse the bitstream, so as to divide it into smaller units
          (e.g. NALUs,
          tiles, etc.)
          Justin: stacking up with cryptex, most header extensions are stuff SFUs
          want to
          see.  But there may be exceptions.
          Stephan: .
          Jonathan: Most issues need to be addressed in the Sframe WG.
          Harald: need an RTP payload format because decoders will try to look
          into the
          RTP payload and fail.  “No user-serviceable parts inside”.  SDP codec
          interaction is tricky.
          Jonathan: expect something here, work probably in sframe.
          Cullen: sframe not chartered for RTP payload formats.  We are changing
          architecture here.
          Bernard: Will sframe WG define IDUs?
          Cullen: maybe, but need hard discussions
          6. RTP Payload for VVC (Shuai Zhao, 13:05, 10 min)
          22:32: Presentation
          Jonathan: SDP payload review process ok, will do the same thing in EVC.
          Action: Authors to request WG guidance on outstanding items.
          7. RTP payload for JPEG XS (T. Bruylants, 13:15, 10 mins)
          One open issue.
          Action: after issue resolved and new draft submitted, Chairs to issue
          This was presented by Tim Bruylants (not S. Lugan)
          8. QUIC RTP Tunneling (Samuel Hurst, 13:25, 10 min)
          Did not get to this document (slides not submitted, and we ran out of
          9. Multiplexing Scheme Updates for QUIC (Bernard Aboba, 13:35, 10 min)
          Action: Conclusion was reached for WG to adopt the draft. Once adopted,
          Martin's comments.
          10. Wrapup and Next Steps (Chairs, 13:45, 15 min)
          23:03 Meeting adjorned.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/avtcore/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -