Subject: [AVT] Draft charter revision

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:23:09 +0200

Attached is a draft for the revised AVT charter. This will be discussed in
the session tomorrow morning; comments are welcome.

-- 
Colin Perkins
[email-masked]

---

From: "Michael A. Ramalho" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:23:43 -0400

>the session tomorrow morning; comments are welcome.

Colin/Magnus/Steve,

I've got two questions regarding the following snippet from the re-charter:

"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."

1) With regard to iLBC, while I understood that the issue was not fully
resolved, I thought AVT was to be the "primary repository" for iLBC's
definition (that is, not the ITU-T or other standards defining bodies).
I more or less understand what "experimental" means in the IETF - but
what does "highly experimental" mean? Is it even less probable that
iLBC will eventually attain standards status by the additional adjective?

2) With regard to RGL (for people unfamiliar to RGL, see www.vovida.org
for details), RGL is really a "lossless data compression technique" applied
to (A or mu-law) G.711. Steve had requested that "avt" be included in the
titles of RGL revisions - so I assumed it was a working group item. Is RGL
covered in the "re-chartering statement" (above)? Or is RGL, by virtue
of it having more in common with a data compression algorithm than a
(lossy) signal processing codec, exempt (no codec expertise needed - a
rational noted above)? If this is unclear, could you obtain further guidance
from the ADs (Allison) or the IESG?

Thanks,

Michael Ramalho

Michael A. Ramalho, Ph.D.
Office email: [email-masked]
Personal email: [email-masked]
Office: +1.941.708.4650
Cell: +1.941.544.2844

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:39:33 +0200

Michael,

> iLBC will eventually attain standards status by the additional adjective?

The iLBC codec specification is on track to be published as an Experimental
RFC. There are no plans to advance it to the standards track.

> for details), RGL is really a "lossless data compression technique"
> applied to (A or mu-law) G.711. Steve had requested that "avt" be
> included in the titles of RGL revisions - so I assumed it was a working
> group item. Is RGL covered in the "re-chartering statement" (above)? Or
> is RGL, by virtue of it having more in common with a data compression
> algorithm than a(lossy) signal processing codec, exempt (no codec
> expertise needed - a rational noted above)? If this is unclear, could you
> obtain further guidance from the ADs (Allison) or the IESG?

The RGL codec and payload format are not currently AVT work items.  The
codec is covered by the statement that "acceptance of new codec work is
unexpected and subject to rechartering". 

-- 
Colin Perkins
[email-masked]