Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-14.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: RTP Payload Format for Adaptive TRansform Acoustic Coding (ATRAC) Family
	Author(s)	: J. Matsumoto, M. Hatanaka
	Filename	: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-14.txt
	Pages		: 36
	Date		: 2008-3-11
	
This document describes an RTP payload format for efficient and
   flexible transporting of audio data encoded with the Adaptive
   TRansform Audio Coding (ATRAC) family of codecs. Recent enhancements
   to the ATRAC family of codecs support high quality audio coding with
   multiple channels.  The RTP payload format as presented in this
   document also includes support for data fragmentation, elementary
   redundancy measures, and a variation on scalable streaming.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-14.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Mitsuyuki Hatanaka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:42:10 +0900

Dear all,

We've submitted our revised internet draft as "draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atracx-family-14.txt".
You'll be able to get it from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

In this version, we incorporated the modifications according to the final review of AVT WG and IANA.

Best regards,
Mitsuyuki Hatanaka

At 13:30 08/03/11 -0700, you wrote:
><ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-14.txt>

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:44:39 -0400

I believe this resolves all Last Call comments. If no further comments are 
received, I will forward a request to publish this to the IESG next week.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:02:43 -0400

This does not resolve the comment from the MIME Type review that it does 
not give any reference for what the ATRAC formats are; this can lead to 
confusion between implementors on exactly which ATRAC format is being 
encoded.

I believe the solution that was suggested in discussion was to insert a 
normative reference to the not-yet-published ATRAC specification, and to 
accept that the RFC Editor would hold publication of the document until 
this reference was available. This would be acceptable to me.

(Note: The draft fails to indicate the desired publication track - whether 
it's informational or standards-track. This is a Good Thing to do.)

                      Harald Alvestrand

--On Wednesday, March 12, 2008 17:44:39 -0400 Tom Taylor 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe this resolves all Last Call comments. If no further comments
> are received, I will forward a request to publish this to the IESG next
> week.
>
>> We've submitted our revised internet draft as
>> "draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atracx-family-14.txt". You'll be able to get it from
>> the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>>        Title           : RTP Payload Format for Adaptive TRansform
>>>        Acoustic Coding (ATRAC) Family Author(s)       : J. Matsumoto,
>>>        M. Hatanaka
>>> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-14.
>>> txt> _______________________________________________

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:09:29 -0400

Harald, are you insisting that the ATRAC specification be issued by an SDO 
rather than be proprietary? Let's get clear on that, then we can figure out how 
to move forward. Note that I am saying nothing here about Sony intentions, only 
trying to understand what you are asking.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> (Note: The draft fails to indicate the desired publication track - 
> whether it's informational or standards-track. This is a Good Thing to do.)
> 
>                      Harald Alvestrand
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:29:32 -0400

--On Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:09:29 -0400 Tom Taylor 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Harald, are you insisting that the ATRAC specification be issued by an
> SDO rather than be proprietary? Let's get clear on that, then we can
> figure out how to move forward. Note that I am saying nothing here about
> Sony intentions, only trying to understand what you are asking.

Not at all - I'm insisting that it be a stable reference.

I'm perfectly happy to say that "ATRAC is a specification defined by Sony, 
and published in Sony technical note XXXX, available from Sony Technical 
Publications", or whatever fits the facts.

In a pinch, I'll even be happy with saying "the ATRAC format is a Sony 
trade secret, and the way you refer to it is to say "Sony secret number 
42"".

Any reference that will get someone who wants to implement it the threads 
he needs to track down exactly which of the ATRAC formats was intended by 
the specification is satisfactory to me.

                       Harald

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:39:05 -0400

Maybe the problem is the heading to this E-mail. The authors have up-versioned 
the draft. The new version provides the Sony-published reference: "ATRAC 
Advanced Lossless Standard Specification ver.1.1".

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I'm perfectly happy to say that "ATRAC is a specification defined by 
> Sony, and published in Sony technical note XXXX, available from Sony 
> Technical Publications", or whatever fits the facts.
> 
> Any reference that will get someone who wants to implement it the 
> threads he needs to track down exactly which of the ATRAC formats was 
> intended by the specification is satisfactory to me.
> 
>                       Harald
> 
> 
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:55:43 -0400

--On Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:39:05 -0400 Tom Taylor 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Maybe the problem is the heading to this E-mail. The authors have
> up-versioned the draft. The new version provides the Sony-published
> reference: "ATRAC Advanced Lossless Standard Specification ver.1.1".

Hmmm... now that you tell me what to look for, I do find these 
specifications in the MIME type registrations. This is good.

Would you have any objection to also placing them in the normative 
references list at the back of the document? That's where I was looking for 
them, and that's why I was confused.

                     Harald