Subject: [AVT] AVT 1st session notes

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:02:06 +0100

These are the second set of rough notes from the AVT 1st session.

These will be compiled with Tom's notes, already circulated, to form the basis for the proceedings.

Thanks to Ingemar Johansson for taking this set.

And if in general you feel that any of the rough notes for any of the sessions has missed or misrepresented something important, then please send a mail to the chairs.

regards

Keith
-------------------------------------

Wednesday
13:00	Introduction and Status Update
Change of chairs. Tom T --> MMUSIC. Keith D --> AVT
Note well..
Three new RFC, a number of docs in publication status

	draft-ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp-01

	draft-ietf-avt-srtp-ekt-00

	draft-johansson-avt-mcast-based-rams-02

	draft-xia-avt-splicing-for-mpeg2ts-ps-00

	draft-lennox-avt-srtp-encrypted-extension-headers-01

	draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-00
Charis want to make sure that the 3 present RAMS drafs (RAMS, portmap and preamble) advances before accepting additional WG items

13:15	AVT Restructure	Robert Sparks
Proposed a split of the AVT work. AVT, RTPPAYLOAD, XRFRAME, AVTEXT. 
Roni E. Responded on list, AVT, RTPPL continuing work. XR work not beeing done. Use DISPATCH in future, e.g RAMS should have been in DISPATCH first.
Stefan W. Making RTP PL expert review not a very good idea. AVTEXT RAMS is one examble
Jonathan L. Difficult to know where audio level work would fit.
Tom T. AVT main be SSM, header ext. no extra work 
Gonzalo: Arguments like we can do everything in AVT, comparison with sipping-dispatch. 
Roni E. SIPCORE is the AVT corresponding
Cullen In favor of spilling thigs up to get more progress 
Robert S. ...
Stefan W. People in RTP PL may miss the experience of people that may stay in AVT
Stefan W. Problem is that people drop into the list with their PL , gets it done and then drop out.
Robert S. What says that these people are available with the present structure.

13:30	Rapid Synchronization with RTP Multicast Sessions
	draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-08
Concern as regards to IPR discosures
Keith D. IPR disclosures conform to IPR rules. Either accept the IPR statements or go to area director to encourage IPR holder. Show of hands, ~10 favor, no agaist. Jabber 1 for, 1 against
Roni : Will -10 adress all issues. New WGLC needed to make sure that everything is OK 
Ali: IPR was main
Colin P (Jabber) NO show stoppers, some concerns around SSRC
Keith D. There will be another WGLC
	draft-begen-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-00
Roni : Make draft more clear as regards to motivation and issue
J?rg: 
Tom van C: Why not extend to unicast
Magnus: Not sure I understand issue
Jonathan: Only SSM has changed meaning of a=rtcp
Keith D. : No argument against
Robert S. : Make sure that we know what we enable heer
Roni : This draft should not be any issue
Keith : Go forward  

14:00	Port Mapping Between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions
	draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
Magnus W./ Roni E. Not specificatio relation bwteen retransmisison and SSM, some glue is needed. 
Tom van Carnegen: DVB has done spec for RET. Also do it for RAMS. No direct need for extra draft.
No objection against this.      
       Alternative port mapping (Tom van C)
Cullen J. Does not work for the most common NAPT behavior, which according to security people is regarded as the most secure.
Ali. Agreement around the approach proposed earlier, restructure doc.

14:20	MPEG2-TS Preamble	TBD
	draft-begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble-04
	draft-xia-avt-mpeg2ts-preamble-02
Tom v C doing presentaion.
Jonathan: Xia draft does not tell the difference between preamble and TS. 
Roni E.: PL type number identifies preamble and regular TS.
Bill V S: Is there anything in TS that mandates a specified order
Roni E. : No
Ali B. Does the preamble work with with any vendor ?
Peilin: Yes
Colin P: Does the draft always produce a valid preamble  ?
Roni E.: Yes ?
Bill V. S: Repeat Colins question
Stefan W.: Standards are ambiguos in the definition of compliant. 
Stefan W.: Stupid go make decision between the two solutions. Both claims that their solitions work. Suggests a test. 
 
Keith D. Should we decide on one or two solutons ?
Stefan W. No