Gary, Experts,
The MPEG-ES I-D is in IESG last call since 10/17. I believe that
it is neither to SG16 and certainly not to MPEG to decide of its
movement forward. For SG16 it is, however, relevant, that the
assignment of an RFC number follows the IESG approval at
considerable delay, typically several weeks. Unless someone
is pushing the RFC editor really hard, the ES-I-D will not have
a RFC number assigned in time for the SG meeting. I don't know
what the SG should do regarding the determined code points
referencing the draft.
If someone wants to stop the progress of the I-D now, the right
action would be to announce so, including technical reasons,
on the rem-conf reflector.
Before doing so I would like you to consider the following:
MPEG systems wants, for their own reasons, to promote MPEG
systems, not only the media coding schemes. Many (including
me) believe that the current system specification cannot be
delivered over lossy networks. For that reason, the I-D focusing
on the transmission of MPEG systems (SL-draft by Civanlar et. al)
will likely move forward as "experimental" only, and not as
standards track. I'm not sure that MPEG knows the difference,
and I'm also not sure whether we in the ITU allow to normatively
reference an experimental RFC. Would be nice to see this
clarified.
Stephan
At 01:50 PM 10/26/2000 -0700, Gary Sullivan wrote:
>ITU-T Systems and Video Experts,
>
>I am at an MPEG meeting in France. There has been a lot of recent
>discussion here and in the IETF on how to carry MPEG-4 data on IP
>networks. I was asked by some MPEG participants to help explain
>and understand the impact of this work on ITU-T SG16.
>
>My understanding is that the H.323 community has been expecting
>an IETF RFC with Proposed Standard status to be approved prior
>to the November SG16 meeting sufficient to specify an RTP
>packetization format for use in H.323 systems to carry MPEG-4
>video (and perhaps audio) elementary streams.
>
>However, there are some discussions here at MPEG about how to ensure
>that any such specification is adequate not only for the needs of H.323
>but also for MPEG-4 systems as well.
>
>As a result, it appears that MPEG is poised to recommend tomorrow
>that the current Kikuchi-san Internet Draft not be promoted to
>Proposed Standard RFC status in the IETF. This seems to mean
>that we are unlikely to be able to reach Decision status for this
>feature in H.323 in November in SG16.
>
>The SG16 community needs to understand this unfortunate situation
>and its impact on the progress of work for the SG 16 meeting in November.
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Gary Sullivan
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
>listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv(a)mailbag.intel.com
