Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed charter

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:45:37 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 10:48 AM
To: "Ali C. Begen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: [video-codec] Proposed charter

>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
>> Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed charter
>> Date: November 4, 2012 6:50:04 PM EST
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 18:15 , Timothy B. Terriberry <[email-masked]>
>>wrote:
>> 
>>> 4. Specification of a storage format for non-interactive (HTTP)
>>> streaming or file transfer of the codec. It is envisioned that this
>>> document shall be a Proposed Standard document.
>> 
>> I think I would prefer to see this say something a little more specific
>>like do a storage format appropriate for use with DASH. If folks want to
>>propose something other than DASH,

I think recording an rtcweb session using this new codec for a later
playback is a legitimate use case. And using HTTP streaming (like DASH)
for that purpose is perfectly fine. FYI, DASH is not codec dependent since
the decoder components are outside the dash client.

But, the DASH formats for both media content and its metadata are
(already) defined in MPEG. This WG, if formed, should not define a new
format but should rather make sure that they follow the existing formats.
This will help keep everyone sane. Personally, I would much prefer that
DASH's ISO-BMFF based formats to be followed for this purpose in this WG.
The MPEG2-TS based formats are obsolete, complex to maintain, enhance and
implement.

>> sure, replace DASH with whatever, but my point is, I don't want this WG
>>to be charter to do a DASH equivalent just as one of the sides topics.
>>That is enough work it would need it's own WG.
>> 
>> 
>> 

Agreed. But, if http streaming is targeted, DASH is a good candidate and
much of the needed work is already complete.

-acbegen