Subject: [video-codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 07:21:12 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Video Codec of the IETF.

        Title           : <Video Codec Requirements and Evaluation Methodology>
        Author          : Alexey Filippov
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-01.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2016-04-01

Abstract:
   This document provides requirements for a video codec designed
   mainly for use over the Internet. In addition, an evaluation
   methodology needed for measuring the parameters (compression
   efficiency, computational complexity, etc.) to ensure whether the
   stated requirements are fulfilled or not.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netvc-requirements/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

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

---

From: Thomas Daede <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:01:40 -0700

I like that the frame rates now include fractional NTSC frame-rates and
aren't dependent on the resolution. Any reason not to use the same frame
rates for the Video Sharing section (and really, most of the other
sections besides Screensharing) too?

The Video Surveillance section could now be folded into the "Video
sharing" or "Video Conferencing" sections - the requirements are
basically the same.

Support for YUV 4:2:2 and RGB 4:4:4 is mentioned, but not YUV 4:4:4. YUV
4:4:4 is mentioned as an input format for Screencasting, so it should be
required.

I don't really like the Levels section as is, still - it currently reads
like a specification, not like a requirement. Could it be reduced to
just a maximum frame rate and maximum resolution?	

On 04/01/2016 07:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> video-codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
>