On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:23:52PM -0400, Dave Rice wrote: > Hi all, > Further reporting on the IETF happenings below. > > > On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Dave Rice <d...@dericed.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > An HTML5 presentation of today's IETF meeting on FFV1 and Matroska is > > available at > > http://recordings.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF93_DISPATCH&chapter=chapter_2 > > > > <http://recordings.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF93_DISPATCH&chapter=chapter_2>. > > The FFV1 and Matroska portion of the session is from ~9:00 - ~40:30 and > > open discussion starts at 14:40. At this point, for those who are > > interested in participating in further IETF discussions on this topic I > > encourage you to sign up on the IETF Dispatch mailing list at > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>. Thanks much to those who > > joined the discussion via jabber and/or meetecho. At this point, we're very > > interested in comments, questions and feedback on this session and > > strategies for moving forward. One suggestion from Ted Hardy at ~31:00 that > > I found helpful was that the communities that develop the Matroska and FFV1 > > specifications should not s > > imply throw the specifications "over the wall" into IETF, but to move > > specification development itself to an IETF context in a way that brings > > our discussions currently in ffmpeg-devel and matroska-devel and integrates > > them into an IETF context. > > > > Session minutes by Jean Mahoney (copied from > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/zHSrtPuSZTxeZxIKzoaT6zuei34 > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/zHSrtPuSZTxeZxIKzoaT6zuei34>): > >> FFV1 and Matroska ________________________________________________ > >> Presentation: > >> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-6.pdf > >> Presenter: Tessa Fallon, Emmanuel > >> References: > >> - FFV1 Video Specification: https://mediaarea.net/temp/ffv1.html > >> - Github: http://matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html > >> > >> > >> Robert Sparks and Roni Even asked what was Internet-specific about this > >> work. Jerome Martinez pointed out that Matroska was used with VP8, VP9 > >> and WebM. Steve Lhome said that Matroska was designed for streaming in > >> networks and that Opus could be stored in Matroska for streaming. > >> Matroska is supported in Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge. > >> > >> Jerome Martinez said that, while the main purpose of Matroska was > >> storage, it could be used for transport and that they were looking for > >> transparency, open source and openness for their specification. They > >> didn't take it to SMPTE because it's paywalled. > >> > >> Tessa said that although the specifications are already available and > >> the work is complete, the specifications would benefit from the IETF > >> review process. Ben Campbell asked if it was ok if IETF take over change > >> control, and Tessa said that was understood. Ted Hardy said that the > >> community would need to participate in the IETF or the effort would > >> fail. Tessa said that she hoped the community and IETF would come > >> together. Steve Lhome, an original author of Matroska, said he would > >> continue to participate where ever the work was going to happen. > >> > >> Cullen and Dave Rice pointed out the needs for lossless video. Cullen > >> felt the specifications didn't support interoperability as they were > >> currently written, but didn't see the effort as a huge leap for the IETF. > >> > >> Steve Bozko and ??? voiced concerns about the ongoing maintenance > >> aspects of the work. > >> > >> By raising hands, two people at the meeting showed interest in > >> contributing. 8-10 people indicated that they were willing to review > >> documents. > >> > >> Richard Barnes pointed out that netvc people were not in the room and > >> that they may be interested. > >> > >> ACTION: Dispatch chairs to take the discussion to the list, contact the > >> netvc list. > > Session notes from Cullen Jennings (copied from > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/9NGD2XHj9z_UExrd0shx_hsZ5fk > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/9NGD2XHj9z_UExrd0shx_hsZ5fk>) > >> Matroska / ffv1 - start 9:18 > >> > >> Q. around what is internet standard > >> - more IETF has right openness > >> > >> Q. do these need to be done together > >> - could be separated but both useful > >> > >> Q. why not at SMPTE > >> - specs there are behind a paywall > >> > >> Q. does development community meet in person > >> - mostly not > >> > >> Q. what is the support in development community to bring this > >> - support from both > >> Q. Will they join actively > >> - depends on outcome of if the IETF wants, both communities want to have > >> these > >> > >> Mary - clear there is interest in the room > >> > >> > >> Q. Do we have people people willing to review this work > >> - we had more than a handful of people > >> - need to get the > >> > >> * Action Chairs - ping the netvc and codec list > > Tessa Fallon, who chaired the IETF session on Matroska and FFV1 send to notes > to relay to the lists: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reporting back from IETF 93 in Prague on behalf of PREFORMA: > > A rather lively session with pushback against our proposal (if you watched > the video--well, rest assured it was just as much fun to live it as it was to > watch it). However, it appears this type of exchange is par for the course > with many IETF meetings. Ultimately 8-10 people showed support by indicating > their willingness to review and assist with the specifications (note that > this would not include actively contributing to writing/development). I am > told that this is more support than that had by some currently chartered > work, which is enormously encouraging. > > So to re-iterate: there is significant interest within the IETF for doing > technical review of the specifications. What would need to happen for this to > be successful is for developers on this list to be willing to participate on > the relevant IETF lists to both: > 1)show support for review to happen > 2)make sure that review is in line with the most recent technical developments > > There isn't any formal IETF membership process, and IETF participants are > those who choose to participate on the lists and at meetings. Most IETF work > takes place on the lists, as the meetings are far-flung (though remote > participation is possible and highly encouraged). Thus by signing up for the > IETF lists, you effectively have a voice in the IETF. >
> Currently, FFV1/Matroska discussions take place on this list: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch> iam already subscribed, since a day or 2 but havnt seen any FFV1 related threads yet. It seems i subscribed slightly too late and missed the ffv1 discussions > > If you're interested in getting the specifications reviewed by the IETF, > please sign up and participate. This won't move forward without support from > the developer community--if the developers aren't interested in standardizing > the specifications, neither is the IETF. +1 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
