Count me in ;)
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Dave Rice <d...@dericed.com> 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> > > 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. > > Post-IETF, we'll be talking with the leaders of related groups within the > IETF about how to move this forward. Enthusiasm for this proposal is very > high amongst those who work with a/v and related codecs at the IETF, and > folks are willing to help guide us through the next steps. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Best Regards, > Dave Rice > > > _______________________________________________ > libav-devel mailing list > libav-de...@libav.org > https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
