From miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com Fri Sep 2 02:35:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF9821F8E2E; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWXW4na-YWkp; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3F321F8E2D; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-cb-4e60a3da166b Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F8.71.20773.AD3A06E4; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:37:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [159.107.48.91] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:37:29 +0200 Message-ID: <4E60A3D8.2080103@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:37:28 +0200 From: "Miguel A. Garcia" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Lennox , Emil Ivov , Enrico Marocco , avtext@ietf.org, mmusic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:03:11 -0700 Cc: "avtext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [avtext] SDP comments to draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04.txt X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:35:57 -0000 Hi: I've read Sections 4 and 7 of draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04.txt, and I don't have comments from the SDP point of view. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain From miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com Fri Sep 2 02:38:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED73621F8F00; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qUvl6vJkjDTc; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CAB21F8EFC; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c47ae000000b17-49-4e60a46fca0a Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9B.12.02839.F64A06E4; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:39:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [159.107.48.91] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:39:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4E60A46E.2000701@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:39:58 +0200 From: "Miguel A. Garcia" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emil Ivov , Enrico Marocco , Jonathan Lennox , avtext@ietf.org, mmusic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:03:11 -0700 Cc: "avtext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [avtext] SDP comments to draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-04.txt X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:38:26 -0000 Hi, These are some comments to Sections 5 and 7 of draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-04.txt - In Figures 4 and 5, all the SDP examples are missing the "s=" line (it can have a single white space, but I think it must be there). According to RFC 3264: The SDP "s=" line conveys the subject of the session, which is reasonably defined for multicast, but ill defined for unicast. For unicast sessions, it is RECOMMENDED that it consist of a single space character (0x20) or a dash (-). - On the SDP answer in Figures 4 and 5, the port of the audio stream is set to "52543". Since this stream is used together with RTCP, the RTP stream should be set to an even port number, in order to allow the RTCP stream to be received in the consecutive (odd) port number. According to RFC 4566: For RTP, the default is that only the even-numbered ports are used for data with the corresponding one-higher odd ports used for the RTCP belonging to the RTP session, and the denoting the number of RTP sessions. If non-contiguous ports are used or if they don't follow the parity rule of even RTP ports and odd RTCP ports, the "a=rtcp:" attribute MUST be used. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Sep 5 07:22:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BE721F8B23; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dpL4PSgKL1RO; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627AB21F8A7D; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:22:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20110905142224.5963.75528.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:22:24 -0700 Cc: avtext@ietf.org Subject: [avtext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05.txt X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:22:24 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Extensions Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension fo= r Mixer-to- Client Audio Level Indication Author(s) : Emil Ivov Enrico Marocco Jonathan Lennox Filename : draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-09-05 This document describes a mechanism for RTP-level mixers in audio conferences to deliver information about the audio level of individual participants. Such audio level indicators are transported in the same RTP packets as the audio data they pertain to. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio= -level-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-= level-05.txt From emil@sip-communicator.org Mon Sep 5 07:30:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583E221F8B86; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrF55be7o9TK; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B00921F8B59; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so2317381ewy.31 for ; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.17.209 with SMTP id j57mr1206936eej.93.1315233122798; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from camionet.local (77-85-162-118.btc-net.bg [77.85.162.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u14sm10217363eeh.1.2011.09.05.07.32.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E64DD5E.9060007@jitsi.org> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:31:58 +0300 From: Emil Ivov Organization: Jitsi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; bg; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Miguel A. Garcia" References: <4E60A46E.2000701@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4E60A46E.2000701@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Jonathan Lennox , avtext@ietf.org, "avtext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , mmusic Subject: Re: [avtext] SDP comments to draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-04.txt X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:30:20 -0000 Hey Miguel, =D0=9D=D0=B0 02.09.11 12:39, Miguel A. Garcia =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1= =81=D0=B0: > Hi, >=20 > These are some comments to Sections 5 and 7 of=20 > draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-04.txt Thanks for picking those up! They are now all fixed within in version 05.= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-= 05 Cheers, Emil > - In Figures 4 and 5, all the SDP examples are missing the "s=3D" line = (it=20 > can have a single white space, but I think it must be there). According= =20 > to RFC 3264: >=20 > The SDP "s=3D" line conveys the subject of the session, which is > reasonably defined for multicast, but ill defined for unicast. For= > unicast sessions, it is RECOMMENDED that it consist of a single spa= ce > character (0x20) or a dash (-). >=20 >=20 > - On the SDP answer in Figures 4 and 5, the port of the audio stream is= =20 > set to "52543". Since this stream is used together with RTCP, the RTP=20 > stream should be set to an even port number, in order to allow the RTCP= =20 > stream to be received in the consecutive (odd) port number. According t= o=20 > RFC 4566: >=20 > For RTP, the default is that only the even-numbered ports are us= ed > for data with the corresponding one-higher odd ports used for th= e > RTCP belonging to the RTP session, and the > denoting the number of RTP sessions. >=20 > If non-contiguous ports are used or if they don't follow the > parity rule of even RTP ports and odd RTCP ports, the "a=3Drtcp:= " > attribute MUST be used. >=20 >=20 > /Miguel >=20 >=20 --=20 Emil Ivov, Ph.D. 67000 Strasbourg, Project Lead France Jitsi emcho@jitsi.org PHONE: +33.1.77.62.43.30 http://jitsi.org FAX: +33.1.77.62.47.31 From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Tue Sep 6 06:22:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719C321F86EA for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:22:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZvwroBkL6qdQ for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFD921F871C for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-83-4e661f01d546 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 05.AA.20773.10F166E4; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:24:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:24:15 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "avtext@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:22:35 -0000 WG, There was WG consensus to go with RTP Mixer as the basis for splicing and draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 has been updated to focus on mixing. We also have a milestone for an Informational WG document on splicing. Thus it appears to use chairs that this is a suitable point in time to adopt a WG document for this milestone. So the question to the WG is if thinks the WG shall adopt draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as a WG document to meet the milestone: Dec 2011 Content splicing for RTP sessions as Informational Please indicate your opinion. If you have issues or comments on the direction of the document, please provide them for discussion. Please provide any feedback no later than 20th September. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From Even.roni@huawei.com Tue Sep 6 22:40:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5212D21F8C3C for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.373, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P48OpG8gbW5Z for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510D921F8C3A for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LR500EDJ16Q8K@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for avtext@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:42:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LR500DAB16QBX@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for avtext@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:42:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-109-64-200-234.red.bezeqint.net [109.64.200.234]) by szxml12-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LR50039X16MY5@szxml12-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:42:25 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:41:14 +0300 From: Roni Even In-reply-to: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> To: 'Magnus Westerlund' , avtext@ietf.org Message-id: <008201cc6d20$c4279050$4c76b0f0$%roni@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcxsmK7GRF1tGGxtQ7uvKfFCtgCgNQAh8+xQ References: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:40:39 -0000 Hi, I support adopting draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as the initial document to meet the milestone I will help with reviewing this work. Thanks Roni Even > -----Original Message----- > From: avtext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avtext-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:24 PM > To: avtext@ietf.org > Subject: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 >=20 > WG, >=20 > There was WG consensus to go with RTP Mixer as the basis for splicing > and draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 has been updated to focus on > mixing. We also have a milestone for an Informational WG document on > splicing. >=20 > Thus it appears to use chairs that this is a suitable point in time to > adopt a WG document for this milestone. So the question to the WG is = if > thinks the WG shall adopt draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as a WG > document to meet the milestone: >=20 > Dec 2011 Content splicing for RTP sessions as Informational >=20 > Please indicate your opinion. If you have issues or comments on the > direction of the document, please provide them for discussion. >=20 > Please provide any feedback no later than 20th September. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Magnus Westerlund >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > F=E4r=F6gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > avtext mailing list > avtext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext From csp@csperkins.org Wed Sep 7 14:31:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B36621F8BDB for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:31:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXd28zaoF5mL for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net (lon1-msapost-3.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7615221F8BB8 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.26]) by lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1R1Pjs-0004dV-ec; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:33:12 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Colin Perkins In-Reply-To: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:32:54 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8666F555-EFD3-4F59-A32F-9251166053E2@csperkins.org> References: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> To: Magnus Westerlund X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "avtext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:31:24 -0000 On 6 Sep 2011, at 14:24, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > There was WG consensus to go with RTP Mixer as the basis for splicing > and draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 has been updated to focus on > mixing. We also have a milestone for an Informational WG document on > splicing. >=20 > Thus it appears to use chairs that this is a suitable point in time to > adopt a WG document for this milestone. So the question to the WG is = if > thinks the WG shall adopt draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as a WG > document to meet the milestone: >=20 > Dec 2011 Content splicing for RTP sessions as Informational >=20 > Please indicate your opinion. If you have issues or comments on the > direction of the document, please provide them for discussion. >=20 > Please provide any feedback no later than 20th September. This draft is a reasonable starting point, and we don't have any other = proposals, so I support adopting this. --=20 Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/ From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Sep 13 09:53:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA6E21F8B5D for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.361, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ikce2vcVChrd for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB38121F8B6E for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p8DGteZX009297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:40 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:40 +0200 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "avtext@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:38 +0200 Thread-Topic: Publication requested for draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 Thread-Index: AcxyNfbCBSMctMwVRMy4OIy21QC/7w== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: [avtext] Publication requested for draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:53:36 -0000 I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audi= o-level-04 The proto writeup follows Keith Proto writeup for "A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header=20 Extension for Client-to-Mixer Audio Level Indication", draft-ietf- avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 as proposed standard (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=20 document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=20 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=20 Keith Drage is the document shepherd. The document has had extensive=20 review and is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=20 and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=20 any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=20 have been performed? =20 The history of the document is as follows: - draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-00 was submitted 17th=20 June 2009 and expired 19th December 2009. - draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-00 was submitted 20th=20 October 2009 and expired 23rd April 2010. - draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-02 was submitted 11th=20 July 2010 and expired 12th January 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-00 was=20 submitted 18th February 2011 and expires 22nd August 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-01 was=20 submitted 14th March 2011 and expires 15th September 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-02 was=20 submitted 2nd June 2011 and expires 4th December 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-03 was=20 submitted 5th July 2011 and expires 6th January 2012. - draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 was=20 submitted 27th August 2011 and expires 28th February 2012. The document was originally targetted at the AVT working group, and=20 with the split of the charter of AVT into 4 new groups, fell within=20 the scope of the AVTEXT working group. The document was adopted by the AVTEXT working group on 14th February=20 2011. WGLC was initiated 6th July 2011 to complete 20th July 2011 on - 03 version as proposed standard. Working group last call comments=20 were received from Keith Drage, Magnus Westerlund, Kevin Fleming.=20 Indications were received from the following that they had read the=20 document and that it was ready to go: Stephan Wenger, John Elwell,=20 Peter Musgrave. An indication was also taken in the AVTEXT face to=20 face meeting and 10 - 15 people identified they had read and were OK=20 with the WGLC version. There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=20 needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=20 e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=20 AAA, internationalization or XML?=20 The document contains an SDP extension that has been reviewed by=20 experts from the MMUSIC working group (specifically Miguel Garcia). (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=20 issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=20 or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,=20 or=20 has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=20 event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=20 that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=20 concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=20 been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=20 disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=20 this issue.=20 There are no specific concerns or issues with this document. No IPR disclosures have been made against this document or its=20 predecessors. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=20 others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=20 agree with it? =20 The document has WG concensus and appears to be well supported. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated=20 extreme=20 discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in=20 separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=20 should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=20 entered into the ID Tracker.)=20 There has been no issues for appeal or otherwise discontent=20 identified during the discussion.=20 (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=20 document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts=20 Checklist=20 and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks=20 are=20 not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=20 met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=20 Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?=20 Apart from the MMUSIC review already mentioned, no other external=20 reviews have been identified as necessary for this document. The document was checked with idnits 2.12.12 and no issues were=20 identified. There is one outdated reference to a document which is=20 proceeding in parallel to this document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=20 informative? Are there normative references to documents that=20 are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=20 state? If such normative references exist, what is the=20 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=20 that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=20 so, list these downward references to support the Area=20 Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=20 The document has split its references into normative and informative=20 references, and these references have been checked to be in the=20 appropriate group. There is an informative reference to an unpublished document, draft- lennox-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext, and the final publication=20 of this document should be held until this document receives an RFC=20 number. Similarly draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level=20 should also receive an RFC number before this document is published.=20 Publication should not wait for other unpublished documents. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA=20 consideration section exists and is consistent with the body=20 of the document? If the document specifies protocol=20 extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=20 registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=20 the document creates a new registry, does it define the=20 proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=20 procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=20 reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the=20 document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd=20 conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG=20 can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?=20 The document makes one entry to the RTP Compact Header Extensions=20 subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters=20 registry and this is defined in the document in an IANA=20 considerations section. The registration requirement for this=20 registry is Expert Review which may be considered to have already=20 occurred, AVTEXT and MMUSIC being the appropriate expert working=20 groups. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=20 document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=20 code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=20 an automated checker?=20 The document contains no formal language to validate. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=20 announcement contains the following sections:=20 Technical Summary=20 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract=20 and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be=20 an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract=20 or introduction.=20 Working Group Summary=20 Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For=20 example, was there controversy about particular points or=20 were there decisions where the consensus was particularly=20 rough?=20 Document Quality=20 Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a=20 significant number of vendors indicated their plan to=20 implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that=20 merit special mention as having done a thorough review,=20 e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a=20 conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If=20 there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,=20 what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type=20 review, on what date was the request posted?=20 This document defines a mechanism by which packets of Real-Time=20 Transport Protocol (RTP) audio streams can indicate, in an RTP header=20 extension, the audio level of the audio sample carried in the RTP=20 packet. In large conferences, this can reduce the load on an audio=20 mixer or other middlebox which wants to forward only a few of the=20 loudest audio streams, without requiring it to decode and measure=20 every stream that is received. The document is a product of the AVTEXT working group. Vidyo has a working implementation of this internet-draft. From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Sep 13 10:08:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C1021F8BF7 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6gfOLsfyq3ax for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E9021F8BA0 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p8DHAS2U029018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:10:28 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:10:28 +0200 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: "avtext@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:10:26 +0200 Thread-Topic: Publication requested for draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05 Thread-Index: AcxyOAgFX3GSPTdeQQiTFDFv8jbwJQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: [avtext] Publication requested for draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:08:28 -0000 I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audi= o-level-05 The proto writeup follows Keith Proto writeup for "A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header=20 Extension for Mixer-to-Client Audio Level Indication", draft-ietf- avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05 as proposed standard (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=20 document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=20 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=20 Keith Drage is the document shepherd. The document has had extensive=20 review and is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=20 and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=20 any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=20 have been performed? =20 The history of the document is as follows: - draft-ivov-avt-slic-00 was submitted 15th June 2009 and=20 expired 17th December 2009. - draft-ivov-avt-slic-01 was submitted 19th October 2009 and=20 expired 22nd April 2010. - draft-ivov-avt-slic-02 was submitted 26th October 2009 and=20 expired 29th April 2010. - draft-ivov-avt-slic-03 was submitted 11th July 2010 and=20 expired 12th January 2011. - draft-ivov-avt-slic-04 was submitted 16th January 2011 and=20 expired 20th July 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-00 was=20 submitted 18th February 2011 and expires 22nd August 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-01 was=20 submitted 14th March 2011 and expires 15th September 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-02 was=20 submitted 9th May 2011 and expires 10th November 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-03 was=20 submitted 5th July 2011 and expires 6th January 2012. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-04 was=20 submitted 27th August 2011 and expires 28th February 2012. - draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05 was=20 submitted 5th September 2011 and expires 8th March 2012. The document was originally targetted at the AVT working group, and=20 with the split of the charter of AVT into 4 new groups, fell within=20 the scope of the AVTEXT working group. The document was adopted by the AVTEXT working group on 14th February=20 2011. WGLC was initiated 6th July 2011 to complete 20th July 2011 on - 03 version as proposed standard. Working group last call comments=20 were received from Keith Drage, Magnus Westerlund, Kevin Fleming.=20 Indications were received from the following that they had read the=20 document and that it was ready to go: Stephan Wenger, John Elwell,=20 Peter Musgrave. An indication was also taken in the AVTEXT face to=20 face meeting and 10 - 15 people identified they had read and were OK=20 with the WGLC version. There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=20 needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=20 e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=20 AAA, internationalization or XML?=20 The document contains an SDP extension that has been reviewed by=20 experts from the MMUSIC working group (specifically Miguel Garcia).=20 Some comments were made which have been addressed to the satisfaction=20 of the reviewer. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=20 issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=20 or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,=20 or=20 has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=20 event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=20 that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=20 concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=20 been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=20 disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=20 this issue.=20 There are no specific concerns or issues with this document. No IPR disclosures have been made against this document or its=20 predecessors. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=20 others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=20 agree with it? =20 The document has WG concensus and appears to be well supported. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated=20 extreme=20 discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in=20 separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=20 should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=20 entered into the ID Tracker.)=20 There has been no issues for appeal or otherwise discontent=20 identified during the discussion.=20 (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=20 document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts=20 Checklist=20 and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks=20 are=20 not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=20 met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=20 Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?=20 Apart from the MMUSIC review already mentioned, no other external=20 reviews have been identified as necessary for this document. The document was checked with idnits 2.12.12 and no issues were=20 identified. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=20 informative? Are there normative references to documents that=20 are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=20 state? If such normative references exist, what is the=20 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=20 that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=20 so, list these downward references to support the Area=20 Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=20 The document has split its references into normative and informative=20 references, and these references have been checked to be in the=20 appropriate group. There is an informative reference to an unpublished document, draft- lennox-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext, and the final publication=20 of this document should be held until this document receives an RFC=20 number. Similarly draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level=20 should also receive an RFC number before this document is published.=20 Publication should not wait for other unpublished documents. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA=20 consideration section exists and is consistent with the body=20 of the document? If the document specifies protocol=20 extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=20 registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=20 the document creates a new registry, does it define the=20 proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=20 procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=20 reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the=20 document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd=20 conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG=20 can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?=20 The document makes one entry to the RTP Compact Header Extensions=20 subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters=20 registry and this is defined in the document in an IANA=20 considerations section. The registration requirement for this=20 registry is Expert Review which may be considered to have already=20 occurred, AVTEXT being the appropriate expert working group. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=20 document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=20 code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=20 an automated checker?=20 The document contains no formal language to validate. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=20 Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=20 announcement contains the following sections:=20 Technical Summary=20 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract=20 and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be=20 an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract=20 or introduction.=20 Working Group Summary=20 Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For=20 example, was there controversy about particular points or=20 were there decisions where the consensus was particularly=20 rough?=20 Document Quality=20 Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a=20 significant number of vendors indicated their plan to=20 implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that=20 merit special mention as having done a thorough review,=20 e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a=20 conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If=20 there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,=20 what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type=20 review, on what date was the request posted?=20 This document describes a mechanism for RTP-level mixers in audio=20 conferences to deliver information about the audio level of=20 individual participants. Such audio level indicators are transported=20 in the same RTP packets as the audio data they pertain to. The document is a product of the AVTEXT working group. Jitsu has a working and deployed implementation of this internet- draft. From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Mon Sep 19 02:32:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983D421F8B4A for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:32:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEJPqHuCKnRV for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBA021F8B3C for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-ba-4e770cab190c Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 19.43.20773.BAC077E4; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:34:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:34:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4E770CAA.80205@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:34:34 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: avtext@ietf.org References: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:32:14 -0000 Hi, Any more comments before I conclude the call tomorrow? Magnus On 2011-09-06 15:24, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > WG, > > There was WG consensus to go with RTP Mixer as the basis for splicing > and draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 has been updated to focus on > mixing. We also have a milestone for an Informational WG document on > splicing. > > Thus it appears to use chairs that this is a suitable point in time to > adopt a WG document for this milestone. So the question to the WG is if > thinks the WG shall adopt draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as a WG > document to meet the milestone: > > Dec 2011 Content splicing for RTP sessions as Informational > > Please indicate your opinion. If you have issues or comments on the > direction of the document, please provide them for discussion. > > Please provide any feedback no later than 20th September. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > avtext mailing list > avtext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext > -- Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Tue Sep 20 01:29:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6E421F8B51 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:29:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6st0IHNJSOqE for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA75F21F8B45 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:29:10 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-3b-4e784f6744af Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E8.59.20773.76F487E4; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4E784F62.9070001@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:30 +0200 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "avtext@ietf.org" References: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4E661EFF.8030507@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [avtext] WG adoption of draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:29:11 -0000 WG, As no one has spoken against adopting this document and it being the only candidate I hereby declare it as adopted as WG document. Authors please resubmit it as draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-00 Cheers Magnus On 2011-09-06 15:24, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > WG, > > There was WG consensus to go with RTP Mixer as the basis for splicing > and draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 has been updated to focus on > mixing. We also have a milestone for an Informational WG document on > splicing. > > Thus it appears to use chairs that this is a suitable point in time to > adopt a WG document for this milestone. So the question to the WG is if > thinks the WG shall adopt draft-xia-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-01 as a WG > document to meet the milestone: > > Dec 2011 Content splicing for RTP sessions as Informational > > Please indicate your opinion. If you have issues or comments on the > direction of the document, please provide them for discussion. > > Please provide any feedback no later than 20th September. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > avtext mailing list > avtext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext > -- Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Sep 20 03:52:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2E121F8B76; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:52:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oie9HUOT+FL6; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1933A21F8AB8; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:52:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20110920105204.11669.83270.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:52:04 -0700 Cc: avtext@ietf.org Subject: [avtext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-05.txt X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:52:04 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Extensions Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension fo= r Client-to- Mixer Audio Level Indication Author(s) : Jonathan Lennox Emil Ivov Enrico Marocco Filename : draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-05.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2011-09-20 This document defines a mechanism by which packets of Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) audio streams can indicate, in an RTP header extension, the audio level of the audio sample carried in the RTP packet. In large conferences, this can reduce the load on an audio mixer or other middlebox which wants to forward only a few of the loudest audio streams, without requiring it to decode and measure every stream that is received. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio= -level-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-= level-05.txt From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Sep 20 10:31:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5628911E80D5; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flBSFvFheUFM; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF8711E8090; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20110920173108.32518.11282.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:08 -0700 Cc: avtext@ietf.org Subject: [avtext] Last Call: (A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-to- Client Audio Level Indication) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:31:09 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Extensions WG (avtext) to consider the following document: - 'A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-to- Client Audio Level Indication' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a mechanism for RTP-level mixers in audio conferences to deliver information about the audio level of individual participants. Such audio level indicators are transported in the same RTP packets as the audio data they pertain to. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Sep 20 10:32:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB7C21F8462; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.445 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1MJAepXLbnP; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525D011E80D7; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20110920173152.32420.70807.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:31:52 -0700 Cc: avtext@ietf.org Subject: [avtext] Last Call: (A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to- Mixer Audio Level Indication) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:32:03 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Extensions WG (avtext) to consider the following document: - 'A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to- Mixer Audio Level Indication' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a mechanism by which packets of Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) audio streams can indicate, in an RTP header extension, the audio level of the audio sample carried in the RTP packet. In large conferences, this can reduce the load on an audio mixer or other middlebox which wants to forward only a few of the loudest audio streams, without requiring it to decode and measure every stream that is received. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.