(hello all, this is my first writing. so please bear with me if I'm wrong anywhere.) orry to break too lately, but how is the RTP payload submission is going? could we see the new payload at March IETF? I agree that it would be fairy straightforward to make an RTP payload for ogg vorbis, assuming raw packets, AFAIK. using physical bitstream is, in this case, not adequate by the reasons in RFC-1889. but I don't think that's enough. rather than sending comments in the same RTP packet, we'd better send it in RTCP packet. to do that we should define an RTCP APP name field for needed situations, or an RTCP extension. (or, could we piggyback on RFC-2793 and rather define an XML format?...) of course, when the tarkin goes beta, we would need to define its own payload, AND the payload for multiplexed physical stream, which could be compared to RFC-2343. ps. personally, I was a little shocked to see that http://xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/faq.html says that forward adaptive is anachrostic. especially when I found that Monty knows about the gross thing :) (http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mp3-06.txt) -- john --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
John Simon wrote:> (hello all, this is my first writing. so please > bear with me if I'm wrong anywhere.) > > sorry to break too lately, but how is the RTP payload > submission is going? > could we see the new payload at March IETF? > > I agree that it would be fairy straightforward to > make an RTP payload for ogg vorbis, assuming raw > packets, AFAIK. using physical bitstream is, in > this case, not adequate by the reasons in RFC-1889. > > but I don't think that's enough. rather than > sending comments in the same RTP packet, we'd > better send it in RTCP packet. to do that > we should define an RTCP APP name field for needed > situations, or an RTCP extension. > > (or, could we piggyback on RFC-2793 and rather > define an XML format?...) > > of course, when the tarkin goes beta, we would need > to define its own payload, AND the payload for multiplexed > physical stream, which could be compared to RFC-2343. > > ps. > > personally, I was a little shocked to see that > http://xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/faq.html > says that forward adaptive is anachrostic. > especially when I found that Monty knows about > the gross thing :) > (http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mp3-06.txt) > > -- > john > > --- >8 ---- > List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ > Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ > To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' > containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. > Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.I presume you are aware of the deadlines : February 26 - Working Groups and BOFs scheduling closes at 1700 ET February 23 - Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission at 17:00 ET I would be willing to present this if no-one else is going. -- Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@on-the-i.com tme@multicasttech.com http://www.on-the-i.com http://www.buzzwaves.com --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> sorry to break too lately, but how is the RTP payload > submission is going? > could we see the new payload at March IETF? > > I agree that it would be fairy straightforward to > make an RTP payload for ogg vorbis, assuming raw > packets, AFAIK. using physical bitstream is, in > this case, not adequate by the reasons in RFC-1889.Yes, the Ogg framing is wholly unnecessary with RTP broadcast.> but I don't think that's enough. rather than > sending comments in the same RTP packet, we'd > better send it in RTCP packet. to do that > we should define an RTCP APP name field for needed > situations, or an RTCP extension.There's actually more to it than this, really. I'd prefer not to document/submit for standardization without a reasonably well tested application actually using the proposed submission.> (or, could we piggyback on RFC-2793 and rather > define an XML format?...)Oh, you mean metadata streaming and multiplexed media types, not the three vorbis headers. There's *much* more to this than just metadata, and opening that can of worms won't be complete by submission deadline.> of course, when the tarkin goes beta, we would need > to define its own payload, AND the payload for multiplexed > physical stream, which could be compared to RFC-2343.Yes. True metadata is the same issue. It's not a second-class media type. Monty --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.