AVTCORE IETF 124

RTP Payload Format for SFrame (Youenn Fablet, 20 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-sframe/

• Clarifying questions from several people

SDP Offer/Answer for RTP over QUIC (RoQ) (Spencer Dawkins, 20 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-sdp-roq/

• Spencer suggested that we schedule an interim before IETF 125, to
  make progress. Jonathan suggested a possible date in January.
• Spencer requested Jonathan and Gurtej (both had previously
  volunteered) to look through the draft now, to help identify new
  issues that AVTCORE needs to address. Other reviewers are invited,
  of course.
• Does RoQ need to be a first class transport?
  • But what does it mean to be first class transport?
  • Harald: we don't need to update RTCWeb (in the IETF) to use RoQ,
    and we don't need to update the WebRTC specification to use RoQ
    (transport protocol decisions are under RTCWeb control). If we
    do want to allow WebRTC applications to use QUIC feedback, that
    would require W3C API work, but that's a long way down the road.
  • Spencer: agrees. We said we needed implementation and deployment
    experience before we can make recommendations about using QUIC
    feedback to supplement or replace RTCP feedback, so that would
    be prerequisite for sharing QUIC feedback using WebRTC API
  • Harald and Nils: defining RoQ as ICE candidates appears to be
    the easiest path forward.
  • Write text for ICE RoQ candidates and then figure out if it goes
    into the this draft or a new separate draft.

RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS) (Tim Bruylants, 10 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bruylants-avtcore-rtp-jpegxs-3ed/

• ready to go to WLC in a few weeks

RTP Payload Format for Avatar Representation Format (ARF) Animations (Hyunsik Yang, 10 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hsyang-avtcore-rtp-avatar/

• provided answers to previously raised questions
• requesting for call for adoption

RTP/SDP for Opus Multistream (Sun Shin, 10 min)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shin-avtcore-rtp-multi-opus/

• Nils: even with a SDP format you still need mundge SDP
• Harald: the existing API for codecs in browsers should be enough to
  read the fmtp line

• Altanai: what happens if the other side doesn't support this new
  extension

  • Fallback to regular, non multistream Opus

• Jean-Marc: the draft should follow all the families from the Opus
  (Ogg?) specifications

• Tim: clarify "down-conversion"

  • If multiopus is request that should have the highest priority

• Jonathan: the draft should clarify which RTP payload format gets
  used

• will take the feedback and work on that as next step

RTP Frame Acknowledgement (Gurtej Singh Chandok, 10 min)

https://github.com/sprangerik/frame-acknowledgement

• seeking more feedback
• request for adoption will probably come later

Chair actions

• Plan interim meeting
• CfA for APV (leftover from IETF 123)
• WGLC for JPEG XS
• CfA for Avatar Representation Format