Re: [AVTCORE] [xrblock] Plans for the AVTCORE, PAYLOAD, and XRBLOCK working groups

A comment.

One of the reasons for separating out payload in the first place was to 
distinguish documents that really required a mechanism for expert review 
(in order to assign a payload type) from those documents that required a 
real design group.

Normally a WG is not needed for expert review, but there was a body of 
opinion that some better criteria than a single expert was required. 
Perhaps rather than transferring payload terms of reference to the 
combined group, you should investigate whether there are now more 
appropriate means of handling this.

I would note that for payload, in general the review within the WG seems 
to come from a very small set of experts.

Keith

On 01/08/2019 20:04, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The ART ADs have discussed the AVTCORE, PAYLOAD, and XRBLOCK working
> groups, the reasons the latter two were split off, and the current
> situation.  After discussing those with the other (and former) ART ADs
> and with the chairs of those working groups, I’ve decided to re-merge
> them.  There is no longer a heavy stream of documents for PAYLOAD and
> XRBLOCK, and we don’t expect those that do come in to distract the
> AVTCORE working group from its core (sorry) work.  At the same time,
> it makes sense to keep that work visible to the AVTCORE community.
>
> As Dan Romaşcanu and Shida Schubert have reduced their IETF activity
> and are no longer attending meetings, they are stepping down as
> chairs.  Ali Begen will also step down, and I will be looking for
> opportunities to use his expertise in chairing other groups.  I very
> much thank all of them for their service, and urge others to add their
> thanks privately.
>
> We will have three chairs for the merged working group, which will
> retain the AVTCORE name: Rachel Huang and Jonathan Lennox will
> continue, and Roni Even will join them and bring his expertise in
> shepherding PAYLOAD documents through the process.  Thanks very much
> to them, also, for their continued service.
>
> Before I “push the button” on this, I’d like to give the working group
> a chance to comment: if you feel that there’s a really strong reason
> not to do this or to do it differently, please let me know, privately
> or on list (in which case, please CC me so I don’t overlook it).  I
> plan to start the process of rechartering AVTCORE and making this
> merge in a week or two.
>
> Also, I’m asking the tools team if there’s a reasonable way to merge
> the datatracker document histories of AVTEXT (12 RFCs and 2 drafts in
> cluster 238), PAYLOAD (17 RFCs and 5 drafts), and XRBLOCK (19 RFCs)
> into the AVTCORE document list, so we have one place to go for the
> list of documents.  I probably will not look to add the AVT working
> group's RFCs as well, as there are 115 of them.  I don’t know whether
> it’s feasible, but I’ll ask.
>
> Barry, ART Director
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt