Subject: [AVT] RTP MIDI ...

From: John Lazzaro <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:34:54 -0700

Hi everyone,

	Just a quick note to let everyone know that progress on RTP
MIDI continues, the last few months have been spent recoding sfront to
be compliant with the I-D, and finding and fixing (thankfully small)
payload format errors in the process.

	I estimate sometime in September new normative and guideline
I-Ds would be ready that reflect these changes.  I would anticipate a
release of those I-Ds, followed by WG discussion, and if there are no
outstanding issues, a minor refresh that would be the Last Call I-Ds.

	This posting concerns I-D renaming.  I posted a request
pre-Vienna for WG status for the non-normative coding guidelines I-D,
and to my knowledge there were no objections.  This re-badging would
also be a good time to rename the normative I-D, since its current
name uses the now-obsolete "mwpp".

	So, I propose these names for the two WG Item I-Ds:

          draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-format-00.txt
          draft-ietf-avt-rtp-midi-guidelines-00.txt

	Any comments or concerns?  The goal would be to keep these two
documents in lockstep throughout the remainder of the process.  If I
understand the new procedures correctly, [email-masked]
needs an official heads-up from the chairs for new WG Item I-D names,
thus this early email on the topic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lazzaro -- Research Specialist -- CS Division -- EECS -- UC Berkeley
lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu     www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:11:26 +0100

> thus this early email on the topic.

There was a hum in Vienna to accept the guidelines draft, but decisions 
such as this need to be confirmed on the mailing list. Accordingly, I 
now wish to ask if there are any objections to accepting the guidelines 
draft as an AVT work item?

The payload format itself is already a work item, I see no problem with 
renaming the draft to reflect the new title.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/