Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ...

Hello Lazzaro,

Have you checked the AES (Audio Engineering Society) standard before your 
submission?
The AES is the international organization of standardizing the studio or stage 
(generally referred to as "professional") audio. As far as I read your draft, 
you'd better take a look at the Internet Audio Delivery System WG in the AES.

All the best,

Shigeru Aoki
Senior Technologist,
The Japan FM Network

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lazzaro" <lazzaro@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: <mmusic@ietf.org>
Cc: <avt@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:01 AM
Subject: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC stage and studio requirements I-D ...

> Hi everyone,
>
>         I just sent an new individual I-D submission
> off to Internet-Drafts, that is targeted to MMUSIC:
>
> ----
>
> Requirements for a Stage and Studio Multimedia Framework
>  <draft-lazzaro-mmusic-stage-studio-requirements-00.txt>
>
>                                 Abstract
>
> Is the IETF multimedia stack appropriate for use in the digital
> audio equipment found in recording studios and concert halls?
> To help answer this question, this memo lists the requirements
> for a session management framework for stage and studio
> devices.
>
> Download URL for an advance copy:
>
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/pubs/txt/current-sands.txt
>
> ----
>
> Some background may be helpful.  RTP MIDI has many
> potential applications.  Many are WAN-oriented, and SIP
> and RTSP as is will work well for these.  The RTP MIDI
> I-D includes interoperability advice for those apps.
>
> The application described in the above abstract --
> networking together professional audio equipment in
> recording studios and concert stages -- is a "networking
> in the small" problem (the network spans the rooms of
> a recording studio or concert venue) and has unique
> requirements.
>
> MMUSIC may be the right place to design a framework
> for session management for this application.
>
> Or, maybe not -- maybe a new custom protocol done by
> an audio-centric standards body is more appropriate,
> free from our legacy-compatibility constraints.
>
> Or, maybe there is room for both types of protocols,
> as the potential devices span from the very simple
> (powered by 8-bit micros) to very complex (expensive
> multiprocessor implementations of mixing consoles).
>
> I decided the best way to start the discussion on this
> topic was to write a list of requirements for the domain
> as seen by the authors.  Thus this I-D.  Even if the work of
> doing the framework is not appropriate for MMUSIC,
> MMUSIC may be the right place to host the discussion
> of the requirements for the application.  If the WG agrees,
> then elevating this I-D to WG item would be the way to
> express this agreement.
>
> I won't be in Paris, but if the chairs wish to hold a
> discussion there, I'd be happy to make up slides to
> guide their presentation.
>
> Finally, AVT'ers should note this is an MMUSIC
> I-D -- I CC'd this initial posting to both lists, but
> discussion should occur on MMUSIC.
>
> ---
> John Lazzaro
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro
> lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu
> ---
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
> 

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic