search

moq-wg / warp-streaming-format

Drafts intended for IETF MoQ WG
Other
6 stars 1 forks source link

What about SVC? #14

Open VMatrix1900 opened 1 year ago

VMatrix1900 commented 1 year ago

The draft currently says: "Each group MUST be independently decodeable." If an enhanced layer depends on a base layer in SVC, does this MUST enforce the enhanced layer and the base layer to be put in the same group?

wilaw commented 1 year ago

The current draft, in requiring CMAF packaging, was written assuming non-SVC coding. This should probably be explicitly stated. The decoding requirements there are temporal, and not layered (as with SVC) or spatial (as with OMAF) and it was under those temporal constraints that the MUST was written.

It may well be desirable to add SVC support to this streaming format. In that case there are likely many changes that will be required. Should we add those requirements to the core streaming format, or would it be preferred to create a new streaming format that is focused on SVC delivery? My preference is for the latter, but group consensus may differ.