Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for VP8 Payload

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:26:36 +0100

On 12/29/2012 09:02 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> From: Patrik Westin <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Reply-To: "[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>" 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:06 PM
> To: Glen Zorn <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Cc: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Ali C. 
> Begen" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jonathan Lennox 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>" 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for VP8 Payload
>
>     Would you be happy with adding paragraph saying something like this?
>
>     "People doing splicing of VP8 streams will have to make sure the
>     rules for incrementing TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX are obeyed across the
>     splice. This may require rewriting values of TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX
>     after the splice."
>
>
> Slight rewording:
>
> Implementations doing splicing of VP8 streams will have to make sure 
> the rules for incrementing TL0PICIDX and KEYIDX are obeyed across the 
> splice. This will likely require rewriting values of TL0PICIDX and 
> KEYIDX after the splice.
Sounds fine to me.
>
> BTW, just out of curiosity, as vp9 is surfacing soon, is there any 
> implication on this draft?
>
>
No. The VP9 effort will eventually result in a stable codec, but it 
won't be VP8.