[NUT-devel] Broadcasting nuts [PATCH]

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 07:52:19AM +0200, ods15 at ods15.dyndns.org wrote:
> It seems *a lot* more changes would have to be done to NUT for it to fit 
> perfectly with the current world of broadcasting, with many of those 
> changes solvable by using different methods instead of changing NUT.

To fit the current world of broadcast, I agree, and consider them
changes in the wrong direction. But for a future direction of
broadcast, I think NUT is an extremely good starting point and likely
does not need any extension. The strictness of NUT interleaving goes a
long way and replaces the ugly time synchronization methods of MPEG.

Broadcast folks are scared of giving up their control to apply embrace
and extend to underlying formats, assigning special semantics to
particular numbers, devising their own ways of encapsulating non-MPEG
codecs, etc. But things are better for everyone in the long term if a
single format meets everyone's needs rather than application defining
its own extensions.

> I'm against this change to a frozen spec without very obvious drawbacks of 
> not having it, for all uses NUT was intended for, not just one specific 
> use.

I don't see that any drawbacks have been exhibited even for the one
particular use. The only complaints I can see are about not meeting
MPEG-addicts' expectations for how things are done, not any technical
deficiencies.

Rich