[NUT-devel] Some sanity...

[Luca Barbato]

Rich Felker wrote:
> I think we need a reality check here, as NUT is a FROZEN spec.

Ok

> 
> This whole broadcast issue has brought up a lot of "new requirements"
> with no legitimate argument for how they fulfill any need that NUT
> does not already meet. "Because MPEG does it" is NOT A REASON!!

We could make it an addendum, have the broadcast stuff kept in
compatible mode and just first help me converting the current nut in rfc
(I don't have much time lately so help IS needed) and start pushing it
there.

> Moreover, folks with MPEG broadcast experience (and who ACTUALLY LIKE
> MPEG) are not qualified to make recommendations about what's needed!
> NUT's goal was never to copy MPEG but to redo things and do them
> correctly from the ground up.

Better know what is done and why. I have experience with RTP, I dislike
some details of it and I could see the weak and the strong points of it.
I think people that used MPEG a lot could give some informed input.

> "People in the industry do it this way" is not an argument. As far as
> I can tell, everything done with MPEG broadcast can be done much
> simpler, for instance the time synchronization issue. Due to NUT's
> extremely strict interleaving rules, frame dts ALREADY serves as a
> synchronization timestamp!! There's no need for separate timestamps!

That is a good point.

> 
> Please stop the insanity! NUT IS FINISHED. If anyone claims not,
> please show real, demonstratable bugs, not differences from MPEG. A
> difference from MPEG is not a bug but a sign of good design.

NUT doesn't have an rfc, NUT doesn't have a complete implementation (try
remuxing a mkv in nut and see what happens with subtitles.)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero