├── README.md └── prioritization-framework.md /README.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Any contribution made to the issues of this repository that results in a “shall” requirement pointing to an essential patent will require the company or individual holding the IPR to submit a Patent Holder Statement form. See https://standards.cta.tech/kwspub/rules/CTA-EP-23-T-IP-Proffer.pdf. Contributors are obliged to disclose to the working group any knowledge they may have of existing essential patents (or an intent to patent items whenever appropriate) affecting the work covered by this repository. 2 | 3 | Note that CTA is not responsible for identifying any patents for which a license may be required by a CTA document, nor for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention. For further IPR information, see Section 15 of EP-23: https://standards.cta.tech/kwspub/rules/CTA-EP-23-T.pdf. 4 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /prioritization-framework.md: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | # Prioritization Framework 2 | To better intake and prioritize the topics for interoperability the working group has created a questionnaire tailored to the topic of DASH/HLS interoperability. 3 | 4 | Each proposed topic must be a standalone use-case / component of streaming allowing for the questions to be unambiguously answered relative to the topic. The questionnaire results in a prioritization scoring that is used to stack rank proposed work. 5 | 6 | **Note:** While the prioritization provides a guiding framework, the working group ultimately decides the prioritization of each item. The working group should document and communicate any prioritization different from the scoring provided by the framework. 7 | 8 | # Questionnaire 9 | The questionnaire is broken up into three main litmus tests with sub-considerations. 10 | 11 | ## Does the feature relate to an industry streaming use-case? 12 | The purpose of this litmus test is to establish that the feature / functionality relates to general industry needs and warrants the attention of the working group. 13 | 14 | | Classification | Meaning | 15 | |--------------|---------| 16 | | Yes | The feature is directly related to an industry use-case and should be generally considered. 17 | | No | The feature is not directly related to an industry use-case, but may still warrant consideration if time allows. 18 | 19 | This sub-considerations of this test are used to establish industry recognition of the use-case. 20 | 21 | ### What is the commonality of the case? 22 | 23 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 24 | |----------------|-------|---------| 25 | | Uncommon | 0 | The streaming use-case is not commonly found across the streaming industry. 26 | | Common | 1 | The streaming use-case is generally found across the streaming industry. 27 | | Very Common | 2| The streaming use-case is so common that it's unlikely to not find it across the streaming industry. 28 | 29 | ### Is this an established or emerging practice? 30 | 31 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 32 | |----------------|-------|---------| 33 | | Declining | 0 | The use-case is seeing a reduction of adoption. 34 | | Established | 1 | The use-case adoption has normalized at a percentage of the streaming industry. 35 | | Emerging | 2 | The use-case is seeing growing adoption within the streaming industry. 36 | 37 | ## Does this feature have related mechanisms in both DASH and HLS? 38 | The purpose of this litmus test is to establish a baseline understanding of fore-running work across the DASH and HLS specifications and any details around known issues or missing constraints to assist the working groups efforts. 39 | 40 | ### What is the maturity of support in both specification? 41 | 42 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 43 | |----------------|-------|---------| 44 | | Immature Both | 0 | The feature is not present or very recently available in both the DASH/HLS specifications. 45 | | Mature Single | 1 | The feature is considered mature / well-established in one specification, the specification should be noted. 46 | | Mature Both | 2 | The features is considered mature / well-establish in both specifications. Note this does not imply feature parity or interoperability, just existence. 47 | 48 | ### What is the maturity of implementation support for both specifications? 49 | 50 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 51 | |----------------|-------|---------| 52 | | Immature Both | 0 | The feature is not present or incomplete in major implementations of the DASH/HLS specifications. 53 | | Mature Single | 1 | The feature is present / complete in major implementations of one of the specifications, the specification should be noted. 54 | | Mature Both | 2 | The feature is present / complete in major implementations of both of the specifications. 55 | 56 | ### Are there known interoperability issues in both specifications? 57 | 58 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 59 | |----------------|-------|---------| 60 | | No | 0 | There are no known interoperability issues and none are believed to be discovered 61 | | Potentially | 1 | There are presently no known interoperability issues, but there could be discovered with further investigation. 62 | | Yes | 2 | There are known interoperability issues that have to be addressed. 63 | 64 | ### Has anyone implemented an interoperable solution for this? 65 | 66 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 67 | |----------------|-------|---------| 68 | | No | 0 | There are no known implementations that serve DASH and HLS interoperably 69 | | Potentially | 1 | There are no well-known implementations that serve DASH and HLS interoperably but there are candidates that may have working solutions. Potentially working examples should be noted for reference. 70 | | Yes | 2 | There are well-known implementations that serve DASH and HLS. Implementations should be noted for reference. 71 | 72 | ### Is the feature missing in a specification with open proposals for it? 73 | 74 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 75 | |----------------|-------|---------| 76 | | No | 0 | The feature already exists in both specifications, irrespective of maturity status. 77 | | Yes Single | 1 | The feature does not exist in one specification and a proposal exists for its inclusion. 78 | | Yes Both | 2 | The feature does not exist in either specification and proposals exist for its inclusion in both. 79 | 80 | ## Has the industry defined de-facto mechanisms not present in both DASH and/or HLS? 81 | The purpose of this litmus test is to discover if there are potential de-facto solutions in the industry that need to be better specified and shepherded towards interoperability by the working group. This test may not be relevant to all feature considerations. 82 | 83 | ### Why was functionality defined outside of the main specifications? 84 | 85 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 86 | |----------------|-------|---------| 87 | | Unknown / N/A | 0 | The history of the external standardization is not known or the feature has not been standardized anywhere. 88 | | Spec Invalid | 1 | The feature was proposed but considered invalid in the context of the specification. Known details should be noted. 89 | | Industry Desire | 2 | The feature was standardized by members of the industry prior to the main standards being able to act on them. 90 | 91 | ### Has the functionality been standardized elsewhere? (DASH-IF, CTA, SVA, etc) 92 | 93 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 94 | |----------------|-------|---------| 95 | | No | 0 | The functionality is not standardized anywhere 96 | | Yes | 1 | The functionality is standardized somewhere, the location should be noted 97 | 98 | ### Is the functionality proprietary or openly developed? 99 | 100 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 101 | |----------------|-------|---------| 102 | | Proprietary | 0 | The functionality was developed by an entity in private and may have rights holders. Any known holders / owners should be noted. 103 | | Open | 1 | The functionality was developed with an open methodology either from the start or after initial contribution from a private entity. 104 | 105 | ### Could the functionality be incorporated into specifications with evangelism? 106 | 107 | | Classification | Score | Meaning | 108 | |----------------|-------|---------| 109 | | No | 0 | It is unlikely for the main DASH/HLS specifications to adopt the functionality even with proper evangelism 110 | | Yes | 1 | It is likely for the main DASH/HLS specifications to adopt the functionality with proper evangelism 111 | 112 | # Prioritization Score 113 | The total prioritization score is the sum of the scores of each main litmus test. The score of a litmus test is the sum of it's sub-considerations if the test is relevant or 0 if the test is not relevant. 114 | 115 | The goals of the scoring are to identify topics with high levels of industry interest and/or potential industry impact. This is represented by the score depicted above for each answer classification. 116 | 117 | # Questionnaire Markdown Form 118 | 119 | Contained here is a markdown version of the questionnaire that can be copied into any issue and answered, the working group will add in the scoring details once reviewed. 120 | 121 | ``` 122 | | Question | Answer | Points | 123 | |----------|--------|--------| 124 | | Does the feature relate to an industry streaming use-case? | Yes, No | - | 125 | | - What is the commonality of this use-case? | Uncommon, Common, Very Common | # | 126 | | - Is this an established or emerging practice? | Declining, Established, Emerging | # | 127 | | Does this feature have related mechanisms in both DASH and HLS? | Yes, No | - | 128 | | - What is the maturity of support in both specifications? | Immature Both, Mature Single, Mature Both | # | 129 | | - What is the maturity of implementation support for both specifications? | Immature Both, Mature Single, Mature Both | # | 130 | | - Are there known interoperability issues in both specifications? | No, Potentially, Yes | # | 131 | | - Has anyone implemented an interoperable solution for this? | No, Potentially, Yes | # | 132 | | - Is the feature missing in a specification with open proposals for it? | No, Yes Single, Yes Both | # | 133 | | Has the industry defined de-facto mechanisms not present in both DASH and/or HLS? | Yes, No | - | 134 | | - Why was the functionality defined outside of the main specifications? | Unknown / N/A, Spec Invalid, Industry Desire | # | 135 | | - Has the functionality been standardized elsewhere? (DASH-IF, CTA, SVA, etc) | No, Yes | # | 136 | | - Is the functionality proprietary or openly developed? | Proprietary, Open | # | 137 | | - Could the functionality be incorporated into specifications with evangelism? | No, Yes | # | 138 | | | **Total Score** | ## | 139 | ``` 140 | 141 | Rendered view: 142 | 143 | | Question | Answer | Points | 144 | |----------|--------|--------| 145 | | Does the feature relate to an industry streaming use-case? | Yes, No | - | 146 | | - What is the commonality of this use-case? | Uncommon, Common, Very Common | # | 147 | | - Is this an established or emerging practice? | Declining, Established, Emerging | # | 148 | | Does this feature have related mechanisms in both DASH and HLS? | Yes, No | - | 149 | | - What is the maturity of support in both specifications? | Immature Both, Mature Single, Mature Both | # | 150 | | - What is the maturity of implementation support for both specifications? | Immature Both, Mature Single, Mature Both | # | 151 | | - Are there known interoperability issues in both specifications? | No, Potentially, Yes | # | 152 | | - Has anyone implemented an interoperable solution for this? | No, Potentially, Yes | # | 153 | | - Is the feature missing in a specification with open proposals for it? | No, Yes Single, Yes Both | # | 154 | | Has the industry defined de-facto mechanisms not present in both DASH and/or HLS? | Yes, No | - | 155 | | - Why was the functionality defined outside of the main specifications? | Unknown / N/A, Spec Invalid, Industry Desire | # | 156 | | - Has the functionality been standardized elsewhere? (DASH-IF, CTA, SVA, etc) | No, Yes | # | 157 | | - Is the functionality proprietary or openly developed? | Proprietary, Open | # | 158 | | - Could the functionality be incorporated into specifications with evangelism? | No, Yes | # | 159 | | | **Total Score** | ## | 160 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------