Skip to content

Update MediaSigning.xml with additional timestamp #561

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bjornvolcker
Copy link
Contributor

To get a proper marked duration of a signed GOP two timestamps should be transmitted. Currently, only a start timestamp is added. This change will add an end timestamp. Even though it is technically possible to compute a duration after receiving 2 SEIs it will never be correctly marked.

To get a proper marked duration of a signed GOP two timestamps should be transmitted. Currently, only a start timestamp is added. This change will add an end timestamp.
Even though it is technically possible to compute a duration after receiving 2 SEIs it will never be correctly marked.
Replaced with Spec rev. Also tag version only presents latest.
@@ -58,12 +58,6 @@
signing feature, and also how an ONVIF client should validate the authenticity of a signed
stream. Audio is outside of scope.</para>
</chapter>
<chapter xml:id="chapter_spec_version">
<title>Specification version v1.0</title>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that if we remove this and relay on the Specification revision (e.g., 25.12) only it can take 6 months before a change can be made in the source code.
Example: A change PR is made to this spec in July 2025. It is merged in August 2025 (to the development branch). The 25.12 does still not exist, hence strictly speaking the source code should not be updated to reflect the spec until January 2026. That is an awkwardly long time to wait. Or can we see the development branch as being the draft for next release? It is publicly available. If so, the source code should be fine to update right after merge.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another concern I have with using the specification revision is that if only a small grammar correction is made to the specification, the revision is updated. So even if the bitstream is intact a change from say 27.06 to 27.12 has no impact on what is used on the camera.

Or even worse, is the revision updated every release even if no change is made?

If the version is to be kept as in 24.12 I propose to change the name to "Bitstream version"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant