As the move to IP infrastructure for video begins in earnest, different factions disagree on how best to arrive at standards for use by IP-based facilities. Two industry groups have been formed with very similar goals and somewhat different ideas about how best to achieve them. Grass Valley SVP of Strategic Marketing Mike Cronk, Chairman of AIMS, responded via email to our questions about the ASPEN Community and its proposals. For another perspective, read responses to a similar set of questions from Evertz Director of Product Marketing Mo Goyal. And for a little more background on the formation of both groups, read our short introduction to the topic.

Q: Why is adoption of open standards necessary in the IP transition?

A: Firstly, standards foster growth in commerce.  

The US railroad industry in 1860 is a great historical example. In 1860, there were seven different railroad gauges in use in the United States. The result was that commerce was restricted. You could not move goods across the country without having to portage cargo from one gauge of railroad to another. Many ingenious people came up with the modern equivalent of “gateways." In Erie, PA, for example, people set up businesses to transfer goods from one gauge railroad to another. Others sought to devise tracks with three rails or trains with multiple undercarriages, which could interchange when a train came upon a different railroad gauge. Ultimately, these approaches failed, as they added cost and complexity but delivered no real value. Then, in 1863, Congress began to pass a series of acts that mandated a common standard for railroads across the country. Once this was implemented, many years later, commerce flourished. Goods could flow unimpeded across the country at lower cost. This “standards based network” of the 1800’s helped foster the growth of the industrial revolution in the United States.
 
Just as railroad technology was a vital “network” of the 1800’s, IP technology is a vital “network” for the media and entertainment industry today. Having a standard way to communicate on that network reduces cost, reduces complexity, and allows the companies using the network (as well as those companies providing applications for the network) to flourish.
 
Secondly, open standards are important because they ensure the long-term viability and stability of the network, versus more proprietary approaches. Proprietary approaches are under, typically, the control of one company. Unlike a true ANSI- or ISO-based standard, there is no guarantee that the company owning the proprietary network technology will not change a critical aspect of the network. Furthermore, even if a company “guarantees” that they won’t change the network interface, that company could go bankrupt, or be acquired, and that guarantee would effectively vanish. With a true ISO-based standard such as a SMPTE standard, the interface is well documented (so that it can be reproduced by others, not just one company) and any proposed changes must go through a clear ANSI and ISO compliant process before being ratified.  As a result, an open standard fosters adoption, as companies contemplating adopting it know that it will be stable and viable across its useful life.
 
In this vein, I think it is also important to draw a critical distinction. SMPTE itself would tell you that a SMPTE RDD is not a SMPTE standard. A SMPTE RDD is a wonderful mechanism whereby a company can document a technology. However, SMPTE’s own Engineering Operations Manual states RDDs “do not represent findings, representations, or recommendations by the Society” (source:  https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/SECTIONXIII_0.pdf, section 8.1, pg 34). Nor are RDDs subject to the same rigor as a SMPTE standard. This point is a little technical, but it is an important distinction, given some of the marketing messages swirling around the industry. A company that has successfully submitted a technology and obtained SMPTE RDD status is under no obligation to maintain that technology or follow any ANSI/ISO due process should it decide to make a change. AIMS advocates for open standards in the true sense of the word.
 
In summary, standards foster growth in commerce and only open standards guarantee long term stability and viability, which allows commerce to flourish.
 
Q: Can you describe briefly the protocols that are endorsed by AIMS, and why they were selected?
 
A: Sure. First, as a baseline protocol, AIMS endorses SMPTE 2022-6. This is a true standard and has been implemented by more companies in our industry than any other approach. Its key advantages are its availability today and its efficiency when deployed in mixed SDI/IP environments. In this transitionary period, where many systems will be made up of both SDI and IP equipment, SMPTE 2022-6, because it encapsulates SDI, is efficient in converting between SDI and IP. Lastly, there are more real-world, multi-vendor system deployments using SMPTE 2022-6 than any other approach. Notable public examples of this are NEP Netherlands cloud production platform and Belgian broadcaster VRT’s LiveIP project. Both are successfully doing live production based on multi-vendor 2022-6 systems. Second, AIMS endorses AES67. AES67 is a ratified standard for audio over IP and has been embraced by a host of audio equipment manufacturers. AES67 is the IP audio standard that replaces and extends workflows based on discrete audio and MADI, and is thus useful for video production workflows. A benefit of AES67 is that, because AES67 is natively supported by a growing number of audio console manufacturers, IP-based video systems can route AES67 directly to and from audio consoles without the need for MADI audio-conversion gear.
 
Importantly, AIMS strongly endorses the Video Services Forum technical recommendation 03 (VSF TR03). VSF TR03 differs from SMPTE 2022-6 in that, whereas SMPTE 2022-6 encapsulates the SDI video raster, VSF TR03 encapsulates video, audio and metadata separately. This enables separate IP addressing of video audio and metadata. While not a true standard yet, it is most definitely on a trajectory to become a full SMPTE standard and has been recommended by the VSF. VSF is comprised of 77 companies, both vendors and broadcasters. Because of the phenomenal industry participation in VSF, TR03 was developed with broad input from across our industry. As VSF has a track record of developing recommendations, it plays a vital role in the standardization process by making well-formed and well thought out proposals that move through the SMPTE process smoothly. As a result, VSF TR03 is the only technology enabling independent IP routing of separate video, audio and metadata flows that is currently on track to become a true SMPTE standard.   From a technical standpoint, it is also the strongest proposal. It has 50% less overhead than alternative technology proposals. This makes it better suited for cloud and software implementations than alternative technologies. Because of these advantages, we expect VSF TR03 to become the predominant interoperability protocol over time.
 
Q: How does AIMS expect to be an effective advocate for those standards?
 
A In our short, three-month history, our nonprofit organization has grown to 22 members and has become, we believe, an effective advocate for these standards. Key to this is our collaboration with existing standards bodies like SMPTE, AES and EBU, and with technical recommendation organizations such as VSF and AMWA. We are not seeking to create any new standards. Rather, we seek to foster the adoption of the good work done by the aforementioned organizations. Our contribution to the standards process is unique in that, while these organizations concentrate more on the technical aspects of ratifying a standard, AIMS focuses on market adoption. In addition to strong technology (which the aforementioned groups are excellent at developing), market adoption requires real world deployments and awareness of the success of those deployments.   Our technical working group collaborates to speed implementation of the standards amongst our members. It also serves as a feedback loop to organizations like VSF and SMPTE when any aspect of the standard needs to be clarified from an implementation standpoint. This activity assists in the acceleration of real world deployments. Our marketing working group actively promotes the standards and their acceptance, thereby increasing market awareness.
 
Q: Another industry group is promoting the ASPEN framework. Is ASPEN incompatible with the goals of AIMS?
 
A: I think the related question we as an industry need to answer is, “how do we come to one common set of protocols for what is essentially the same use case?” The company sponsoring ASPEN, Evertz, is a tremendous company, which has shown undeniable leadership in the early days of the IP transition. The goal of AIMS is stated as follows: “To foster the adoption of one set of common, ubiquitous protocols for interoperability over IP in the media and entertainment industry.“ By definition, we haven’t reached that goal if major industry vendors are promoting differing approaches. AIMS takes the viewpoint that the way to achieve this goal is through an open-standards approach — for all the reasons mentioned above. We are calling all companies, inclusively, to such an approach. I have confidence that we can achieve our goal. I see that the best potential way forward is for all companies, including ASPEN companies (some of which have joined AIMS already) to rally around VSF TR03. It has technical advantages over ASPEN (the MPEG2 TS based approach is inherently less efficient than RTP, as used in VSF TR03, and VSF TR03 provides direct IP connectivity to audio products); it is capable of implementation in calendar 2016, and it is a true, standards-based approach that ensures stability and viability over a long time frame. VSF TR03 is a common point that I think even ASPEN supporters should see the value in.

Q: How do you expect this to play out at NAB 2016? What should our readers be looking for at the show, and how can they participate if they're interested in helping influence these new standards?
 
A: At NAB 2016, AIMS companies will be showcasing cross-vendor interoperability in multiple booths across the show floor, driving home the point that multi-vendor interoperability is real. We are also sponsoring a series of other activities that were recently announced. Leading up to the show, we expect our membership to grow and momentum for a true, standards-based approach to build. One of the best things I would suggest for your readers is to educate themselves on the standards. AIMS has a booth in the South Hall (SL9406), where you can interact with technically knowledgeable AIMS members to learn about SMPTE 2022-6, AES-67, VSF TR03 and the standards process. Armed with an educated view of the technology, and the difference between a SMPTE RDD and a SMPTE standard, I would encourage your readers to engage with others at the show concerning the IP standards discussion. In the short three months of AIMS’ existence, we have placed a high value on engagement with others, and we would love to interact with your readers at NAB.