fb103ac5ae
Every registered string now lives in one table (codecs/registry.rs) with its kind, status, media class, registering SPEC section, edition and registration date. `wai registry export` writes registry/capabilities.json, its JSON Schema, the generated table in REGISTRY.md and vocab v2; --check fails on drift. vocab v1 stays stable. A candidate capability (a registered string whose payload format no revision has pinned) must not be emitted. The C packers, the browser writers and `wai wrap` refuse one, and `codecs::is_dispatchable` is the single dispatch and selection predicate (SPEC §4): candidates, companion-only capabilities, records and derivations are not dispatchable, and an unregistered string is decoded only where the sink advertises it. The codec glossary is linked to the registry through a reviewed table and held to its schema by a library test; `org` becomes `body`, from a closed allowlist. The SPEC gains §5 sections on kinds and candidates, a §8 edition rule, corrected citations and rewritten appendices. The quantum-ops vectors are regenerated with neutral device ids. CI declares the feature-gated test targets with required-features, checks the registry export, builds wai-web for wasm32, and runs two public-text checks (comparative prose, and private name patterns) with a self-test. The specification, extensions, research notes, READMEs, glossary and source comments are rewritten to name no company or product and to make no comparisons. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
95 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
95 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
# MPEG-AI Part 6 — requirement mapping and alignment
|
|
|
|
> A preparation document, not a submission and not a normative extension. It maps
|
|
> what WAI already specifies onto the requirements of an open Call for Proposals,
|
|
> so the tree can be aligned *against* that work rather than diverge from it by
|
|
> default. Submitting an input contribution requires SC 29 national-body
|
|
> membership; **nothing here should be planned around an assumed submission.**
|
|
|
|
## 1. The work item
|
|
|
|
**ISO/IEC 23888-6** — *Information technology — Artificial intelligence for
|
|
multimedia — Part 6: Media authenticity and provenance indication.* Carried as an
|
|
ISO **PWI** project record. The Call for Proposals was approved by **WG 2** at
|
|
MPEG 155.
|
|
|
|
| milestone | when |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| CfP responses, as input contributions to MPEG 157 (Brisbane) | **13 January 2027** |
|
|
| CD / CDAM | MPEG 158 |
|
|
| DIS / DAM | MPEG 159 |
|
|
| FDIS / FDAM | early 2028 |
|
|
|
|
Scope, as published: system-level media authentication across the **entire
|
|
lifecycle** — authoring, creation, production, editing, storage, delivery and
|
|
playback — built on MPEG Systems technologies. Stage is
|
|
exploration/requirements; there is **no working draft**, no bitstream, no format
|
|
and no capability string to register. A contribution accepted in January 2027 has
|
|
roughly a year of drafting influence before the text sets.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Why this is not already covered by WAI's provenance ingest
|
|
|
|
WAI's existing provenance work is **authoring-side manifest provenance** — a
|
|
manifest asserting who made an asset and how, bound to it by hash. That is a
|
|
different layer from a **systems-layer delivery-and-playback authenticity
|
|
specification**, which is what this work item is scoped to.
|
|
|
|
The two are complementary, and treating the existing ingest as coverage would be
|
|
a category error: an authoring manifest says what happened before distribution;
|
|
this work item is about what can be asserted and checked *during* it.
|
|
|
|
## 3. What WAI has that the requirements space does not
|
|
|
|
Two positions in this tree are absent from every provenance standard surveyed in
|
|
[2030-transport-landscape](2030-transport-landscape.md), and both sit squarely
|
|
inside a lifecycle-scoped authenticity specification:
|
|
|
|
**Per-object measured energy with a declared acquisition class.** Provenance
|
|
standards record *what was done and by whom*. WAI's binding records *what it
|
|
cost, as measured, with the provenance of the measurement stated*: it is
|
|
per-object, carries `HwShunt` / `ModelBased` / `Estimator`, refuses to publish a
|
|
figure from a failed measurement, and binds the measured quantity to the media
|
|
object under signature.
|
|
|
|
**Determinism tiers separating byte-exact reconstruction from approximate
|
|
re-rendering.** Authenticity over generated or reconstructed media needs a
|
|
statement of *what reproduction means* for the object in question. A hard hash
|
|
over rendered output is only meaningful when the reconstruction is pinned; WAI
|
|
says when it is, and — since the tier fix — says that the tier covers what the
|
|
sink emits rather than the decode alone.
|
|
|
|
These map onto lifecycle requirements at the delivery and playback stages, which
|
|
are exactly the stages an authoring-side manifest does not reach.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Alignment actions, in order of cost
|
|
|
|
1. **Specify against the requirements, not around them.** As WAI's provenance,
|
|
energy and determinism extensions are revised, state how each satisfies or
|
|
declines a published requirement. This costs nothing now and is the difference
|
|
between a profile and an alternative later.
|
|
2. **Keep the vocabulary reconcilable.** Where this tree names a concept the work
|
|
item also names, prefer their term or state the mapping. Two vocabularies for
|
|
one property is the failure mode already recorded for energy acquisition
|
|
classes.
|
|
3. **Establish a membership path** if a contribution is wanted. This is an
|
|
organisational decision with a lead time, and the deadline is fixed.
|
|
|
|
## 5. The asymmetry that makes silence expensive
|
|
|
|
The downside of doing nothing is not neutral. If this lands as **the**
|
|
systems-layer provenance format, WAI is either a profile of it or an alternative
|
|
to it, and that is decided by whether the alignment work happened — not by
|
|
whether a contribution was submitted.
|
|
|
|
Alignment is cheap and reversible. Being an alternative to a ratified
|
|
systems-layer standard is neither.
|
|
|
|
## 6. What this document does not claim
|
|
|
|
- It does **not** assert that a contribution will be made, or that membership
|
|
exists.
|
|
- It does **not** treat the CfP requirements as final; the stage is
|
|
exploration/requirements and requirements move.
|
|
- It does **not** describe WAI's mechanisms as adopted by, aligned with, or
|
|
endorsed by that work item. They are not. This is preparation for a
|
|
conversation that has not happened.
|