IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=2330dcf6e2=jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6587E1200B9; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9MP_GSUX9E4; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4A612951C; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073109.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v56KxmUC007107; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:00:45 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com (mail2.vidyo.com [162.209.16.214]) by mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2aup7j9yfq-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:00:44 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:00:43 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org>, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
Thread-Index: AQHS1ajoCvWk2TDGpk6by7wciOkgYKIYuGoA
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:00:42 +0000
Message-ID: <192000CE-8D82-4856-8282-9A0B0C7AFFE8@vidyo.com>
References: <D54F2BC9-8823-403A-B6A8-38C7282925EB@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D54F2BC9-8823-403A-B6A8-38C7282925EB@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <432ADD6B776B5246B2D392B96FF86DDE@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-06_14:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706060364
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3CrbrY0pvxYKk6N0-p8-CYgSjFw>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:00:47 -0000

> On May 25, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05. I only have a couple of editorial comments, which can be handled along with any IETF Last Call comments. I will request IETF Last Call shortly.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.

Thanks for your comments!


> -3.2, last paragraph: the “MAY” seems like a statement of fact, rather than normative permission. Please consider lower case.

Fixed, along with a general paragraph rewording in response to Fred Baker’s ops-dir review.

> -4.3, 2nd paragraph: " 
> Figure 8 shows the format of the layer index field for H.265 streams. The "RES" fields MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on reception.”
> 
> Is that MUST a new normative requirement, or a reference to one in RFC 7798? If the later, please use descriptive (i.e. non-2119) language.

It’s a new normative requirement; this is defining the codec-specific fields for this document.

However, this does reveal to me that this section still uses the old term “layer index” not the new terms “TTID” and “TLID”, which was probably the source of the confusion, so I’ll fix that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email