[AVTCORE] IDNits in draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 39EAD3A262A for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 F2ptEkQEguZ6 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846D63A2629 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l22so57338876ljc.9 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hH2478kGpI4C/nxfhmoN3bnIsc8CQWa1TrQM4+WfmlE=; b=e//Kaukml/OOAhQOof9bj8PqyRs/dstoSgUXkc5aZnQYTmx9Id1JZEYR7mOLtvRtoX 6x0rTMX6HcDNA+Nvx0iGXdC5OpWLAXcEy5ZqdR7MAMwpAWRvYEifCjRRvypGouEsXKXE caIGetWVaBhslJ+VS1f8l0mnwpjMz2okhoA7WRYvIXqXGNDyfcJQyaRXScLRE4JD7HNz K++OnxDpy20YZJpI1yefoZFSCUZFRlwPFw0Ml+hEGUHlmuk6zHgpUm+LIahIjypKAAKz MXG31BXAUxIcAs5PY3Jeyr89BKXrK8I5lanRn5UtKHdv/0TdVA/Pm6ZtGqsZm60k1vgD tanQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hH2478kGpI4C/nxfhmoN3bnIsc8CQWa1TrQM4+WfmlE=; b=Z/h897FD3r+w5ec9lat/ee19m2pKGPmpJy4uJvxj5Q9da9e5/hFfyAMTTjcBXm12rl f+qiAieAJc3SkQmpv0tcsUixRzDzSSyGi7ZrqZ5uXptP/h1tj+KTybQK4OtOyJqeeLHn jCuUBFocYchpr5gbTHElvlnGJ7JghWSiKw5xWeK3VGB79bSO+2EjTbefVnP4BD0bh7C0 7gWSVfA6FtmsWh+lQrteIa1viQ9MlgD++4h1dmamXRwq6TPk3kguAfwZQDybfV4LEaJg PScML5yYDS/qb8IJ1m5UQszLuxrb96HcOdMTZY+RLNgOAg5FnXAX5W1MyYC/6ITsx8tm Ab1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XUcPwcz3S4flkMe9DzYNqadHtgP4R/lLRnb2T0Rvb3gBDuSNM c7fFMqhPVAKvtUxL6HYhR6Qqp6shygfAp735tDcyVgJ9xlNqxA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcpcKmBXwgTRr/fldKJaS5Cwb9wguahKqqspLlG2ux3Y3WULqFdBYfUTsVM1rcmIzwRrkwPY1ZS3O8bPgRwAE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a6a4:: with SMTP id q36mr13227576lje.85.1619452520811; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:55:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsZiSV-trA=YDb2LMG2d8Aro+VbfyLuqQwm_Nu4=U5faw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003bcdb905c0e22ce5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/8TBNAliwramN20KdJ1O-sV4yhoM>
Subject: [AVTCORE] IDNits in draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:55:32 -0000

The IDnits tool (Idnits Tool (ietf.org)
<https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/>) has detected issues with
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09.  Can the authors fix these issues and
resubmit a -10?

idnits 2.16.05


tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
     mean).

     Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:

     As per specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 4175 [RFC4175], the
     RTP timestamp designates the sampling instant of the first octet of the
     frame to which the RTP packet belongs.  Packets SHALL not include data
     from multiple frames, and all packets belonging to the same frame SHALL
     have the same timestamp.  Several successive RTP packets will
     consequently have equal timestamps if they belong to the same frame (that
     is until the marker bit is set to 1, marking the last packet of the
     frame), and the timestamp is only increased when a new frame begins.

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
     mean).

     Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:

     The payload data of a JPEG XS RTP stream consists of a
     concatenation of multiple JPEG XS frames.  Within the RTP stream, all of
     the video support boxes and all of the colour specification boxes SHALL
     retain their respective layouts for each JPEG XS frame.  Thus, each video
     support box in the RTP stream SHALL define the same sub boxes.  The
     effective values in the boxes are allowed to change under the condition
     that their relative byte offsets SHALL not change.

  -- The document date (March 8, 2021) is 49 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 1253
     '[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-10'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-21'


     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--).