Re: [AVTCORE] avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13
"Fößel, Siegfried" <siegfried.foessel@iis.fraunhofer.de> Tue, 20 April 2021 07:53 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=0737cb0f6d=siegfried.foessel@iis.fraunhofer.de>
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 EEDAA3A1616 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sqYWL2wu_enh for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-relay93-hz1.antispameurope.com (mx-relay93-hz1.antispameurope.com [94.100.132.93]) (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 A55B73A1611 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de ([153.96.172.4]) by mx-relay93-hz1.antispameurope.com; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:53:21 +0200
Received: from mail.iis.fraunhofer.de (mail01.iis.fhg.de [153.96.171.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996732400087 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:53:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail03.iis.fhg.de (2001:638:a0a:1111:314f:f22c:4a37:b25a) by mail01.iis.fhg.de (2001:638:a0a:1111:fd91:8c2a:e4a5:e74e) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:53:16 +0200
Received: from mail03.iis.fhg.de ([fe80::314f:f22c:4a37:b25a]) by mail03.iis.fhg.de ([fe80::314f:f22c:4a37:b25a%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.012; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:53:16 +0200
From: "Fößel, Siegfried" <siegfried.foessel@iis.fraunhofer.de>
To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13
Thread-Index: AQHXNbRYwXTGsVqrxk2HrSvk2+FbIKq9B8Tw
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <e5e91ab20d554811ad4921b1af5f11e5@mail03.iis.fhg.de>
References: <mailman.262.1618902644.7119.avt@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.262.1618902644.7119.avt@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [153.96.171.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-cloud-security-sender: siegfried.foessel@iis.fraunhofer.de
X-cloud-security-recipient: avt@ietf.org
X-cloud-security-crypt: load encryption module
X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN
X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-relay93-hz1.antispameurope.com with B12D115457A4
X-cloud-security-connect: mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de[153.96.172.4], TLS=1, IP=153.96.172.4
X-cloud-security-Digest: 6e2ed5f316ea9ff3fd1741637caceee3
X-cloud-security: scantime:1.778
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/9Ly8QVfM096-f2iZdoJY6hktK4k>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13
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: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:53:32 -0000
Hi Bernard, a publicly known implementation is the pilot project of Fraunhofer with NHK see https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2020/09/15/fraunhofer-works-with-nhk-on-new-jpeg-xs-codec/ or also SMPTE presentation at Annual Tech Conference https://2020.smpte.org/home/session/372934/jpeg-xs-codec-adapted-to-8k-and-st-2110 Best regards Siegfried >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: avt <avt-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von avt-request@ietf.org >Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2021 09:11 >An: avt@ietf.org >Betreff: avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13 > >Send avt mailing list submissions to > avt@ietf.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > avt-request@ietf.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > avt-owner@ietf.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of avt digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP Payload Format > for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" (Bernard Aboba) > 2. AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp9-12 (Murray S. Kucherawy) > 3. Last Call: <draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14.txt> > (RTP-mixer formatting of multi-party Real-time text) to Proposed > Standard (The IESG) > 4. Re: Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP Payload > Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" (Thomas Richter) > 5. Re: Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP Payload > Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" (Tim Bruylants) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:22:24 -0700 >From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> >To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org> >Subject: [AVTCORE] Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP > Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" >Message-ID: > <CAOW+2ds951GzUS3_pcLyas4QV4sgim=zYxNDxNND8w3Mok- >sUg@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >As part of the pre-publication request review, we need to provide >information relating to implementation and/or deployment experience. > >Are there implementations and/or deployments of the JPEG XS RTP Payload >format? >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/attachments/20210419/6a43a >a19/attachment.htm> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:32:36 -0700 >From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> >To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org> >Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp9-12 >Message-ID: > <CAL0qLwZhFSG=zciLMt=USudw- >YGPWXmNka84oeS=rWagbC5WFA@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >This is my review of draft-ietf-payload-vp9-12. > >Video codecs are not exactly my strong suit, so finding technical errors >wasn't an expected part of my mission here. I'm going on faith that this >is all technically correct, and just looking for editorial or procedural >things. > >-MSK > >-- > >Shepherd writeup: > >* We should probably explain why a document coming out of AVTCORE bears >a >name that doesn't start with "draft-ietf-avtcore-...". The shepherd >writeup should mention this. Or if you don't want to do that, please let >me know what the history is there so I can include it in a note to the IESG. > >* The writeup identifies draft-ietf-avtext-lrr as a downward reference, but >that document is in the queue already for Proposed Standard status, and >this one is going for the same, so I don't believe this is a downward >reference (once both are published). > >General nits: > >* Referring to an I-D as a "memo" is a little outdated. Suggest "document" >or "specification" instead. > >Section 1: > >* Should this document obsolete VP8 (RFC 6386)? > >Section 3: > >* The Editor's Note seems like it should've been resolved by now. If no >suggestion for improved terminology arrives by the end of IESG Evaluation, >should that paragraph be removed? > >Section 4.1: > >* For "Timestamp", did you mean to say "alternately" (i.e., every other >one; alternating) or "alternatively" (i.e., presenting a different choice)? > >Section 4.2: > >* First sentence, "The" shouldn't be capitalized. > >* The use of CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED or CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED >is >puzzling because one of them is a BCP 14 word and one isn't, but both look >like they're supposed to be. This might be better described in the prose >for each of these fields, and just use the BCP 14 words here (or omit them >entirely). > >* The description of PID refers to a "maximum ID", but that's not specified >anywhere. Is it simply the largest PID that will fit in the available >bits, or is there some other maximum to be observed? > >* For the "D:" bullet, I think "MUST be set to one if current spatial layer >SID frame depends on spatial layer SID-1 frame of the same picture. MUST >only be set to zero if current spatial layer SID frame does not depend on >spatial layer SID-1 frame of the same picture." can be reduced to "MUST be >set to one if and only if the current spatial layer SID frame depends on >spatial layer SID-1 frame of the same picture." > >Section 6.1: > >* Does the media type's subtype name have to be "VP9", in specifically that >case? > >* Per RFC 6838, please change Required Parameters to "N/A" instead of >"None". > >* I think it's unusual for the BCP 14 text to appear in a media type >registration (specifically, the Optional Parameters). You might consider >moving that discussion to some other prose section, and in the media type >registration just list the supported parameters and their syntaxes. >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/attachments/20210419/44397 >9bf/attachment.htm> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:49:31 -0700 >From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> >To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> >Cc: avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, > draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com >Subject: [AVTCORE] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14.txt> (RTP-mixer formatting > of multi-party Real-time text) to Proposed Standard >Message-ID: <161887257137.22201.10884394710889779710@ietfa.amsl.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > >The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core >Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'RTP-mixer >formatting of multi-party Real-time text' > <draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14.txt> as Proposed Standard > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-05-03. Exceptionally, comments may >be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning >of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >Abstract > > > Enhancements for RFC 4103 real-time text mixing are provided in this > document, suitable for a centralized conference model that enables > source identification and rapidly interleaved transmission of text > from different sources. The intended use is for real-time text > mixers and participant endpoints capable of providing an efficient > presentation or other treatment of a multi-party real-time text > session. The specified mechanism builds on the standard use of the > CSRC list in the RTP packet for source identification. The method > makes use of the same "text/t140" and "text/red" formats as for two- > party sessions. > > Solutions using multiple RTP streams in the same RTP session are > briefly mentioned, as they could have some benefits over the RTP- > mixer model. The possibility to implement the solution in a wide > range of existing RTP implementations made the RTP-mixer model be > selected to be fully specified in this document. > > A capability exchange is specified so that it can be verified that a > mixer and a participant can handle the multi-party coded real-time > text stream using the RTP-mixer method. The capability is indicated > by use of an SDP media attribute "rtt-mixer". > > The document updates RFC 4103 "RTP Payload for Text Conversation". > > A specification of how a mixer can format text for the case when the > endpoint is not multi-party aware is also provided. > > > > >The file can be obtained via >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix/ > > > >No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 08:25:05 +0200 >From: Thomas Richter <thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de> >To: <avt@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP > Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" >Message-ID: <1b9fc28a-1b3b-3af1-d3b9-689c9ca3a468@iis.fraunhofer.de> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > > >Am 19.04.2021 um 22:22 schrieb Bernard Aboba: >> As part of the pre-publication request review, we need to provide >> information relating to implementation and/or deployment experience. >> >> Are there implementations and/or deployments of the JPEG XS RTP Payload >> format? > >There certainly is an implementation from Fraunhofer IIS. Our XS >implementation supports this transport format. > >Greetings, > Thomas > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:10:32 +0000 >From: Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com> >To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org> >Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP > Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" >Message-ID: > <PR3P192MB07486FDB558435B6838A4F65AC489@PR3P192MB0748.E >URP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Hi Bernard, > >There is also an implementation from intoPIX that implements the RTP >Payload specification for XS. We also have customers that have deployed or >are in the progress of deploying XS over RTP (based on this spec). > >Kind regards, >Tim. > >-----Original Message----- >From: avt <avt-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Richter >Sent: Tuesday 20 April 2021 08:25 >To: avt@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Implementation/Deployment experience with "RTP >Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)" > > > >Am 19.04.2021 um 22:22 schrieb Bernard Aboba: >> As part of the pre-publication request review, we need to provide >> information relating to implementation and/or deployment experience. >> >> Are there implementations and/or deployments of the JPEG XS RTP >> Payload format? > >There certainly is an implementation from Fraunhofer IIS. Our XS >implementation supports this transport format. > >Greetings, > Thomas > >_______________________________________________ >Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance >avt@ietf.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_avt&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b >7jXrwqOf- >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=LTxUGukLCEfEUdo_bq048Q&m=RXGKlgMmO9r8I7QzE2 >c- >YnYicL7iPbQ_MX9S6ppY7Jw&s=k1v8EjLJjSKVvDb5Tp6jQTqaTcRDwUjhFtLM_V4 >r0lc&e= > > > >------------------------------ > >Subject: Digest Footer > >_______________________________________________ >Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance >avt@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > >------------------------------ > >End of avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13 >************************************
- Re: [AVTCORE] avt Digest, Vol 203, Issue 13 Fößel, Siegfried