[AVTCORE] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16: (with COMMENT)
Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 20 June 2022 10:02 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C345C157B3A; Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, bernard.aboba@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <165571932363.16349.13361445066574369196@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:02:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/E-cKxQehtTgmnvvLlUKuDVKc9t4>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 20 Jun 2022 10:02:03 -0000
Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # ART AD Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16 cc @fpalombini Thank you for the work on this document, and for addressing my previous DISCUSSes. Thanks for posting the media-types review request https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/iinskT_KIviiCsmnL32ql4PuQfU/ and thanks to Martin Dürst for his review. Re the IANA registration: in recent years we have preferred to use "IETF" for change controller, to indicate that this comes from a consensus document, as document in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00. So in this case I would suggest using "IETF <avtcore@ietf.org>". I am ok with no changes for the other review comments, thanks for the replies. Francesca ## Comments ### DONL and NALU size in figures 5 and 6 Section 4.3.2: ``` The first aggregation unit in an AP consists of a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte order) followed by a 16-bit unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the ``` Which indicates DONL to be a 16-bit field, but in the figure 5 DONL appears to be 24 bits. ``` An aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP will be followed immediately by a 16-bit unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the NAL unit in ``` Same for the NALU size: 16 bits in the paragraph above, but 24 bits in figure 6. EDIT: from the authors - "Aggregation units can start and end at octet boundaries. We tried to emphasize that by having the first octet in the 32-bit dword belonging to something else. That’s why there’s the colon between bit 7 and bit 8. The colon signifies the start and end of the aggregation unit. " I suggest adding a sentence clarifying the above to avoid confusion in the reader. ### Values from \[VVC\] undefined In section 3.1.1, there are a number of values that are not defined: GDR_NUT, CRA_NUT, IDR_W_RADL, IDR_N_LP. I understand these come from \[VVC\] and are reported as is, however they make the text harder to parse since to reference to these values is given. ### Wrong reference Section 4.3: ``` header. This payload structure is specified in Section 4.4.1. ``` 4.4.1 should be 4.3.1. ### sprop-max-don-diff sprop-max-don-diff appears first in section 4.3.1 - it would be good to add a reference to 7.2, where its meaning is defined. ### Base 64 In Section 7.2, Base64 is used - please specify if the encoding follows "Base 64 Encoding" (Section 4) or "Base 64 Encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet" (Section 5) of RFC 4648. (This can easily be done in one sentence, rather than repeated everytime base64 is mentioned). ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
- [AVTCORE] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on d… Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
- Re: [AVTCORE] Francesca Palombini's No Objection … Stephan Wenger