[AVTCORE] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-15: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-15: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 4.1. Typo. s/preceeded/preceded/

** Section 10.  . Thanks for mentioning the possibility of a denial of service
due computational complexity.   Please considering adding a comment about
processing untrusted input (similar to the language in other RTP payload drafts
like: draft-ietf-payload-vp9 and draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1).  Roughly:

OLD
   This payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do not exhibit any
   substantial non-uniformity, ...

NEW

Implementations of this RTP payload format need to take appropriate security
considerations into account.  It is important for the decoder to be robust
against malicious or malformed payloads and     ensure that they do not cause
the decoder to overrun its allocated memory or otherwise misbehave.  An overrun
in allocated memory could lead to arbitrary code execution by an attacker.  The
same applies to the encoder, even though problems in encoders are typically
rarer.

This payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do not exhibit any substantial
non-uniformity, ...