Re: [AVTCORE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2435 (4094)

[Julius Friedman <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.

And please, as per my final emails with Mr. Frederick, please do also see
if there is a way to indicate somehow that progressive images would need to
utilize a dynamic profile, the same for images which use components which
are non incremental or do not start at 0.

In short, the standard doesn't explicitly tell people that if you want to
do things like that you must use a dynamic profile.

Part of these desires I have came from the upset that the standard didn't
specify a standard way to use dynamic profiles, therefore even if I did
utilize a dynamic one the receiver would need to know how to handle the
format and kind of defeats the purpose of having a standard in the first
place.

If RFC2435 had been implemented as a dynamic profile of RFC2035 then it
possibly would have been easier to work around.

RFC2435 also specifically states progressive DCT would be supported in the
profile but unfortunately it cannot be supported unless a dynamic profile
is used or the DCT used is compatible with the interlaced DCT (coefficient
wise) making it a interlaced image anyway.

I suppose even though the Quantization tables are not in the correct order
that is because the RFC was only showing the tables, it would be up to
someone to put them into the ZigZag order as per the JPEG spec.

None the less, sorry for any confusion and I do appreciate your time.

Thanks!


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2015-01-30 03:34, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]> writes:
> >> I need your input on this Errata. Should it be held for document update
> >> or Rejected?
> >
> > It's difficult to say because it's not clear (at least to me) what the
> > erratum is intended to do.  I would need to see a more detailed
> > explanation of the error the erratum is intended to correct.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> There has been some off-line discussion with Julius around RFC2435 where
> it becomes clear that he really like to have capabilities in the payload
> format that the current specification does not support.
>
> Therefore the decision is to reject this Errata.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>