Re: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp9-12

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Fri, 07 May 2021 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA1C3A2DEC for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 11:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M9qoJIFkr7Tx for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30DAA3A2DE5 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s2so316247vkf.13 for <>; Fri, 07 May 2021 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RnUhT7tz7FzRdgAISAJli3yNlaLeIxqowtH8snfFNJU=; b=MkKWtyQV+j8pN3k2p0fd2prnSZTLItpwfNFeMdn3LtC+9d6dYnVFannD2YMDFZGA7U K5GYxobMvnrj5kM7bu4ElSn0CpBT9j0BfS3N9pDBAC0NL5RSOqrNckNImC4FBMLsotlP J0N5+Dxv72rr0/QU3imA/A00tdQ6JXKpiY3uCUHNNjhXd0kQGMzs6LHbi1zSVz+OP38a C6XMrjYAYGBTRe6jRpsBNthr1bjdDo/8qILl5fo21eCPAu9iHVzkv4B555qwwGWt3WWC 7qIuTfTPUBO64c9fSydqVP4i0jiIbrCSYALQhAzqel3IE4GMuyAzAO0/xbEdHm8f1b0J qIiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RnUhT7tz7FzRdgAISAJli3yNlaLeIxqowtH8snfFNJU=; b=qYNF4Xz7w56YCf/c62GmiCKEyb9MWAMQV+XP0qNEs5QD3c1edkQvMSBXmZARHQXXkz 5PtwbvCslz5dUZGIQWIMBQefJrqhbNF5lmehRRSokhKXQuaI1VvtbZOyPSkQL8STIxjs H3LgSwUTg3I5rIo7Wg+n2yYzMIIEz0B5D2MACqdEzE70ORMcmUxHEPIrPv8/dPsotnAR h3hxlJC26Eoa+AfEpspM5/q7vKJY5B9Ui5+GiEv+iewwP+F5AjVH88xp/lBPhUGLZFhU TYoujh+jhElr2SpW5tVC8MGInK86mXjBxdRRHaGLfKAmEUZbf9jGlcuRqmarhqg+c5Cx tAIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cQTr0bjFc8VL5wLtZsA7Qxv+5CP+bJn+MJQ7DgnF1HjpgsyLB b1inqoXID4J/3dyFxAF/fo9SoMMyh+Y5c0STeyg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhGf4qmirQcMZrBL0DE0c4oVnKRbkYHaPMcKA168yk2huEBO2dT6A9nlqdx11D3bo8xWyiI7FBeYFYgAK4x5k=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9345:: with SMTP id v66mr9495030vkd.22.1620413321576; Fri, 07 May 2021 11:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 11:48:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Jonathan Lennox <>
Cc: IETF AVTCore WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006c098805c1c1e0bd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp9-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 18:48:49 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:31 AM Jonathan Lennox <>

> Do you want me to publish a version -13 with the changes mentioned here?
> In the meantime my changes are in the GitHub repo at

Yes, please.

> 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.
> Either in the writeup or in the note is fine, but the history is that the
> Payload Working Group was merged back into the AVTCore group in September
> 2019, whereas this draft was first adopted as a WG item of the Payload
> group in 2015.  (Yes, we’ve been very slow about finishing this draft.)

Ah, thanks for that.  I'll do it in the note.  The merger predates the time
of most people on the current IESG, so I'm just hoping to head off any
questions during IESG Evaluation.

No, VP8 and VP9 are two different codecs, and they’re both expected to
> remain in active use.

OK, just checking.

> 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).
> I’ve made “Conditionally” only initially capitalized, and clarified the
> description of the fields to have capitalized BCP 14 words.

OK, that at least looks less strange.  Fair compromise.

> Section 6.1:
> * Does the media type's subtype name have to be "VP9", in specifically
> that case?
> No, media subtype names aren’t case-sensitive.  Do you think it would be
> clearer to write it in lower-case here?

Not necessarily.  Again, just checking; there have been media type
applications I've processed in the past that came in in all-caps because
the applicant didn't know they're case-insensitive.

When the new version appears, I'll send it for Last Call.