Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with DISCUSS)

[Tim Bruylants <[e-mail]>]

So, Stephan Wenger (as IETF liaison to SC29) is in contact with ISO SC29 secretariat and the SC29 convenor to be able to provide the said ISO/IEC 21122 documents to the AVT WG. Please see his message on this. I expect some feedback by next week (hopefully).

Tim.

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday 18 June 2021 17:50
To: Tim Bruylants <[e-mail]>
Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ali Begen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with DISCUSS)

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:10 PM Tim Bruylants <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This memo is defining a RTP payload for JPEG XS that is not publicly available.
> This hampers the review of the memo, specially when it is defining terminologies which ask me to look at the specifications.
>
> This concerns has also been raised by other ADs.
>
> Was this document made available during the work in the working group?


This is a valid comment. We are unsure how to resolve this. ISO is very strict about distribution of documents outside of the working groups (i.e. it is not allowed at all).
The ISO 21122 standards were written by some of the same authors as this RTP Payload spec (like myself and Thomas Richter), but the ISO documents were (to my knowledge) not shared.

In order to resolve this issue, we need to know how IESG handled this with other ISO standards that are not open? Or is 21122 the first? Please advise.

This is the first one like it in my time on the IESG, and I must admit I didn't even think to check that this external reference was usable.  I'm glad Zaheduzzaman caught it.

It might alleviate the problem to reduce this to an informative reference, but it doesn't look to me like you could make the argument that you don't need the ISO standards to implement this.  You're not simply wrapping their protocol as-is; you need some header details, for example.

I've asked the RFC Editor if they know of any documents that proceeded with closed references to ISO documents.  If there are any, I'll review their processing history and see if I can find a path forward here.

-MSK