IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16.txt

Thomas Richter <thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de> Wed, 16 June 2021 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=079450bc25=thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E373A0EC4 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 03:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQOe1s8SMFCL for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 03:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-relay95-hz1.antispameurope.com (mx-relay95-hz1.antispameurope.com [94.100.133.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 390773A0EC0 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 03:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de ([153.96.172.4]) by mx-relay95-hz1.antispameurope.com; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:19:22 +0200
Received: from mail.iis.fraunhofer.de (mail01.iis.fhg.de [153.96.171.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94D12400081; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:19:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.54.246.139] (153.96.171.210) by mail01.iis.fhg.de (2001:638:a0a:1111:fd91:8c2a:e4a5:e74e) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:19:16 +0200
To: Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
References: <162330812936.27802.12518960178457436082@ietfa.amsl.com> <81ea65be-13f4-3d33-bd58-60b88a98d283@iis.fraunhofer.de> <PR3P192MB074856C07FCAAE3E97DA3070AC0F9@PR3P192MB0748.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Thomas Richter <thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <9afdf898-98e6-9551-2de5-167870c2f47d@iis.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:19:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <PR3P192MB074856C07FCAAE3E97DA3070AC0F9@PR3P192MB0748.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [153.96.171.210]
X-ClientProxiedBy: mail03.iis.fhg.de (2001:638:a0a:1111:314f:f22c:4a37:b25a) To mail01.iis.fhg.de (2001:638:a0a:1111:fd91:8c2a:e4a5:e74e)
X-cloud-security-sender: thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de
X-cloud-security-recipient: avt@ietf.org
X-cloud-security-crypt: load encryption module
X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN
X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-relay95-hz1.antispameurope.com with 126711A60887
X-cloud-security-connect: mailgw1.iis.fraunhofer.de[153.96.172.4], TLS=1, IP=153.96.172.4
X-cloud-security-Digest: dae69a3f9a963a7845d460874456ffac
X-cloud-security: scantime:1.991
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/gyhtiKrJvVWaXqqRTWMoQl0yXcs>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:19:31 -0000


Am 16.06.2021 um 12:09 schrieb Tim Bruylants:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I don't know. It does not impact the text itself, but it does impact some implementations that might already exist. The document is currently (actually today) under review at the IESG Telechat, so I'm expecting some feedback there. But I'm not sure if we can still change this (or not).
> 
> What is the issue with this parameter being optional? SDP enables you to specify the parameter when negotiating, so implementations that need to can always specify it. I'm probably missing a use-case here.

The use case is that a decoder does not need to guess what type of a 
stream is coming, even in case it supports both types. This may result 
in a quicker setup time. IOWs, there is no stream analysis needed. In 
case the first attempt at the transport type is incorrect, this may 
loose a frame.

Greetings,
	Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email