[AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 03 May 2021 04:16 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7533A1EB9 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 21:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sz1FTBjAt7U6 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 21:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa33.google.com (mail-vk1-xa33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8D73A1EB8 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2021 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa33.google.com with SMTP id o17so975161vko.8 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 May 2021 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Syx2hY8W3EdAwc5UICjW/O/Z8f7l2cQLFJn2Ti5+gIk=; b=r7DEC2guqhVexRLWPgAuOWC8fa0Ype/TkQGwSjz0tfTrugyZBXnOBSivqFqPA31eiQ jPF8ygnHzep/Vq8LUwZqNGCmsQNrXTPeFmaieKE0BHisgQf2AZWm8j/1owIohqJ14z/B gH5L2+5Q+A9b5nLPpSIaXjULdz1cV/L6qisRDQsnk/UWdeLxfCwuYGY0t0hy3CpSpQPY hI1KLKiAUw7TgTvor3Z3qjDkGT4btjXAvINUmSFn8HhZVqjcEm18PvICyo/dpTJNEVaP 9UuRbRensCwQnIPo5CfTU9Zn8xg0TRUerzqbWQxI4JG/XEBIIyh+5QPz1zYLs8M2r1zk uZGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Syx2hY8W3EdAwc5UICjW/O/Z8f7l2cQLFJn2Ti5+gIk=; b=CiIzYu/doZUK6fi8pSzcKQbFdjEVLdhHj/urdzvHWHJlSI3Qppz2Sv6QvHciDa9QcZ niqo0fpa+UFJmT5GYAZIe1F+EVHebe4rtFRWE1RINA2lc04iZjsUrCJo2z0jQRF33WAe TeawKRP0kpLe1Hcc2Ipq+TlfWQKsno0QUzVYeynEvDZFxhZRMfDsnP/0/+mPUTLUbHGk RJfNOvCSTdwqLC/AwTs2I8o9f4qt7ay5Z83L4MeFv0qPboNOeAa/5ZRp+KbFjv9A/BR7 Ng1p6KFiJFcG4coPcbcU/ofEzVdBYXP36+ufZIqdUtITCNN8zIjOG76t8+lMMMgpt4w0 KH/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5322880nmH1TAtJFLnwsfXxB2VFM5UPzEAQMWzrsv8UwdQv+oRfS +gyv1NpsvZS4jLc0qsnYH1TkjHL/m10M6S5w+aTcorDi1v3/Xw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/z3uMFJ4FBX9K6wnA8ZvW1Vn9u6rXrSKV9iCFnG0PW3kcVkMxVSZO8y6pWkkD4x+8XeG29Ccax6mQApxu8qo=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:bf83:: with SMTP id p125mr10177350vkf.14.1620015395610; Sun, 02 May 2021 21:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 21:16:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb8V-ZnveD-Bx1inbpMOZHEvEXNDfi08DVgDDY6bY88_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: avtcore@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002fa67105c1653aa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/hxMFlsCnoN8pD7C-ZjWq35_LybM>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11
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: Mon, 03 May 2021 04:16:39 -0000

Hi there, here's my AD Review of this document.

Per the shepherd writeup, I have requested a review by the SDP Directorate.

First: In the shepherd writeup, please correct the spelling of my name.
:-)  Also, while we're in there, question (12) asks what reviews were done,
but the answer simply says that the document contains a media type
registration, which doesn't really answer the question.  Were any of the
media type review resources asked for feedback on this?  Later on the
shepherd says he reviewed it, but it doesn't say what official reviews may
have been undertaken.  As you can see later on, there's a good chunk of the
registration missing.

In Section 2, please update the BCP 14 text to use the new form (see RFC
8174, which must also be added as a normative reference).

Also in Section 2, the term "SOC Marker", though defined here, is not used
below here.  Section 3.2 references the EOC Marker; should it reference

In Section 4, we encounter "SSRC" for the first time.  A definition for it
would be helpful, or a reference.

In Section 4.2, "As per specified" can just be "As specified".
Alternatively, "As per RFC 3550, ..."  While I'm thinking about it, all
these double references (e.g., "RFC 3550 [RFC3550]") throughout the
document could be cleaned up.

The diagrams in Section 4.4 show (eventually) how the EOC marker fits into
this, but not the SOC marker.  Should they?

Section 4.5 uses a SHOULD.  SHOULD leaves the implementer with a choice, so
it's a good idea to include guidance about when one might legitimately do
something other than what the SHOULD says to do.  Or, if there isn't any,
maybe this ought to be a SHALL?

In Section 6.1, it's clear what a receiver would do with some of the
optional parameters when they are absent (i.e., defaults are clear), but
not in all cases.  What can a receiver safely assume about "depth",
"width", or "height", for example, when not specified?

Also on 6.1, this media type registration is missing required fields,
including "Interoperability Considerations", "Published Specification",
"Applications that use this media type", "Fragment identifier
considerations", "Additional information" (which has four sub-fields",
"Contact information", "Intended Usage", "Restrictions On Usage", "Author",
and "Change Controller".  Please see RFC 6838.  Further, it would probably
be a good idea to mention either in the registration or in the Security
Considerations of this document that the payload being registered does not
(or does) contain code that is executable.  The media type reviewers prefer
people to be explicit on this point.