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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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
both?

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.

-MSK