[AVTCORE] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll echo the sentiment of other reviewers that the scope of review
possible is limited witout access to the underlying ISO specification.
I further note that in the recent case of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-vp9/ (for which the
underlying specification is freely available), there was an error in
replicating the chroma subsampling details from the underlying reference
to the internet-draft.  Any such errors are undetectable for this draft.

Section 4.3

Does the value of the T and K bits need to be identical for all packets
of a given RTP stream?

Section 4.4

It's perhaps needlessly confusing to have the human-readable slice
labels in Figures 8 and 9 start at 1 but the SEP counter start at 0.

nit: if SLH is an acronym it should be expanded somewhere (it only
appears in the figures, at present).

In the slice packetization modes, do we have reasonable guarantees that
the JPEG XS header (including all markers and marker segments) will fit
into a single RTP packet?

Section 7.1

   Applications that use this media type:
      For example: SMPTE ST 2110, Video over IP, Video conferencing,
      Broadcast applications.

I think bland declarative statements like "applications that transmit
video over RTP" tend to be more common than longer "for example"
listings, in this type of registration.

Section 8

nit: s/SPD/SDP in the section heading.