[AVT] Re: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt
Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 08 July 2003 19:52 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07640 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyVU-0000x6-W8 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:52:10 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h68Jq801003654 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:52:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyVN-0000wM-5V; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:52:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZyUs-0000w0-QI for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:51:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07627 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyUr-0005Xe-00 for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:51:29 -0400
Received: from anice-205-1-12-243.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr ([81.249.9.243] helo=purple.nge.isi.edu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZyUp-0005XX-00 for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:51:28 -0400
Received: from purple.nge.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by purple.nge.isi.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h68JpO5e003853; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:51:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from csp@csperkins.org)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:27:30 +0200
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
To: "Edwards, Eric" <Eric.Edwards@am.sony.com>
Cc: avt@ietf.org, casner@acm.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Message-Id: <20030708192730.6ea0d380.csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <0DE752C748D0D211A6BE0090272B960B07848609@us-sj-xmsg-2.am.sony.com>
References: <0DE752C748D0D211A6BE0090272B960B07848609@us-sj-xmsg-2.am.sony.com>
Organization: http://csperkins.org/
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-unknown-freebsd4.8)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [AVT] Re: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Eric, --> "Edwards, Eric" <Eric.Edwards@am.sony.com> writes: > The Internet-Draft - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt - has been > posted. > > Some time passed before this version was submitted. Most of the time was > spent discussing if potential reconciliation with work that was taking > place in ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 29 WG 01 (JPEG) was in order. After lengthy > discussions it was agreed by the experts in WG 01 that there were > different goals and application areas targeted for our respective work > and that the JP2/RTP proposal (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt) should > move forward in IETF as is. > > So at this stage we are ready to move to Last Call if the AVT experts > have no objections to the current draft. > > Please advise and comment. I have a number of comments with regards to this draft: - Section 5.1 seems to imply that JPEG 2000 error resilience markers are only used with non-intelligent packetization. Is this correct? Are the error resilience markers not useful if the JPEG stream is intelligently packetized? - Is non-intelligent packetization a requirement? The situations where it will be useful seem very limited. - The extension mechanism in Section 8 is not used. I suggest removing it and marking the X bit in the payload header as "reserved". - The second paragraph of Section 9 is not appropriate, since the payload format cannot specify the type of video content to be transported. Are there no ways in which a malicious sender can disrupt the receiver? - In addition to the MIME type registration, the draft should include a description of how the MIME type is mapped to SDP (Section 8.2 of the H.264 payload format is a good example). - Section 10 may be better written as an informative appendix? - It may be useful to include some examples, showing the complete packets with all headers and data (including the RTP headers). I would also urge a careful proof-reading of the draft for both quality of English, clarity of specification, and appropriate use of the requirements language in RFC 2119. -- Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] Re: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt Colin Perkins
- [AVT] RE: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt Edwards, Eric