IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 17 June 2021 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
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 3C8AC3A2A32; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWs_jkjqWGyS; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 42D383A2A2E; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id k5so4300708iow.12; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ph9GT/pgDlHom3d2bLjgjQeSg2nNDoZJuOh7EEbn3pc=; b=LXp7VeLWpzQYVE9E7uz7s//M+ff5HZ7OeYRDh15FzZr6Xh9xYBU32nKt9jMvgmVZ3S rcx99PkDsAieCcSukzXaEc36Ynk62ficvNx87gqGtSIWQ2mO4XMErMfsdgUkC95dzfu6 lLkOJkc3hOskKpHRzhmm8i/Ms9B4xz3EFWJJWtOnBsi0RAMlx1dtalM21cIImTU6l2AW AakKVjbxkov1XS0w/ic0vUJny2/C8+Yk40Kwr7LPrSdntNEj9tCNNsmQ8IWgiRcwNjs4 NWbzJH0PSgUpqJU5DQiVQRPHknWRXXqIbuHDGp4w2j2cfo7DP+SW6pC/8mYQwXIfqitB mL+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ph9GT/pgDlHom3d2bLjgjQeSg2nNDoZJuOh7EEbn3pc=; b=aIjmxkqeUawKroMbOVIqk8/ODzKH27NWHGAxcDXlYEoV9QOeRJFQYSIJw5ewrqv8rx YCaJ+Py73aTBRixUqBHs3inp1+aBwZDsm0q5JmanRD5D7AJdUH0nFAjmOOgK6GXCVdkT eItRBoMP4QrQADnPBPo8wdCoXgRLwKyX5JW/lXBolg+2uBCis3RF40KBq0V9vadZiD+f kJhqRHynmTQWAT6pLjlQcW3OBgxnSz7Fb/1ICSSUDyizAGXJlEMzARMaG7hiKHyBSiv3 291ZENnLiOgEfDS8qZoabANYru5kz24WgxsKUtVKqNiiz5IHIZqAJZkPI4jID6rV3R3j X0Jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iiM7nC+LkpbKhe7zcOcEVdSDLzEfBM0qtGYTcH+6dG3kg0efo F1tMfVThXNqwJuCipIgey39VF84cQqHKGOLPgzs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIqRLHlrifbIiw8l5RjLiN2u3Em0MLoXqCAvRjAG83e5qbArehU3VHGbGHqJm5lQSRYgs3VMy/kryjDEbCXdA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:349f:: with SMTP id t31mr6148833jal.95.1623956693121; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162387555641.23641.14209809948623143792@ietfa.amsl.com> <PR3P192MB07489337F974BE219CF26E5EAC0E9@PR3P192MB0748.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <PR3P192MB07489337F974BE219CF26E5EAC0E9@PR3P192MB0748.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQ_Vm_WGB=jbPGZUsP2C5LCZ+ONsUf+=sLNYnNoQZHu8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org>, "avtcore-chairs@ietf.org" <avtcore-chairs@ietf.org>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, Ali Begen <ali.begen@networked.media>, "bernard.aboba@gmail.com" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d2ff0e05c4fae1f8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/lrq24-LOeJFIhC1QsIspeIjuoB8>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-16: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 19:05:01 -0000

Thanks! But how is this guaranteeing end-to-end latency, which is a
property of the path?

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:59 AM Tim Bruylants <TBR@intopix.com> wrote:

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > In the abstract and intro, it promises "end-to-end latency confined to a
> fraction of a frame".
> >
> > I am not sure what to make of this guarantee. Latency is a measure of
> time and a frame is measured in ... bytes?
> >
> > Moreover, end-to-end latency is mostly a property of the path, and not
> something an encoding format can promise.
>
>
> Indeed, in the context of an RTP protocol specification, the word "frame"
> is ambiguous. In this case, we refer to "video frames" and we have modified
> the text accordingly. It is common to express latency in terms of video
> frames, as this translates to a time (given the video frame rate). We have
> updated the text to use "video frame" instead.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email