[AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-16: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like discuss if this specification should be making stronger statement
to enforce the reinterpretation the SDP Offer/Answer model for parameters
sprop-max-don-diff and sprop-depack-buf-bytes.

In section 7.3.2.3, it says sprop-max-don-diff and sprop-depack-buf-bytes
parameter should be interpreted differently than usual interpretation of the
parameters according to RFC 3264. This is a significant change and kind of easy
to miss. This section does not use any normative text to enforce the change
either.

I am also supporting Francesca's discuss.


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

Thanks for working on this specification. This is a big task to define payload
format for a video codec.

I would note that the VVC specifications are behind paywall and we are heavily
depended on the interpretation of the authors of the actual specification here.
I hope the specification was somehow made available to the working group to
have a look while developing this specification. Having said that I must thank
the authors for providing details of the video codec specification that made
this review possible.

I have some of observations -

-  Section 4.3.1 : what is the PayloadHdr type for the single NAL unit packet?
is this type not needed here? -  Section 7.3.2 : actually contains both unicast
and multicast considerations but in the beginning of the section only mentioned
unicast. -  Section 10 : I think here AVPF (RFC 4584) is the proper profile
example than 3551. But that for this section.