[AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-17: (with COMMENT)
Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 20 July 2021 15:26 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A1D3A26BB; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, Ali Begen <ali.begen@networked.media>, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, bernard.aboba@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <162679477288.29749.17240867630904176358@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:26:13 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/siE4whc7cU-zCn_f0sQ-rwy_Kq0>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:26:14 -0000
Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-17: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and Stephan Wenger for prompt action to make the ISO specification available to us. I have removed the discuss as the main reason for the discuss was resolved. I however have one major issue which I think need to be addressed. * Section 4.1 : the assertion here is that the jpeg xs produces constant bitrate. However, now I know that this codec can operate on both constant and variable bitrate mode. This section should clarify that when VBR mode is used the RTP payload format still holds or not. Also it might be helpful to discuss the two mode of operations somewhere in the introduction and state if the focus is only on constant bitrate mode with reasoning. The will level out the scope of the payload definition and also the impact on section 6. And more comments: * I can agree with Martin Duke's comment that the polymorphic use of "end-to-end latency" need to be explained a bit. * Section 3: having the statement that we are describing some terminologies or naming for this specification like it section 4 does, would help the reader to understand the context a bit more. * Section 3.3: I would suggest to add reference to Ppih and Plev at the first use of them. * Section 4.3: says -- "If codestream packetization mode is used, L bit and M bit are equivalent." does this mean it is enough to set the M bit only in the codestream packetization mode? * Section 4.3: says -- "In the case of codestream packetization mode (K=0), this counter resets whenever the Packet counter resets (see hereunder)" hereunder? can we give more specific reference instead? * Section 6: Usually when RTP is used congestion control and corresponding required rate control is done by the RTP applications. The use of RTP AVPF profile is the recommended profile to be used for real-time communication when efficient rate control (nope not the video encoder rate control :-)) is needed. Hence, I think we should recommend that use of AVPF profile here and also refer to RFC8888. The inclusion of circuit breaker makes lot of sense here. I also got to know that jpeg xs is designed to be used in a controller network environment. Hence, there should be a warning about use of this in a best effort Internet prior to the requirement on packetloss observation. If there is any acceptable parameter defined somewhere for packet loss then that also should be referenced here.
- [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on d… Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker
- Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection … Tim Bruylants
- Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection … Tim Bruylants
- Re: [AVTCORE] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection … Zaheduzzaman Sarker