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

[Tim Bruylants <[e-mail]>]

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document. I have some non-blocking comments and observations.
>
> Francesca
>
> 1. -----
>
>    A JPEG XS codestream header, starting with an SOC marker, followed by
>    one or more slices, and terminated by an EOC marker form a JPEG XS
>    codestream.
>
> FP: I understand from the terminology what this is meant to specify, however how this is expressed makes it slightly confusing: it is not clear that the subject of "followed" is "A JPEG XS codestream header" and not "an SOC marker".

We reformulated this definition. It was indeed confusing.

> 2. -----
>
> FP: I agree with John that without access to ISO21122-{1,2,3}, it's not possible to do a complete review; in particular the media type registration contains parameters that are inherited by the ISO standards, with normative text that I cannot review. Like John, I trust the responsible AD on that the doc has had sufficient reviews in the WG, from people with access to the ISO specifications.

This is a valid comment. We are unsure how to resolve this. ISO is very strict about distribution of documents outside of the working groups (i.e. it is not allowed at all). I suppose the DISCUSS will trigger some resolution.

> 3. -----
>
> FP: I couldn't find that the Media type registration has been posted to the media-type mailing list, was that done? This was also highlighted in the shepherd write up, which I found helpful, so thank you Bernard.

We did receive feedback concerning the media type registration some weeks ago. But please do verify.