IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [avtext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Thu, 29 June 2017 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=3353466a72=jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF88F126BF7; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 5jDfpkpK4c9o; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938FE124234; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073110.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5TNNiAr002011; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:23:44 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com (mail2.vidyo.com [162.209.16.214]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2b9ju3ugv8-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:23:44 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:23:43 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: The The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-avtext-lrr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtext-lrr@ietf.org>, Rachel Huang <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, "avtext-chairs@ietf.org" <avtext-chairs@ietf.org>, "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHS6VRRpvJzUxcH7ka1Zm2vqVfiuaI83qeA
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:23:43 +0000
Message-ID: <F289C6C2-468D-464C-8565-7AFE83FEDD2D@vidyo.com>
References: <149791514794.23784.4255587274124751697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149791514794.23784.4255587274124751697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C3DE2CFE56150342A71DEB7085032F8E@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-29_16:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706290373
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avtext/jeWvPNMW0X4fgt5FGD7F3fyBRLk>
Subject: Re: [avtext] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avtext/>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:23:50 -0000

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding.  Responses inline.

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 7:32 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-06: No Objection
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> S 2.1.
>   In a layer refresh, however, other layers than the ones requested for
>   refresh may still maintain dependency on earlier content of the
>   stream.  This is the difference between a layer refresh and a Full
> 
> This "however" is hard to read because the entire previous graf
> talks about layer refreshes.

The “however” is meant to indicate that we’re contrasting the layer being refreshed with the other layers which aren't.  I’ve reworded as

	However, in a layer refresh, layers other than the ones …

(incorporating Warren’s comment as well).  Does that read better to you?

> All the diagrams in this section would be a lot easier to read
> if they said that <- means "refers to”

Okay.  I’ve added text to the figure preambles that says it indicates a coding dependency.


> S 3.1
>   The Feedback Control Information (FCI) for the Layer Refresh Request
>   consists of one or more FCI entries, the content of which is depicted
>   in Figure 5.  The length of the LRR feedback message MUST be set to
>   2+3*N, where N is the number of FCI entries.
> 
> You should state that the length is in 32-bit words.

Ok.


>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      | RES     | TTID| TLID          | RES     | CTID| CLID (opt)    |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> How is CLID optional? It seems like it still has to be there,
> unless I am misreading the text.

Its use / semantic is optional, but yes, syntactically it has to be there, so (opt) is confusing. Removed.


>   Reserved (RES) (16 bits / 5 bits / 5 bits)  All bits SHALL be set to
>      0 by the sender and SHALL be ignored on reception.
> 
> I would mention that this is three fields.

Ok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email