Re: [Cellar] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F96C3A0DC4 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.049 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 QHdOJ8ENxA1G for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 ED24A3A0406 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BPsS65TTrz6GBwW; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1597007990; bh=OLVrZM2qHg4z0AETIGjiss5vj1n4DzIdkMmEP46Xjv8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=H0aPALJaCRvJufszaLHi9HULxI1mOzqSrHkVkmHu0z33j55loc+BzSnil23lCgz/m RmUlNLSmwLUWM1KSl5FId13l5ch2YIm1LHY+rv84/awFsVYfvA0HTbUo6DRm0ILZmW Lp8htdsKpgqt4xQzPwPcujI51CP7eB/FkM/dOPyQ=
X-Quarantine-ID: <KMrMmji6vu56>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BPsS60K6wz6G9BB; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jerome Martinez <jerome@mediaarea.net>, cellar@ietf.org
References: <159470027331.24170.16229303627582288772@ietfa.amsl.com> <33c0b0c6-d4b1-d6e9-be13-4de97eb6b9bc@mediaarea.net>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <31a79a54-d96e-aaa3-87c5-6bd3c3cde7e0@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:19:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <33c0b0c6-d4b1-d6e9-be13-4de97eb6b9bc@mediaarea.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/fzG4vivcFk3r82i3ivHqEuaMlVU>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:19:52 -0000

Thank you.
Joel

On 8/9/2020 4:51 PM, Jerome Martinez wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On 14/07/2020 06:17, Joel Halpern via Datatracker wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>      Section 3.4 (Context) introduces the notation Q_{#}[ subscript 
>> }.  As that
>>      is the first reference to Q_{#}, it is rather confusing to the 
>> reader.  I
>>      grant that the term is defined in the next section (3.5).  
>> Couldn't they be
>>      reversed?
>>
>>      Section 3.8.1.1 refers to C(i), C_{i}, and C_i.  Are these all 
>> the same
>>      thing.
>>
>>      Section 3.8.1.2 refers to get-rac (which is treated as a function 
>> in the
>>      pseudo-code) as being the process described in section 3.8.1.1.  
>> The text
>>      in 3.8.1.1 does not call out any of its computed values as an 
>> explicit
>>      result or return.  While I would guess that the intention is to 
>> use the
>>      byte stream (B()), the text does not actually say that.  If that 
>> is the
>>      intention, could the last line of 3.8.1.1 be "get_rac() returns 
>> sequential
>>      bytes from the Byte Stream (B()) as computed by the computation 
>> described
>>      in section 3.8.1.1"?
> 
> Thank you for your review, I have addressed them in a pull request at 
> https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/223
> 
> Jérôme
>