Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-10.txt
Black_David@emc.com Tue, 17 June 2008 17:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0524E3A6B5B; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A493A69AF; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LFtkkoM+F1lB; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34CA3A6920; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI04.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.24]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m5GGsG22013010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.11]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:35:13 -0400
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m5GGs9t1015360; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.12]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54:10 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-10.txt
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:53:22 -0400
Message-ID: <8CC6CEAB44F131478D3A7B429ECACD91016F6414@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-10.txt
Thread-Index: AcjP0XyY+hZuajfxQ/WYNnXULKp2Qg==
To: gen-art@ietf.org, andrew@ualberta.net, satosi-f@sm.sony.co.jp, itakura@sm.sony.co.jp, ietf@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 16:54:10.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[993D1210:01C8CFD1]
X-Tablus-Inspected: yes
X-Tablus-Classifications: public
X-Tablus-Action: allow
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:31:17 -0700
Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, tom.taylor@rogers.com, Black_David@emc.com, csp@csperkins.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-10.txt Reviewer: David Black Review Date: 16 June 2008 IESG Telechat date: 19 June 2008 Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described in the review. Comments: The authors have only partially addressed the open issues noted in the Gen-ART review of the -09 version. More work is needed: [1] The review of the -09 version stated: "Section 3.2 doesn't provide enough information to calculate a packet priority value from layer, resolution and component values. In fact the example it gives appears to be simple enough to also be an example of the component based ordering defined in Section 3.5. Section 3.2 needs to explain how the priority value is calculated and use a more complex example to illustrate the results of the calculation." In my opinion, Section 3.2, while improved, is still not clear enough to be interoperably implemented in its current form. A more complex example is now used, but the text does not state the the algorithm used to generate the priority, nor does it provide the specific algorithm for the example. The general algorithm is that the ordering is based on the triple <layer, resolution, component> and the minimum priority is 1, so, if - There are ltotal layers (layer value range is 0 to ltotal-1) - There are rtotal resolutions (resolution value range is 0 to rtotal-1) - There are ctotal components (component value range is 0 to ctotal-1) then for a triple <lval, rval, cval>, - priority = 1 + cval + (ctotal*rval) + (ctotal*rtotal*lval) and for the example where ltotal=1, rtotal=2 and ctotal=3, - priority = 1 + cval + 3*rval because lval=0 hence the ctotal*rtotal*lval term is zero (3*2*0) and hence does not contribute to the priority computation. [2] The review of the -09 version stated "Section 4.1 contains this problematic text: An initial value of mh_id MUST be selected randomly between 1 and 7 for security reasons." This has been partially addressed. While section 2.1 now requires that the initial value of mh_id always be zero, the above "problematic text" remains, and still needs to be removed from Section 4.1. In addition, Security Considerations paragraph on mh_id concludes with a rather cryptic statement that "Care should be taken to prevent implementation bugs with potential security consequences." Either more specific guidance should be given, or the entire paragraph should be removed, as mh_id does not appear to have any security value. In addition, there is a new open issue: [3] Section 7 does not appear to instruct IANA on what is to be done. It appears that IANA should add the new parameters in section 5 to the existing registration of a media type, but neither section 5 nor section 7 tells IANA what do to or which media type registration is to be modified. Nits: Reference [1] has still not been corrected. The Gen-ART review of the -09 version stated: Reference [1] should reference the Internet Draft by name. [1] Futemma, "RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams", RFC XXXY, April 2007. I believe this is draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-18.txt. That should be in the reference instead of RFC XXXY. Then add an RFC Editor note asking the RFC Editor to replace all instances of RFC XXXY with the RFC number assigned when reference [1] is published as an RFC. The version of this draft has now advanced to -19. idnits 2.08.04 flagged reference [1] as a possible problem, and was confused by reference [3]. Reference [3] is fine as-is; no change is needed. ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-bea… Black_David
- Re: [AVT] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jp… Satoshi Futemma
- RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000… Black_David
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000… Satoshi Futemma