[MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 April 2018 15:54 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4580A12E8CB; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-rid@ietf.org, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, fandreas@cisco.com, mmusic@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.78.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152389408023.19677.17859893415945751945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:54:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Nj9bwCnVAn3qlpuUmVb99TsNLzE>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:54:40 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14: Discuss 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-rid/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please consider this to be an opportunity to explain something to an AD who doesn't understand codecs super well ... so I doubt it will be hard to clear my Discuss. I'm not entirely comfortable that Section 8 isn't normative. Is the theory that if (for example) I decide that my H.264 format parameter maps onto a codec-independent parameter that you don't think it maps to, then you and I probably would probably end up ignoring the rid and doing what we would do, if one of us didn't support rids? If not, what's supposed to happen (normatively)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If "rid" actually means something, it might be nice to expand it in the Abstract and Introduction. After the first couple of pages, I was guessing that it means something like "RTP Stream Identifier", based on a quick scan of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09, but that draft doesn't ever expand "rid" or use "rid" in the text, so then I think I'm wrong, because this draft also uses "rid-id", and I'm guessing that's probably not "RTP Stream Identifier Identifier". By the time I get down to Section 5, I decide it means "Restriction Identifier", but then I'm not any happier that I'm guessing "rid-id" means "Restriction Identifier Identifier" :-) I'm confused by the SHOULD NOT in o max-fps, for frame rate in frames per second. For encoders that do not use a fixed framerate for encoding, this value should restrict the minimum amount of time between frames: the time between any two consecutive frames SHOULD NOT be less than 1/max- fps seconds. The related description of max-pps, also uses a SHOULD, but explains why excursions outside this value are permissible. (I'm also confused by "this value should restrict the minimum amount of time between frames" - I saw that you're using RFC 8174 for keywords, but is this just saying "this value restricts the minimum amount of time between frames", or something else?) I note that 8.1 and 8.2 both include something like Both correspond to restrictions on receiver capabilities, and never indicate sending restrictions. Is that true for all format parameters, for all codecs? If so, perhaps that should be explicit, in one of the normative sections (in which case, it wouldn't be useful here). If not, are implementations supposed to know what to do?
- [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-m… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ie… Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ie… Spencer Dawkins at IETF