Re: [payload] draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01
"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Tue, 28 May 2019 11:50 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426C912013F for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 04:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 9l_FbyvGyYxJ for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 04:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 B946712013C for <payload@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 04:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id F177A5B720EC9E63D65F for <payload@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 12:50:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 28 May 2019 12:50:50 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.39]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 28 May 2019 19:50:47 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: James Sandford <james.sandford@bbc.co.uk>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01
Thread-Index: AdT7VlQ3BCOEJKYgROOsDFQqQ3MOpQZ7z7jQ
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 11:50:47 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D29EF3@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <734752AF0E88364D983373FE5CEFED5759511DFA@bgb01xud1001>
In-Reply-To: <734752AF0E88364D983373FE5CEFED5759511DFA@bgb01xud1001>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.107]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D29EF3dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/AymvEKhPAWpB-QrE4tQpmzZP1OI>
Subject: Re: [payload] draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 11:50:56 -0000
Hi, I reviewed the document and have some comments 1. change Intended status to Standards Track 2. Section three can use some description maybe add text from TTML2 providing short description and reference the TTML2 for further information 3. In section 4.2.1.2 the sentence "The epoch E relative to which computed TTML media times are offset MUST be set to the RTP Timestamp in the header of the RTP packet in which the TTML document instance is carried" is written in passive language can you rephrase it. 4. In section 4.2.1.2 "When processing a sequence of TTML documents each delivered in the same RTP stream" how is it related to the first sentence in 4.2.1.1 5. In section 4.2.1.2.1.3 I suggest moving the note after the first sentence as a new sentence "short codes for TTML profiles are registered at [TTML-MTPR]" 6. Section 4.2.1.2.2 why is there a need for specific information about ebu-tt live. Also maybe in the first sentence add the short form of the profile "EBU-TT Live (Etl1) is" 7. in section 6 should be RFC8085[RFC8085] and not RFC8085[RFC8083] also the reference to RFC8085 is missing in the reference list. 8. The acknowledgment section do not have to be an Appendix, can stay in the same place as a section Roni Even From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Sandford Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:03 PM To: payload@ietf.org Subject: [payload] draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01 Please find the latest version of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml/ https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01.txt Changes are: - Clarification to wording of when processing of a document may be stopped - Completion of RFC Editior Considerations section - Completion of Acknowledgements section - Minor improvement to formatting in RTP Header Usage section Any comments/suggestions appreciated. Regards, James ========== James Sandford R&D Engineer BBC Research and Development 5th Floor Dock House MediaCityUK Salford M50 2LH Tel: 030304 (09549) Web: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd ________________________________
- [payload] draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01 James Sandford
- Re: [payload] draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-01 Roni Even (A)