IETF Logo Mail Archive

[payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: (with COMMENT)

James Barrett <James.Barrett@bbc.co.uk> Fri, 06 July 2018 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <James.Barrett@bbc.co.uk>
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 C52CF130F3A; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 04:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 NbvQG5KiQn9x; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 04:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout0.telhc.bbc.co.uk (mailout0.telhc.bbc.co.uk [132.185.161.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DF2126CB6; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 04:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BGB01XI1010.national.core.bbc.co.uk (bgb01xi1010.national.core.bbc.co.uk [10.161.14.14]) by mailout0.telhc.bbc.co.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w66BIFh1011230; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 12:18:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from BGB01XUD1007.national.core.bbc.co.uk ([10.161.14.5]) by BGB01XI1010.national.core.bbc.co.uk ([10.161.14.14]) with mapi id 14.03.0389.001; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 12:18:15 +0100
From: James Barrett <James.Barrett@bbc.co.uk>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq@ietf.org>, "ali.begen@networked.media" <ali.begen@networked.media>, "payload-chairs@ietf.org" <payload-chairs@ietf.org>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUCAhcGcThl11mYkGu0GVrLh+BbaSCFTsA
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <F53E3D32-E954-475B-AC6B-3DA2E1EBAEDE@bbc.co.uk>
References: <152943850634.32270.3044591697939186046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152943850634.32270.3044591697939186046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.19.161.211]
x-exclaimer-md-config: c91d45b2-6e10-4209-9543-d9970fac71b7
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.2.1013-23950.006
x-tm-as-result: No-18.284700-8.000000-10
x-tmase-matchedrid: GbXsb7+cNU8/mJEvNFL+dY+emiGnyeDRevuB9fjPRh64m9/D8jYl3xVp 5VqT3KoYVZxv//wqwFd7MDmjWIdAk3KgzS9kU8wE2wfHKMCJx5ATcFr9nQa5pGso23uKlCJjE7o rXnCF9AyI7qXZddSBHa0Pj/9cOH4sHodpx3o6Gru7bIst2UfDBAebMc7dN8D4LfPI8FJF6vUjDr hrReC9RDTlWVFAk31gzzU2+MLrDVSF1SyzhV53s/SG/+sPtZVkEtdrY/Wb3fPjsTquy0JRiwA0T KIn6AX5DrDyZczHr0m4Tn45eLMz6kc4wGiwoQDUKkmNLLBos7CdwomSL6ihHR1u7K8HqaNcMLSk khBSIk4AzbdODEF2vV+24nCsUSFNt7DW3B48kkHdB/CxWTRRu92KvEVWmYr1efdOUvlAvmS8c+y o3jc0gaqiSVXXEN2vcHR0A8mkG6iMU/aY0yPC0g==
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
x-tmase-result: 10--18.284700-8.000000
x-tmase-version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.2.1013-23950.006
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C94AF8F17A055A4787A76AECEC2675DA@bbc.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/EL30PVvk3jmwdrfwlPpKKQSaTVQ>
Subject: [payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 11:18:21 -0000

I believe the order of importance for packets would be:

1. Sequence Headers
2. Fragments containing Transform Parameters
3. Other Fragments
4. Auxiliary Data and End of Sequence
5. Padding

--
James P. Weaver (né Barrett)
Research Engineer
BBC R&D North Lab,
Floor 5 Dock House, MediaCity,
M50 2LH
Tel: +44(0)30 3040-9521
e-mail: james.barrett@bbc.co.uk



> On 19 Jun 2018, at 21:01, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: No Objection
> 
> 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-payload-rtp-vc2hq/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the work on this document.
> 
> Given that the underlying format doesn't appear to be resilient to loss, I'm a
> little surprised to see no discussion of FEC; and, in particular, no treatment
> of the allocation of unequal error protection to the various packet types. For
> example, it sounds like the transform parameters packet is significantly more
> important than, e.g., a picture fragment that contains slices. I suspect there
> is a general prioritization among the various types that would useful to call
> out for implementors.
> 
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email