Re: [payload] New version of draft-ietf-payload-vp8

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for submitting this. I plan to put it on the agenda for the 
September 17 telechat.

In the interim, I had a few comments when you sent me the diff a while 
back that I think still apply (copied below for reference) I sent a 
separate email to the payload list point out the changes to 2119 
language.

Thanks!

Ben.

>
> This revision makes changes to normative language. Please make sure 
> those changes are mentioned on the working group list with enough time 
> for anyone to object prior to final approval. (This doesn't 
> necessarily need a WGLC unless the chairs wish it, but people should 
> at least see the changes and have a few days to complain if they don't 
> like it.)
>
>
> -- section 3, Payload Type: "... the VP8 RTP payload profile MUST 
> assign a dynamic payload type number ..."
>
> If I read correctly, Colin Perkins objected to this change. Did you 
> consider his objection?
>
> -- 4.2
>
> I didn't see anything addressing Elwyn's Gen-ART review question 
> about: “What happens if L=1 but both T=0 and K=0 so that there is no 
> TID value present? Or indeed if T=0 but K=1 so that the TID field is 
> there but 'MUST be ignored by the receiver'  (definition of TID 
> field)?” Did I miss something?
>



On 9 Sep 2015, at 16:01, Henrik Lundin wrote:

> Payload WG:
>
> After the second Last Call, we have done a review of the document 
> against
> the comments that were pointed out to us on this document and on 
> previous
> versions of the document.
>
> We have made no technical changes to the document, but have added a 
> number
> of grammar updates and clarifications. Some of the important 
> clarifications
> are as follows:
>
> We have added a number of definitions that were previously only in
> referenced documents.
>
> With regard to indexes that start at random numbers and wrap, we’ve
> switched to consistently using “wrap”. The text about not starting 
> at zero
> is just to say that starting at zero is not required; there is no 
> security
> benefit that we know of.
>
> We have removed some material that was repeated from RFC 6386; it was 
> clear
> that the explanation copied up was not sufficient for understanding, 
> and we
> found it better to refer to the more complete specification in RFC 
> 6386 for
> that material.
>
> The definition of the Y-bit and structure of temporal layers has been
> strengthened.
>
> SLI and RPSI have been explained with more links back to RFC 4585.
>
> We note that the text about pathological data noted in the sec-dir 
> review
> comes from the RTP HOWTO - we have updated the copied text to be 
> consistent
> with version -14 of the RTP HOWTO draft.
>
> The Gen-ART review suggested to add a definition of temporal base 
> layer. We
> added an informal reference to an article on scalable video coding, 
> and
> think that the general definitions of scalability found therein apply 
> to
> this draft too.
>
> The Gen-ART review also suggested that the VER field in the VP8 
> Payload
> Header should be validated by the depacketizer. We disagree with this, 
> and
> argue that the VER field should be verified by the VP8 decoder.
>
> For minor updates, please refer to the diff at
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-payload-vp8-17.
>
> With this update, we believe the document is ready for publication.
>
> Sincerely,
> /Henrik
>
> -- 
> Henrik Lundin | WebRTC Software Eng | [e-mail] | +46 70 646 
> 13 41