Re: [payload] Review request for JPEG XS RTP payload format I-D

Hi,

Many thanks for the review. We will update the document accordingly and upload a new version.

Let us know if anything else needs to be done for the WG to formally adopt it.

Kind regards,

Antonin

> Le 19 juin 2018 à 15:52, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi,
> I did an initial review, in general the document is in line with the WG charter so we can ask the WG to adopt the document.
> Yet, after reviewing the document I suggest that you will provide another revision of the individual draft.
> 
> My comments are editorial in order to have the document follow the RTP payload structure
> 
> 1. I suggest you look at RFC 8088 (RTP howto) and also at recent RTP payload for video codecs (RFC7741 and draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq)
> 2.  The media type definition should use the template defined in [RFC6838] and  following [RFC4855]. See one of the above RTP payloads
> 3. Any parameter that goes into the fmtp line should be in the media type definition as required or optional. 
> 4. The offer answer consideration should have an example (I am not sure what is the "encode" parameter).
> 5. I suggest that the header fields in table 1 should be as a list and not as a table
> 6. In the RTP header according to RFRC3550 "The initial value of the timestamp SHOULD be random" , the wallclock should be in the RTCP SR and RR reports. (BTW: you can look at RFC7273 about clock sources)
> 7.The RTP header in figure 2 is missing the CSRC field and the place holder for RTP header extensions
> 8. Section 1 should include at least the content of the abstract
> 9. In section 2 there is no need to have a subsection for each term.
> 10. In section 2.10 [see there], where is there?
> 11. you do not need section 4.1 and the start of 4.2  I suggest "This section describes how the jepeg xs video stream is encapsulated
>   in RTP.  To handle network losses, usage of RTP/AVPF [RFC4585] is   RECOMMENDED.  "
> 12.  A general comment , the document defines slice, slice group, fragment and frame multiple times, please define just once (section 2 or 3) and use the terms later.
> 
> If you have any questions I am here to help
> 
> Thanks
> Roni Even 
> Payload WG co-chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Lugan
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 1:29 AM
> To: payload@ietf.org
> Cc: Alexandre Willème; Gaël Rouvroy
> Subject: [payload] Review request for JPEG XS RTP payload format I-D
> 
> Dear IETF Payload WG,
> 
> We recently uploaded a new RTP payload format I-D for transporting JPEG XS encoded video:
> 
>  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lugan-payload-rtp-jpegxs/
> 
> Authors:
>  S. Lugan, G. Rouvroy, A. Descampe (intoPIX)
>  T. Richter (Fraunhofer IIS)
>  A. Willeme (Université catholique de Louvain)
> 
> Filename: draft-lugan-payload-rtp-jpegxs-00.txt
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
>   format to be used for transporting ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS) encoded
>   video.  ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS) is a low-latency, lightweight image
>   coding system allowing for an increased resolution and frame rate,
>   while offering visually lossless quality with reduced amount of
>   resources such as power and bandwidth.
> 
> Might we kindly ask you to review this I-D and send your comments?
> 
> Many thanks in advance,
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Sébastien Lugan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload