[payload] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-15: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 09 November 2015 11:27 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: payload@ietf.org
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09FC1A92ED; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 03:27:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.9.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151109112710.10715.80424.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 03:27:10 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/VnkKEfg4MWbKth8vUf2ZeAr07wU>
Cc: payload-chairs@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org
Subject: [payload] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 11:27:11 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-15: 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-h265/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for taking my discuss points into account. The comments below were for an earlier version, I've not checked if related changes were made or not. (And there's no need to come back to me about that unless you want to.) - General: I was puzzled as to why there is so much text that is presumably non-normative explanatory text covering what is elsewehere in (I guess) ITU documents. It seems like there is a lot, but not enough, here for an implementer. - 4.1: " The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified here. " Huh? That's confusing. For me at least. - p75 - why would md5 ever be most-preferred these days? Better to not say that, even in an example. Even better would be to deprecate md5 even for this non-security purpose to simplify code-audit. Or, if there is some reason why e.g. sha256 isn't suited then explaining that would also help for code-audits.
- [payload] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Stephen Farrell