Re: [payload] Request for consideration: draft-westin-payload-vp8-01

Hi,
The latest version of RTP howto came after my previous response
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-00
You can also see the new milestone in the charter.
It will be good to have an updated individual draft which will include the
correct media subtype registration template and the mandatory sections
according to RTP Howto
Thanks
Roni Even
Payload co-chair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: payload-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:57 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: hlundin@google.com; pwestin@google.com; payload@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [payload] Request for consideration: draft-westin-payload-
> vp8-01
> 
> On 03/03/11 15:35, Roni Even wrote:
> > Hi Harald,
> > In general there is no problem to accept a payload specification as a
> WG
> > document as long as there is just one proposal. In this case I do not
> think
> > there will be a second proposal since this is unusual for non
> standard
> > codecs.
> >
> > So we can ask for a milestone.
> >
> > As for progressing the work I did a very quick look and have a couple
> of
> > comments
> >
> > 1. The media subtype registration in section 6 is not following the
> > registration template (see in rtp-howto or in one of the payload RFC
> e.g.
> > RFC5391  section 5.1. You can also look at a video codec like the
> updated
> > H.264 payload http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-
> rfc3984bis-12
> > which is in the RFC editor queue at the moment.)
> I'll get that updated. Most of the fields are boilerplate.
> > 2. The draft does not have a required congestion control section see
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-howto-06 for payload
> > specification structure.
> Checking: Is this currently draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-00?
> Patrik did a pass at updating after being pointed at the document as
> part of Magnus' review, that's the diff between the -00 and the -01
> version.
> > 3. I noticed the division of the data to prediction mode parameters
> and
> > motion vectors partition and DCT/WHT coefficients partitions. Which
> enables
> > better resilience to loss according to the draft. In IP network the
> typical
> > loss is packet loss and not part of a packet so maybe in the
> congestion
> > control section you can provide some guideline about a recommendation
> of how
> > to build packets that can be removed.
> Area of active research. I'll get it considered; the comment was part
> of
> a consideration of using variable-protection FEC mechanisms, which was
> subsequently removed (we'll get back to that at a later stage).
> > 4. In the example in section 6.4 I think that you should nave avpf
> and not
> > avp as the profile since you recommend using the feedback mechanism
> It's only an example, but I agree.
> >
> > Going forward  you can update the individual draft regardless of when
> it
> > becomes a WG item
> Thanks!
> > Regards
> > Roni Even
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: payload-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:36 PM
> >> To: payload@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [payload] Request for consideration: draft-westin-payload-
> vp8-
> >> 01
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what the formal procedure should be, so I'm just
> sending
> >> email...
> >> I think that draft-westin-payload-vp8-01, describing an RTP
> >> encapsulation for VP8, is ready for IETF review and possible
> approval.
> >>
> >> What steps do we need to take in order to get it on the proper
> agendas?
> >>
> >>                    Harald Alvestrand
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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