[payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 20:01 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 561B7130E6E; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq@ietf.org, ali.begen@networked.media, payload-chairs@ietf.org, ali.begen@networked.media, payload@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152943850634.32270.3044591697939186046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:46 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/ec-1mhRajSwCQJAI_Ox-5yNgwaE>
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
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:01:47 -0000
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.
- [payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf… Adam Roach
- [payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf… James Barrett