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

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.)

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.

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.

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

Going forward  you can update the individual draft regardless of when it
becomes a WG item

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