Re: [payload] [AVTCORE] Some changes to rfc3984bis, SVC, and RCDO payload drafts

On 3/20/2011 7:25 PM, Roni Even wrote:

> Hi Glen,
> The technical change is more in H.264/AVC specification. In the payload
> specifications (3984bis/ RCDO and SVC) the change is to specify the
> conversion between the old and new parameter and to explain the change in
> H.264.
> It can be looked as a technical and I will leave it to the AD to help here.
> 
> As for the quality of the change it was done by YK with the help of Steve
> Botzko (H.241 editor) and Gary Sullivan the Rapportuer of Q6 SG16 that does
> the video codec in a f2f meeting. It was also reviewed by me and by some
> other experts on video coding and I feel good about the solution,

I'm admittedly not an expert on H.264, so I can't quibble about the
quality of the proposed solution.  My comment is a procedural one: I
don't believe that technical changes are allowed after the completion of
IETF review, nor should they be.  My understanding is that the AUTH48
review is provided only as a last-minute opportunity to catch typos or
make small editorial changes, not to modify the technical content of a
document.  BTW, I'm in the same boat myself right now: one of my
co-authors has fairly significant technical changes (and has proposed
even bigger ones) to a draft now in AUTH48 & I'm saying the same thing
about that one.  I'm _not_ looking forward to restarting the whole
process, but OTOH my co-author (& for that matter, I) should have had
our act together before requesting publication.

> 
> This change involves also an update to H.241 that has the same issue and the
> objective is to approve the H.241 change this week at the ongoing ITU Study
> Group 16 meeting. The solution for the IETF draft and ITU draft should be
> the same to address interoperability.
> 
> Thanks
> Roni Even
> As individual.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Glen Zorn
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 11:17 AM
>> To: Ye-Kui Wang
>> Cc: avt@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Some changes to rfc3984bis, SVC, and RCDO
>> payload drafts
>>
>> On 3/20/2011 3:20 PM, Ye-Kui Wang wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The three H.264/AVC related payload formats, namely,
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-12, draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-27, and
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-08, are all at the AUTH48 stage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The RFC-Editor has found the following problem: In
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-12, the definition of the max-dpb media
>>> parameter refers to the MaxDPB that was defined the first version of
>> the
>>> H.264/AVC spec, but not any more in the latest version (the 2010
>>> version). The parameter in the latest H.264/AVC version corresponding
>> to
>>> MaxDPB is MaxDpbMbs, and the unit of the new parameter (i.e.,
>>> macroblocks) is different from the original one (i.e. 1024 bytes).
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Since the drafts are at the AUTH48 stage, please provide comments by
>>> Monday, March 21, if any. Many thanks!
>>
>> Just my opinion but these seem like technical changes that can't really
>> be dealt with in AUTH48.
>>
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> avt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 
> 
> 