[Last-Call] Re: Genart ietf last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Pierre, 
Regarding the media-tupes registration and IANA considerations section: you indeed followed established practice and the guidelines of RFC8088 as updated.  My recommendation is to keep the section organization “as is”.
Stephan
Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 29, 2025, at 13:26, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed review.
> 
> I have entered the issues at:
> 
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-avtcore/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl/issues
> 
> ... and addressed them at:
> 
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-avtcore/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl/pulls
> 
> I am not sure that action is required for issues #19 [1] given
> existing practice, but do not object to moving the registration
> information if needed.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-avtcore/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl/issues/19
> 
> Please let me know if the proposed resolutions work.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -- Pierre
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 2:07 PM Reese Enghardt via Datatracker
>> <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl
>> Title: RTP Payload Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 streaming
>> Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> 
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-05
>> Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
>> Review Date: 2025-04-25
>> IETF LC End Date: 2025-04-28
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> 
>> Summary: The document is clear and concise, and it is ready for publication as
>> Proposed Standard. Below are a few suggestions to make the document easier to
>> understand and potentially more consistent.
>> 
>> Major issues: None.
>> 
>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> Intro:
>> "the payload format includes the following features specifically designed for
>> streaming applications" Does "streaming applications" mean specifically Live
>> streaming? If so, please consider being more specific here. In addition, please
>> consider adding a bit more context on why these features such as sub-codestream
>> latency are necessary and useful for use cases beyond prior RFCs. Similarly,
>> what is preferable about JPEG2000 for the intended use cases, rather than using
>> other options? Please consider adding a sentence or two.
>> 
>> Section 3:
>> "JPEG 2000 represents an image as one or more components, e.g., R, G and B,
>> each uniformly sampled on a common rectangular reference grid." Please consider
>> providing a definition for component. Assuming that, for example, "R" means
>> only the red compontent of an image, does the above sentence imply that an
>> image could be only one component, e.g., only R, on a grid?
>> 
>> "The coded image data ultimately consists of code-blocks, each containing coded
>> samples belonging to a rectangular (spatial) region within one resolution level
>> of one component." Please consider providing a definition for resolution level.
>> 
>> "Resolution Layer (R)
>> The information needed to reconstruct the lower spatial resolutions of the
>> image come before the information needed to reconstruct the higher spatial
>> resolutions of the image" Is a resolution layer the same as a resolution
>> level? If so, please consider unifying the terminology here.
>> 
>> Section 5:
>> This section references a "SOD marker", while Section 3 mentiones a "SOT
>> marker". Is this intentional, and if so, what is the difference between SOD and
>> SOT markers? The "SOT marker" also appears in Section 5.3, whereas the "SOD
>> marker" only appears in section 5.1.
>> 
>> "When concatenated, the sequence of JPEG 2000 codestream fragments emitted by
>> the sender MUST be a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams where two successive
>> JPEG 2000 codestreams MAY be separated by one or more arbitrary padding bytes
>> (see Figure 1)." In the "Packets" in Figure 1, is each component delineated as
>> "Main" or "Body" a single packet, or is it a sequence of packets? Does packet
>> still mean RTP packet here? Please consider stating this explicitly when
>> describing the figure.
>> 
>> "A JPEG 2000 codestream fragment does not necessarily contain complete JPEG
>> 2000 packets, as defined in [jpeg2000-1]." Is a JPEG 2000 packet different from
>> an RTP packet? If so, how? Please consider defining a JPEG 2000 packet.
>> 
>> Section 9:
>> Is it intentional to provide the registry information in this section, rather
>> than under "IANA Considerations" where many IETF readers would expect it?
>> Please consider moving it under "IANA Considerations".
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments: None.
>> 
>> 
-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux