Subject: [Cellar] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:27:11 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: 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-cellar-ffv1/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I found it fascinating while it
describes the codec algorithms.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points.

I also support Alissa's point about using figure numbers/legends.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
May I suggest to expand/explain FFV1 on first use ? Still wondering what FFV1
means BTW... Also, the lossless encoding is probably the key property of this
codec and should probably be mentioned in the abstract.

-- Section 2 --
In an informational document, the use of BCP 14 is not required. Suggest to
remove this part.

-- Section 7 --
Should it be included in section 8 rather than referenced to?

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:05:04 +0200

Hi Éric, thank you for you review.
Answers inline:

We added a couple of explanations and references, I hope it is easier to 
read now.

> codec and should probably be mentioned in the abstract.

I don't get the comment, as in my opinion it is fulfilled with the first 
sentence of the abstract "This document defines FFV1, a lossless 
intra-frame video encoding format." for both what is FFV1 and its 
lossless property. And it is similar to 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716 . Could you be more explicit about 
what is missing from your point of view?
I added a definition of "FFV1" letters in 
https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/243
(source of the early origin, for curious people: 
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-February/010315.html )

Note: we don't use the term "codec" for FFV1 itself as per 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_coding_format#Distinction_between_%22format%22_and_%22codec%22

> In an informational document, the use of BCP 14 is not required. Suggest to

Even if it is an informational document so not required, we like to 
conform to it for being clear about the meaning of the related words, 
and this specification is the base of the FFV1 version 4 specification 
which is expected to be a standard document, I would prefer to keep the 
binding to BCP 14 instead of removing from this FFV1 version 0/1/3 
specification then reintroducing it in FFV1 version 4 specification, if 
not a blocking point.

> Should it be included in section 8 rather than referenced to?

I move section 7 in section 8, in https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/pull/243

Jérôme

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 08:10:07 +0000

Bonjour Jérôme (wild guess based on the use of accented letters),

Thank you for reading, replying, and acting on my review. 

Please accept my apologies for the 'lossless' in the abstract, it did not strike me at first reading... let's put this comment on not enough coffee on an early Monday morning

I have learned something about the difference between codec (implementation) and format (specification). A good week start for me !

Best regards,

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 5 October 2020 at 10:05
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, "Peter B." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with COMMENT)

    Jérôme