Subject: [AVTCORE] Document Shepard Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:02:58 -0700

Find  below a draft of the Shepard Writeup for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09

Please note the IDNits found in the document, which should be corrected in
a -10.

============================================================
Document Shepard Writeup
April 26, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft
was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents.
The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

   This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
   format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
   video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
   Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
   resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
   quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
   to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the
PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two
WGLCs. The first garnered no responses.
Once additional individuals indicated a willingness to review it, a second
WGLC was scheduled, which did get
responses (all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP,
subsequently addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/
* intoPIX:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No additional reviews appear to be needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/
C. Damman (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/
A. Descampe (UCL): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/
T. Richter (IIS): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/
T. Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or
does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in the development
of the JPEG XS RTP Payload.
Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP Payload appears
to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email
messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate
email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even
mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt
:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL',
'SHOULD',
     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.
Please
     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what
you
     mean).

     Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:

     As per specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 4175 [RFC4175], the
     RTP timestamp designates the sampling instant of the first octet of the
     frame to which the RTP packet belongs.  Packets SHALL not include data
     from multiple frames, and all packets belonging to the same frame SHALL
     have the same timestamp.  Several successive RTP packets will
     consequently have equal timestamps if they belong to the same frame
(that
     is until the marker bit is set to 1, marking the last packet of the
     frame), and the timestamp is only increased when a new frame begins.

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL',
'SHOULD',
     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.
Please
     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what
you
     mean).

     Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:

     The payload data of a JPEG XS RTP stream consists of a
     concatenation of multiple JPEG XS frames.  Within the RTP stream, all
of
     the video support boxes and all of the colour specification boxes SHALL
     retain their respective layouts for each JPEG XS frame.  Thus, each
video
     support box in the RTP stream SHALL define the same sub boxes.  The
     effective values in the boxes are allowed to change under the condition
     that their relative byte offsets SHALL not change.

  -- The document date (March 8, 2021) is 49 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 1253
     '[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'SMPTE-ST2110-10'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'SMPTE-ST2110-21'

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 6.1).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is an obsolete normative reference to RFC 4566.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible
downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'SMPTE-ST2110-10'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'SMPTE-ST2110-21'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears
consistent with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 6.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools (
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC8342?

No YANG modules.