Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11

From: Tim Bruylants <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 15:45:48 +0000

Dear Murray,

Thank you for the review. We have addressed your comments in draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-12.

Here is the detailed answer to the comments:

>In Section 2, please update the BCP 14 text to use the new form (see RFC 8174, which must also be added as a normative reference).

  We have updated the text to comply with RFC 8174.

> Also in Section 2, the term "SOC Marker", though defined here, is not used below here.  Section 3.2 references the EOC Marker; should it reference both?

  1) The term "SOC marker" is used in section 2 under "JPEG XS codestream header".
  2) We clarified section 3.2, referencing "SOC marker".

> In Section 4, we encounter "SSRC" for the first time.  A definition for it would be helpful, or a reference.

  SSRC is Synchronization Source, as defined in RFC3550. We modified the text to clarify this.

> In Section 4.2, "As per specified" can just be "As specified".  Alternatively, "As per RFC 3550, ..."  While I'm thinking about it, all these double references (e.g., "RFC 3550 [RFC3550]") throughout the document could be cleaned up.

  We have cleaned up the "double references" throughout the text.

> The diagrams in Section 4.4 show (eventually) how the EOC marker fits into this, but not the SOC marker.  Should they?

  We clarified that the SOC marker is part of the JPEG XS codestream header. The latter is clearly mentioned in the diagrams. Explicitly mentioning SOC in the diagrams would clutter the layout, and would probably require to explicitly add the other markers in the codestream header as well.

> Section 4.5 uses a SHOULD.  SHOULD leaves the implementer with a choice, so it's a good idea to include guidance about when one might legitimately do something other than what the SHOULD says to do.  Or, if there isn't any, maybe this ought to be a SHALL?

  We reworded section 4.5 slightly. The message is that actual traffic shaping and timing delivery is outside the scope of this specification and does not influence the payload packetization. We also moved the section one level up (became section 5).

> In Section 6.1, it's clear what a receiver would do with some of the optional parameters when they are absent (i.e., defaults are clear), but not in all cases.  What can a receiver safely assume about "depth", "width", or "height", for example, when not specified?

  We thought this was clarified by section 6.2.1. Nevertheless, we added a short paragraph in section 6 (now section 7).

> Also on 6.1, this media type registration is missing required fields, including "Interoperability Considerations", "Published Specification", "Applications that use this media type", "Fragment identifier considerations", "Additional information" (which has four sub-fields", "Contact information", "Intended Usage", "Restrictions On Usage", "Author", and "Change Controller".  Please see RFC 6838.  Further, it would probably be a good idea to mention either in the registration or in the Security Considerations of this document that the payload being registered does not (or does) contain code that is executable.  The media type reviewers prefer people to be explicit on this point.

  We have reworked the media type registration section to follow RFC 6838 and RFC 4855.

  We added the notion that the payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do NOT contain executable code (to the Security Considerations section).

Kind regards,
Tim Bruylants

From: avt <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday 3 May 2021 06:16
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11

Hi there, here's my AD Review of this document.
Per the shepherd writeup, I have requested a review by the SDP Directorate.

First: In the shepherd writeup, please correct the spelling of my name.  :-)  Also, while we're in there, question (12) asks what reviews were done, but the answer simply says that the document contains a media type registration, which doesn't really answer the question.  Were any of the media type review resources asked for feedback on this?  Later on the shepherd says he reviewed it, but it doesn't say what official reviews may have been undertaken.  As you can see later on, there's a good chunk of the registration missing.

In Section 2, please update the BCP 14 text to use the new form (see RFC 8174, which must also be added as a normative reference).

Also in Section 2, the term "SOC Marker", though defined here, is not used below here.  Section 3.2 references the EOC Marker; should it reference both?

In Section 4, we encounter "SSRC" for the first time.  A definition for it would be helpful, or a reference.

In Section 4.2, "As per specified" can just be "As specified".  Alternatively, "As per RFC 3550, ..."  While I'm thinking about it, all these double references (e.g., "RFC 3550 [RFC3550]") throughout the document could be cleaned up.

The diagrams in Section 4.4 show (eventually) how the EOC marker fits into this, but not the SOC marker.  Should they?

Section 4.5 uses a SHOULD.  SHOULD leaves the implementer with a choice, so it's a good idea to include guidance about when one might legitimately do something other than what the SHOULD says to do.  Or, if there isn't any, maybe this ought to be a SHALL?

In Section 6.1, it's clear what a receiver would do with some of the optional parameters when they are absent (i.e., defaults are clear), but not in all cases.  What can a receiver safely assume about "depth", "width", or "height", for example, when not specified?

Also on 6.1, this media type registration is missing required fields, including "Interoperability Considerations", "Published Specification", "Applications that use this media type", "Fragment identifier considerations", "Additional information" (which has four sub-fields", "Contact information", "Intended Usage", "Restrictions On Usage", "Author", and "Change Controller".  Please see RFC 6838.  Further, it would probably be a good idea to mention either in the registration or in the Security Considerations of this document that the payload being registered does not (or does) contain code that is executable.  The media type reviewers prefer people to be explicit on this point.

-MSK