Subject: [AVT] Re: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:27:30 +0200

Eric,

--> "Edwards, Eric" <[email-masked]> writes:
> The Internet-Draft - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt - has been
> posted.  
> 
> Some time passed before this version was submitted.  Most of the time was
> spent discussing if potential reconciliation with work that was taking
> place in ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 29 WG 01 (JPEG) was in order.  After lengthy
> discussions it was agreed by the experts in WG 01 that there were
> different goals and application areas targeted for our respective work
> and that the JP2/RTP proposal (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-03.txt) should
> move forward in IETF as is.  
> 
> So at this stage we are ready to move to Last Call if the AVT experts
> have no objections to the current draft.  
> 
> Please advise and comment.

I have a number of comments with regards to this draft:

 - Section 5.1 seems to imply that JPEG 2000 error resilience markers are
   only used with non-intelligent packetization. Is this correct? Are the
   error resilience markers not useful if the JPEG stream is intelligently
   packetized?

 - Is non-intelligent packetization a requirement? The situations where it
   will be useful seem very limited.

 - The extension mechanism in Section 8 is not used. I suggest removing it 
   and marking the X bit in the payload header as "reserved". 

 - The second paragraph of Section 9 is not appropriate, since the payload
   format cannot specify the type of video content to be transported. Are
   there no ways in which a malicious sender can disrupt the receiver?

 - In addition to the MIME type registration, the draft should include a 
   description of how the MIME type is mapped to SDP (Section 8.2 of the
   H.264 payload format is a good example).

 - Section 10 may be better written as an informative appendix? 

 - It may be useful to include some examples, showing the complete packets
   with all headers and data (including the RTP headers).

I would also urge a careful proof-reading of the draft for both quality of
English, clarity of specification, and appropriate use of the requirements
language in RFC 2119. 

-- 
Colin Perkins
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt