Subject: Re: [AVT] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:29:02 +0200

Hi,

I read the draft and have some comments

1.       In the abstract suggest changing  "the description in RFC3984bis"
to  "the H.264 RTP Payload format"

2.       In the introduction, the sentence "It also specifies a bitstream
constraint associated with RCDO and a mechanism for signalling RCDO within
the bitstream that the bitstream conforms to the bitstream constraint and
that the decoder applies the RCDO decoding process to the bitstream." is
very long and not clear , mostly the part  " within the bitstream that the
bitstream conforms to the bitstream constraint " maybe break it.

3.       In section 6 and 6.1 H.264-RCDO is a media subtype and not media
type.

4.       In section 6.1 you have "For example, if a codec supports level
2.1, the profile-level-id becomes 00800d", it should be 1.3 and not 2.1

5.       In section 7 I think it will be better to show an example with
max-smbps

6.       In section 7.1 maybe recommend that the offer should include both
H264-RCDO and H264 in the m=video line for interoperability with systems who
supports only H264 media subtype. Having H264-RCDO as the first one will
tell that it is the preferred one.

I assume that the parameters in section except for profile-level-id were
copied from 3984bis.

Roni Even

 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:02 AM
To: 'IETF AVT WG'
Cc: 'Tom Taylor'; 'Tom Kristensen'
Subject: [AVT] WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04

Hi,

I would like to start a working group last call on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04 

RTP payload format for H.264 RCDO )Reduced Complexity Decoding Operation)
video.

The WGLC will end on February 10th .

Please review the draft and send comments to the list

Roni Even

AVT co-chair

---

From: Patrick Luthi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:57:34 +0100

Hi Roni,

Thanks for your careful review and your comments! We will address 
them and any other comments received in a revised draft.

Best regards,

Patrick Luthi

At 16:29 09/02/2010, Roni Even wrote:
>Content-type: multipart/alternative;
>  boundary="Boundary_(ID_VIgWe1+KWYf3K8uF2M81Tw)"
>Content-language: en-us
>
>Hi,
>1.       In the abstract suggest changing  "the description in 
>RFC3984bis"  to  "the H.264 RTP Payload format"
>2.       In the introduction, the sentence "It also specifies a 
>bitstream constraint associated with RCDO and a mechanism for 
>signalling RCDO within the bitstream that the bitstream conforms to 
>the bitstream constraint and that the decoder applies the RCDO 
>decoding process to the bitstream." is very long and not clear , 
>mostly the part  " within the bitstream that the bitstream conforms 
>to the bitstream constraint " maybe break it.
>3.       In section 6 and 6.1 H.264-RCDO is a media subtype and not 
>media type.
>4.       In section 6.1 you have "For example, if a codec supports 
>level 2.1, the profile-level-id becomes 00800d", it should be 1.3 and not 2.1
>5.       In section 7 I think it will be better to show an example 
>with max-smbps
>6.       In section 7.1 maybe recommend that the offer should 
>include both H264-RCDO and H264 in the m=video line for 
>interoperability with systems who supports only H264 media subtype. 
>Having H264-RCDO as the first one will tell that it is the preferred one.
>
>I assume that the parameters in section except for profile-level-id 
>were copied from 3984bis.
>
>
>Roni Even
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
>Of Roni Even
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04 
>
>RTP payload format for H.264 RCDO )Reduced Complexity Decoding 
>Operation) video.
>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:37:07 +0100

> I assume that the parameters in section except for profile-level-id were

That's correct. The verbatim copying was done as I assumed the media
subtype definition should be self contained. However, Colin Perkins
suggested earlier on this list (2010-01-03) to reference the H264
media subtype definition and only list the differences in this draft's
media subtype definition. This is fine to me, but might need accept
from IANA / the ietf-types mailing list in advance?

-- Tom

-- 
# TANDBERG R&D
## http://www.tandberg.com
### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/

---

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:52:17 +0100

> RFC3984bis"  to  "the H.264 RTP Payload format"

OK.

> mostly the part  " within the bitstream that the bitstream conforms to
> the bitstream constraint " maybe break it.

We'll reword as follows:

“It also specifies a bitstream constraint associated with RCDO and a
mechanism for signalling RCDO within the bitstream. The RCDO signalling
indicates that the bitstream conforms to the bitstream constraint and
that the decoder shall apply the RCDO decoding process to the
bitstream.”

> 3.      In section 6 and 6.1 H.264-RCDO is a media subtype and not

OK.

> level 2.1, the profile-level-id becomes 00800d", it should be 1.3 and

OK. Nice spotted copy&paste error.

> 5.      In section 7 I think it will be better to show an example with

RFC3984bis has numerous examples. However I'll use max-smbps in an
example.

> 6.      In section 7.1 maybe recommend that the offer should include
> both H264-RCDO and H264 in the m=video line for interoperability with
> systems who supports only H264 media subtype. Having H264-RCDO as the
> first one will tell that it is the preferred one.

Agree. Will add H264 as well and a paragraph recommending this scheme.

> were copied from 3984bis.

I'll await recommendation for whether the parameters are to be verbatim
copied from RFC3984 or not. IANA probably has an opinion on this matter.

on., 10.02.2010 kl. 09.45 +0200, skrev Roni Even:
> One more comment
> 
> Try to address the idnits
>
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-04.txt
> 
> You need to look at the comment and see what you can fix and what
> comments are not relevant

- Boiler plate warning will be fixed with new XML2RFC I think.
- A Section reference is misinterpreted as IPv4 address.
- Copyright year issues fixed by using ipr="pre5378Trust200902"
- Reference updated. The H.264 and H.241 are indeed normativ; nits
ignored.

-- Tom