Authors, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. Please let us know how we may resolve the items listed below.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:12 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] We do believe the capitalized keywords are used in the RFC. > Please review and let us know if any of the capitalized keywords should be > used. Otherwise, we will remove the Terminology section and related > references. > > Original: > 1.1. Terminology > > The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, > SHOULD,SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in > this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] > [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown > here. > > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to include references for the sales data > listed? > > Original: > * iPhone (206+ million units sold in 2020): native support for > haptic encoded data > > * Android (1.38+ billion units sold in 2020): API support of haptic > buffers > > * W3C (HTML vibration API [W3C-Vibration]): Optionally supported in > mobile web browsers. W3C has also defined vibration extensions > for gamepads [W3C-Gamepad] > > * Game consoles (39+ million units sold in 2019): MS Xbox, Sony > PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, etc. > > * XR devices (9+ million units sold in 2019): OpenXR haptic API > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] May we expand CE as Customer Edge? > > Original: > Since they represent the majority of CE devices, a strong > case can be made for 'haptics' as a top-level media type. > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] The text indicates the subtypes have not been > registered by IANA, but ivs is being registered by this document. Please > consider whether updates are needed. Is it correct that ivs is the only > type mentioned in Section 2.5 being registered at this time? > Note: likely different, but we see ogg has been registered as an > application subtype (see > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ogg). > > Original: > While these subtypes have *not* been registered with IANA or > standardized (yet), the prevalence of these haptic data formats in a > large number of devices around the world, pre-dating the > standardization of haptic tracks in ISOBMFF, provides a compelling > argument for 'haptics' to be designated as a top-level media type: > > Perhaps remove mention of "not been registered with IANA? > While these subtypes have *not* been standardized (yet), > the prevalence of these haptic data formats in a > large number of devices around the world, pre-dating the > standardization of haptic tracks in ISOBMFF, provides a compelling > argument for 'haptics' to be designated as a top-level media type: > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] hmpg and hjif are being registered by this document. > Please consider how this text can be updated for accuracy. > > Original: > These > codes are not registered yet, but the plan is indeed to standardize > these haptic coding formats in the near future. Once standardized, > these types should also be registered as subtypes of the 'haptics' > top-level media type: > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] For ease of the reader, we have updated "FourCC codes" as > "FourCCs (four-character codes)". Alternatively, may we replace "FourCC" > with "four-character codes", because this is the only place FourCC is used? > Please review. > > Original: > The MPEG ISOBMFF proposal included an informative annex of known > haptic coding formats with proposed FourCC codes for them. > > Current: > The MPEG ISOBMFF proposal included an informative annex of known > haptic coding formats with proposed FourCCs (four-character codes) > for them. > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "URLL" be "URLLC"? If correct, may we expand URLLC > as "Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication (URLLC)"? If not, please > indicate how URLL should be expanded. > > Original: > * IEEE P1918.1.1 vibrotactile coding standard [IEEE-P191811] being > developed under the IEEE Tactile Internet initiative as part of > the 5G URLL profile. > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] [ISOBMFF-IS] This reference is the most current > version of this standard, but there is a note on this version that states > "Expected to be replaced by ISO/IEC DIS 14496-12.2 within the coming > months." Please let us know if publication of this document should be > delayed until ISO/IEC DIS 14496-12.2 is formally published > (see https://www.iso.org/standard/85596.html). > > Original: > [ISOBMFF-IS] > "ISO/IEC 14496-12 (7th Edition) Information technology — > > Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 12: ISO base media > > file format", <https://www.iso.org/standard/83102.html>. > --> > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE-P191811] The original URL redirected to the > search page for IEEE Standards: https://standards.ieee.org/standard/. > We have updated the reference as described on > https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10555007. The status is marked as > "Inactive - Draft". Please review and let us know if any updates are > needed. > > [IEEE-P191811] > "P1918.1.1 - Haptic Codecs for the Tactile Internet", > <https://standards.ieee.org/project/1918_1_1.html>. > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > native > > Note that native can be ambiguous because it is subjective. Perhaps > "built-in" would work? > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor > > > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:03 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2024/12/23 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9695 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9695 (draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05) > > Title : The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type > Author(s) : Y. Muthusamy, C. Ullrich > WG Chair(s) : Harald T. Alvestrand > Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
