Hi Harald, Murray, Murray, please review the changes and let us know if you approve. Harald, thanks for your review and reply. I’m sure it helps Murray make his decision.
Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 17, 2025, at 12:42 AM, Harald Alvestrand <har...@alvestrand.no> wrote: > > Speaking as WG chair, I find the changes to be acceptable, and deem that they > do not impact the WG consensus to go forward with the document. > > Harald > > On 1/17/25 04:10, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Hi Murray, >> >> Would you please review the changes in the AUTH48 diff and let us know if >> you approve? They are likely ok, but I’d prefer to err on the side of >> caution. >> >>> AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >> Thanks, >> RFC Editor/sg >> >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2025, at 7:06 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Yeshwant, Chris, >>> >>> Thank you for your review and for updating the XML. We have updated the >>> document - thank you for your explanations. Note that we updated the new >>> references to reflect accurate title information and include additional >>> author or organization information, as needed. Please review the current >>> files and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you approve >>> the RFC for publication. >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.html >>> >>> AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >>> >>> Comprehensive diffs: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/sg >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 9:21 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy <yeshw...@yeshvik.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sandy, >>>> >>>> Please let me know if there is anything else needed from the authors >>>> (Chris and me). We are done with our changes/comments. You should have the >>>> revised XML file that I sent in the previous email. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Yeshwant >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. >>>> Owner and Principal >>>> Yeshvik Solutions, LLC >>>> www.yeshvik.com >>>> +1 469-854-9836 >>>> yeshw...@yeshvik.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:17 PM Yeshwant Muthusamy <yeshw...@yeshvik.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> Sandy, Others, >>>> >>>> Attached please find the XML source with the authors' comments and >>>> changes, in response to the comments marked [rfced] by the RFC Editors. >>>> >>>> FWIW, we've also included the revised output files (.txt and .html), >>>> generated using xml2rfc -v3, reflecting all the changes made (with the >>>> exception of the deleting the Terminology section - we have left that for >>>> the Editors). >>>> >>>> Authors' responses/comments/notes are clearly marked within the comment >>>> sections in the attached XML document. Examples: [AUTHORS' RESPONSE], >>>> [AUTHORS' NOTE], etc. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if something is unclear or if we have missed something. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your patience. >>>> >>>> Yeshwant >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. >>>> Owner and Principal >>>> Yeshvik Solutions, LLC >>>> www.yeshvik.com >>>> +1 469-854-9836 >>>> yeshw...@yeshvik.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 1:03 PM Sandy Ginoza >>>> <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Yeshwant, >>>> >>>> We will wait to hear from you and Chris - thank you for the update. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> RFC Editor/sg >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy <yeshw...@yeshvik.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sandy, >>>>> >>>>> I completed my changes/revisions based on the Editors' comments. I have >>>>> sent them to my co-author, Chris Ullrich, for his review and additions, >>>>> if any (as we are not in the same location). I hope to hear back from >>>>> Chris today. We will get back to you as soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your patience. >>>>> >>>>> Yeshwant >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. >>>>> Owner and Principal >>>>> Yeshvik Solutions, LLC >>>>> www.yeshvik.com >>>>> +1 469-854-9836 >>>>> yeshw...@yeshvik.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:51 PM Sandy Ginoza >>>>> <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>> 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
