Sorry for letting this go so long! I had this reply sitting in my drafts but had lost track of it with just a few comments remaining.
> On Sep 23, 2024, at 5:06 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Authors, > > Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. > Please see the message below as well as our separate email detailing > questions about the full cluster. > > Please let us know if we can be of assistance during your AUTH48 review. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > >> On Aug 12, 2024, at 10:27 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org >> <mailto: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] In the Abstract, may we clarify "it" as follows? >> >> Original: >> It also defines its use with several RTP payloads for scalable media >> formats. >> >> Perhaps: >> This document also defines the use of LRR with several RTP payloads >> for scalable media formats. >> --> >> Yes, that’s fine. >> 2) <!--[rfced] May we update the following to clarify the antecedent of >> "it" and break up the long sentence? >> >> Original: >> >> This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback >> Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR). It is designed to >> allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or more >> of its substreams be refreshed, such that it can then be decoded by an >> endpoint which previously was not receiving those layers, without >> requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be if the >> receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR); [RFC5104] see also >> [RFC8082]). >> >> >> Perhaps: >> This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback >> Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR), which is designed to >> allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or more >> of its substreams be refreshed. As such, it can then be decoded by an >> endpoint that previously was not receiving those layers, without >> requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be if the >> receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR); [RFC5104] see also >> [RFC8082]). >> >> --> I think then the antecedent of the word “it” in the new second sentence is unclear. I suggest instead (changes bolded): This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR), which is designed to allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or more of its substreams be refreshed. The stream can then be decoded by an endpoint that previously was not receiving those layers, without requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be if the receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR); [RFC5104] see also [RFC8082]). >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions regarding Section 2. >> Section 2 was titled "Conventions, Definitions, and Acronyms". >> It contains the BCP 14 boilerplate and a single subsection that >> is titled "Terminology". >> >> a) There is no list of acronyms in this section. Please review our >> updates to the title of this section and let us know any objections >> (of if a list of abbreviations was missing). >> >> Original: >> Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms >> >> Current: >> Conventions and Terminology That’s fine. >> b) We see several terms throughout the document that it may be useful >> to include in this section (as they are seemingly introduced in >> sections that follow). For example: >> >> temporally nested >> Layer Index >> temporal ID >> layer ID >> >> Please let us know if you'd like to add any terms to the Terminology >> section. >> --> Aren’t these all already defined in Section 2, or am I missing something? >> 4) <!--[rfced] Please review if the slash in the following to see if >> "and", "or", or "and/or" might be clearer. >> >> Original: >> A sender MAY request an upgrade in both temporal and spatial/quality >> layers simultaneously. >> --> Probably “or” is clearest here. (Spatial and quality layers don’t tend to be distinguished at this level of the protocol, so they’re largely the same thing.) >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container >> for content that is semantically less important or tangential to >> the content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> --> I only see one note, and it would be fine for an aside. >> 6) <!--[rfced] In the text below, are you referring to the title of the >> document? >> >> Original: >> If the payload also specifies how it is used with the Frame Marking >> RTP Header Extension [I-D.ietf-avtext-framemarking], the syntax MUST >> be defined in the same manner as the TID and LID fields in that >> header. >> >> Perhaps: >> If the payload also specifies how it is used with "Video Frame Marking >> RTP Header Extension" [RFC9626], the syntax MUST be defined in the >> same manner as the TID and LID fields in that header. >> >> Or perhaps: >> If the payload also specifies how it is used with the [Video?] Frame >> Marking RTP Header Extension described in [RFC9626], the syntax MUST >> be defined in the same manner as the TID and LID fields in that >> header. >> --> The latter seems good, including the word “Video”. >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] Section 3.7 of RFC 7656 is not titled "RTP Taxonomy" but >> instead "Layered Multi-Stream". Please review this citation for >> clarity/accuracy. >> >> Original: >> The RTP Taxonomy [RFC7656] Section 3.7 defines three mechanisms: >> Single RTP Stream on a Single Media Transport (SRST), Multiple RTP >> Streams on a Single Media Transport (MRST), and Multiple RTP Streams >> on Multiple Media Transports (MRMT). >> >> Perhaps (caps also edited to match RFC 7656): >> Section 3.7 of "The RTP Taxonomy" [RFC7656] defines three mechanisms: >> Single RTP stream on a Single media Transport (SRST), Multiple RTP >> streams on a Single media Transport (MRST), and Multiple RTP streams >> on Multiple media Transports (MRMT). >> --> It should probably cite the proper title of RFC 7656, i.e. something like Section of 3.7 of "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources” [RFC 7656] defines three mechanisms: … Changing the caps to match RFC 7656 is good. >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] In the following, please clarify the antecedent of "it". >> >> Original: >> For MRMT, it is sent on the RTP session on which this stream is sent. >> --> For MRMT, the LRR message is sent on the RTP session on which this stream is sent. >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] We note that only Figure 9 has a title. Please review if >> you would like all figures to have titles (and supply them) or >> if the title of Figure 9 should be removed for consistency. --> Probably better for them all to have titles. Figure 1: Refresh of a Spatial Enhancement Layer Figure 2: Refresh of a Spatial Base Layer Figure 3: Refresh of a Temporal Layer Figure 4: An Inherently Temporally-Nested Stream Figure 5: Layer Refresh Request FCI Format Figure 6: H.264 SVC Layer Index Fields Format Figure 7: VP8 Layer Index Field Format Figure 8: H.265 Layer Index Fields Format >> 10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the >> abbreviations and initialisms used throughout the document: >> >> a) In the following equation, will it be clear to the reader what TO >> and TN refer to? >> >> TID = TO and target TID = TN >> >> If these are abbreviations, they should be expanded on first use (per >> RFC 7322). These are nonce variables so we can talk about the specific values of CTID and TTID sent in a hypothetical LRR message. Is there a clearer way to express this? >> b) We see: >> >> CLID - Current Layer ID >> >> and also Current Layer Index (or current layer indices or layer >> indices) >> >> Please review these occurrences and let us know if they should be made >> uniform. >> >> c) We have expanded these abbreviations as follows. Please let us >> know any objections. >> >> FCI - Feedback Control Information >> SSRC - Synchronization Source >> PLI - Picture Loss Indication >> NAL - Network Abstraction Layer >> PACSI - Payload Content Scalability Information >> IDR - Instantaneous Decoding Refresh >> SDP - Session Description Protocol Seems good. >> d) We will update the following to be consistent with the first line >> (below) in capping and initialism formation throughout the document. >> We will remove the citations after the first use (outside the >> Abstract). Please let us know any objections. >> >> RTCP Payload-Specific Feedback Message >> RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback Message [RFC4585] >> RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] payload-specific feedback message >> RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] payload-specific feedback message >> [RFC4585] Seems good. >> e) FYI: We've updated the usage of "LRR" by adding an article (i.e., >> "the" or "an") before it for consistency with the majority of uses in this >> document (primarily in Sections 3.2 and 4). Please let us know if this >> is in error. >> >> Original: >> Upon reception of LRR, the encoder MUST send a.. >> ... >> In order for LRR to be used with a scalable codec >> ... >> Senders which support receiving LRR for non-temporally-nested streams >> MUST... >> >> Updated: >> Upon reception of an LRR, the encoder MUST send a.. >> ... >> In order for an LRR to be used with a scalable codec >> ... >> Senders that support receiving LRRs for non-temporally-nested streams >> MUST... >> >> >> >> --> Seems good. >> 11) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the terminology >> used throughout the document. >> >> a) Please review the way field names are treated with regard to >> capitalization and quotation and let us know if/how they should be >> made uniform. >> >> For example, we see: >> >> "R" field >> "RES" field >> layer index field >> LayerId field vs. layer ID field vs. LID field (see related cluster query) >> "media source" field >> "Current Temporal Layer ID (CTID)" and "Current Layer ID (CLID)" fields >> payload type field >> "SSRC of packet sender" field >> DID, QID, and TID fields >> --> I think I’ve tended to use quotes on first reference to a field, and not use them subsequently, but if you think that’s confusing feel free to remove them. I think I’ve also tended to use capitalization when referring to a protocol element and use plain English when referring to the abstract concept carried in that protocol element, but if you want to normalize them that's fine. >> 12) <!-- [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. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >> should still be reviewed as a best practice. I don’t see any problems. >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/mf >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2024/08/12 >> >> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/rfc9627.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627-xmldiff1.html >> >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >> diff files of the XML. >> >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.original.v2v3.xml >> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> only: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.form.xml >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9627 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9627 (draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07) >> >> Title : The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback Message >> Author(s) : J. Lennox, D. Hong, J. Uberti, S. Holmer, M. Flodman >> WG Chair(s) : Jonathan Lennox, Rachel Huang >> 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
