What's your opinion on how to go forward from here? Waiting on the authors is clearly a losing battle.
-MSK On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:42 AM Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> wrote: > Framemarking is a normative dependency of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr (RFC > 9627-to-be) but it’s just one sentence saying the data formats need to be > aligned between the two specs if you support both, which could be dropped > if we want to abandon framemarking. > > On Feb 12, 2025, at 12:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > This has been in AUTH48 since August and not a single author has responded > here. That's pretty awful. > > Is there still any interest in seeing it published or should we abandon > it? I don't really want to hand any dead work to my successor or to Zahed. > > -MSK, ART AD > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:05 PM Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> > wrote: > >> I’m not an author on this draft, but as chair I thought I would try to >> answer these questions, to make sure the process could get done. I spoke >> with Mo about these issues in Dublin and I think he’ll agree with all of >> these. Mo, please correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything. >> >> > On Aug 13, 2024, at 12:27 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> > >> > Authors and *AD, >> > >> > [AD - please see question 4 below] >> > >> > 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. --> >> >> Scalable video, h.264, h.265, vp9, layered video >> >> > 2) <!--[rfced] Please review whether "e.g." in the following should >> > instead be "i.e.": >> > >> > Original: >> > Because of inter-frame dependencies, it should ideally switch video >> > streams at a point where the first frame from the new speaker can be >> > decoded by recipients without prior frames, e.g. switch on an >> > intra-frame. >> >> An intra frame is the most common situation where a stream can be decoded >> without prior frames, but there are others for some codecs, so I think e.g. >> is appropriate here. >> >> >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 3) <!--[rfced] Should "field" or some other noun follow >> > "refresh_frame_flags" in this sentence? Or is this referring to >> > the flags (as the verb "are" is plural)? >> > >> > Original: >> > The D bit MUST be 1 if the refresh_frame_flags in the VP9 payload >> > uncompressed header are all 0, otherwise it MUST be 0. >> > --> >> >> I think “refresh_frame_flags bits" >> >> > >> > 4) <!--[rfced] [*AD] We see several (similar) sentences like the example >> > below where it might be difficult for the reader to correclty >> > understand what part(s) of the sentence the keyword MUST applies >> > to. We wonder if a rewrite may be helpful to the reader, >> > possibly using a list... Please see the example below (again, >> > other similar instances exist in the document) and let us know if >> > an update like one of the following might work. >> > >> > Original: >> > >> > The D bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit header NRI field is 0, or an >> > aggregation packet or fragmentation unit encapsulating only NAL units >> > with NRI=0, otherwise it MUST be 0. >> > >> > Perhaps A (the "when" clause applies to both the D bit being set to 1 >> or NRI=0): >> > >> > When the NAL unit header NRI field is 0, the D bit MUST be either 1 or >> > an aggregation packet or fragmentation unit encapsulating only NAL >> > units with NRI=0. When the NAL unit header NRI field is not set to 0, >> > the D bit MUST be 0. >> > >> > Perhaps B (the "when" clause only applies to the D bit being 0): >> > >> > The D bit MUST be: >> > >> > -1 when the NAL unit header NRI field is 0, >> > >> > -an aggregation packet or fragmentation unit encapsulating only NAL >> units >> > with NRI=0, or >> > >> > - 0. >> >> The D bit MUST be 1 if either: >> - The payload's NAL unit header’s NRI field is 0, or >> - The payload is an aggregation packet or fragmentation unit >> encapsulating only NAL units with NRI=0. >> Otherwise, it MUST be 0. >> >> > >> > 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). >> > --> >> > >> >> Both the two “Note:” comments could be <aside> elements. >> >> > >> > 6) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for the ease of >> the >> > reader? Note that the introductory "when" phrase mentions a >> > single frame while the recommendation mentions plural frames: >> > please consider if further updates are necessary. >> > >> > Original: >> > When an RTP switch needs to discard a received video frame due to >> > congestion control considerations, it is RECOMMENDED that it >> > preferably drop frames marked with the D (Discardable) bit set, or the >> > highest values of TID and LID, which indicate the highest temporal and >> > spatial/quality enhancement layers, since those typically have fewer >> > dependenices on them than lower layers. >> > >> > >> > Perhaps A: >> > When an RTP switch needs to discard a received video frame due to >> > congestion control considerations, it is RECOMMENDED that it drop: >> > >> > - frames marked with the D (Discardable) bit set, or >> > >> > -frames with the highest values of TID and LID (which indicate the >> > highest temporal and spatial/quality enhancement layers) since those >> > typically have fewer dependencies on them than lower layers. >> > >> > Perhaps B (to upddate the sg/pl switch): >> > When an RTP switch needs to discard received video frames due to >> > congestion control considerations, it is RECOMMENDED that it drop: >> > >> > - frames marked with the D (Discardable) bit set, or >> > >> > -frames with the highest values of TID and LID (which indicate the >> > highest temporal and spatial/quality enhancement layers) since those >> > typically have fewer dependencies on them than lower layers. >> > >> > --> >> >> I’m missing something here because I don’t see the difference between >> these two options, but that text is fine. >> >> > 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify what "and forward the same" means in this >> text. >> > >> > Original: >> > When an RTP switch wants to forward a new video stream to a receiver, >> > it is RECOMMENDED to select the new video stream from the first >> > switching point with the I (Independent) bit set in all spatial >> > layers and forward the same. >> > --> >> >> Perhaps “and forward the stream from that point on”. >> >> > 8) <!--[rfced] How may we update this text to more easily illustrate the >> > 1:1 mapping between initialism and expansion? >> > >> > Original: >> > ... source to generate a switching point by sending Full Intra >> > Request (RTCP FIR) as defined in [RFC5104]... >> > >> > Perhaps: >> > ... source to generate a switching point by sending RTCP Full Intra >> > Request (FIR) as defined in [RFC5104]... >> > >> > --> >> >> That’s fine. >> >> > >> > >> > 9) <!--[rfced] In the following, are "layer" and "refreshes" redundant >> > with what LRR stands for? Please let us know if any updates are >> > necessary. >> > >> > Original: >> > Because frame marking can only be used with temporally-nested >> > streams, temporal-layer LRR refreshes are unnecessary for frame- >> > marked streams. >> > >> > As expanded it would be: >> > Because frame marking can only be used with temporally nested >> > streams, temporal-layer Layer Refresh Request (LRR) refreshes are >> > unnecessary for frame-marked streams. >> > --> >> >> Perhaps “temporal-layer refreshes requested with an LRR message” would >> avoid the duplicative language? >> >> > 10) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or >> left >> > in their current order? >> > --> >> >> This is something where the RFC Editor’s style guide should dictate, I >> don’t think there’s any particular preference for a specific reference >> order. >> > >> > >> > 11) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to abbreviations >> > used throughout the document. >> > >> > a) Please note that we have expanded these abbreviations as follows on >> > first use. Please let us know any objections. >> > >> > MCU - Multipoint Control Unit (per RFC 7667) >> > SRTP - Secure Real-time Transport Protocol >> > IDR - Instantaneous Decoding Refresh (per RFC 6184) >> > SDES - source description >> > NAL - Network Abstraction Layer >> > CRA - Clean Random Access >> > BLA - Broken Link Access >> > RAP - Random Access Point >> > AVC - Advanced Video Coidng (per RFC 6184) >> > SVC - Scalable Video Coding (per RFC 6190) >> > PACSI - Payload Content Scalability Information >> > NRI - Network Remote Identification >> >> No; the field in the H.264 specification is actually formally named >> “nal_ref_idc”. I believe this stands for something like Network Adaptation >> Layer Reference Indication but as far as I can tell it’s never explicitly >> spelled out in that specification as far as I can tell. >> >> > VPS - Video Parameter Set >> > SPS - Sequence Parameter Set >> > PPS - Picture Parameter Set >> >> The other abbreviations all seem to be correct. >> >> > >> > b) Please clarify if/how we may expand the following abbreviations: >> > >> > VPX >> > PACI - is this intentionally different from PACSI? >> >> Yes; the protocol element field is called PACI in RFC 7798 (for H.265) >> vs. PACSI in RFC 6190 (for H.264-SVC). >> >> > c) Should "intra (IDR)" frames instead be "IDR intra-frames"? This >> > formation occurs twice in this document. >> >> Intra frames are the common term, IDR is the more formal term, so this is >> a clarification with two synonymous terms, not a restrictive adjective. >> >> > >> > d) Please note that the following similar abbreviations appear to be >> > differently treated with regard to punctuation: >> > >> > H264 (AVC) >> > H264-SVC >> > >> > We have expanded the abbreviations on first use, but please let us >> > know if/how these should be made uniform with regard to parens and >> > hyphantion. >> > >> > See also our cluster-wide question regarding H264 vs. H.264. >> > --> >> >> Names of ITU specs (H.264 and H.265) should include the dot character. >> >> AVC and SVC are not parallel; AVC is the title of the H.264 specification >> as a whole, whereas SVC refers specifically to the extensions to it >> specified in Annex F. Thus the parentheses for the former (as an >> explanatory synonym) vs. the hyphen for the latter (as a restriction). >> >> >> > 12) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology >> used >> > throughout the document. >> > >> > a) Two questions about the header extension: >> > >> > Should this RTP header extension appear using "Video" throughout? We >> > see both of the following forms. >> > >> > Video Frame Marking RTP header extension vs. Frame Marking RTP header >> extension >> >> Yes, I think having Video throughout is good. >> >> > >> > Secondly, in the Abstract, we see: >> > >> > Original: >> > This document describes a Video Frame Marking RTP header extension >> > used to convey information about video frames that is critical for >> > error recovery and packet forwarding in RTP middleboxes or network >> > nodes. >> > >> > Is the use of the indefinite article "a" intentional ("a Video Frame >> > Marking RTP header extension")? This seems (possibly) contradictory >> > with the capitalization of the proper noun and use in Section 3 (are >> > there more types of Video Frame Marking RTP header extensions?). >> > Please review. >> > --> >> >> There certainly are other RTP header extensions that mark video frames, >> though none of them have been standardized by the IETF as yet; I think >> that’s why there is the indefinite article here. >> >> > >> > >> > 13) <!-- [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 (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/rfc9626.xml >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.pdf >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.txt >> > >> > Diff file of the text: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-diff.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> > >> > Diff of the XML: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-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/rfc9626.original.v2v3.xml >> > >> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> > only: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.form.xml >> > >> > >> > Tracking progress >> > ----------------- >> > >> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626 >> > >> > Please let us know if you have any questions. >> > >> > Thank you for your cooperation, >> > >> > RFC Editor >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > RFC9626 (draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16) >> > >> > Title : Video Frame Marking RTP Header Extension >> > Author(s) : M. Zanaty, E. Berger, S. Nandakumar >> > WG Chair(s) : Dr. Bernard D. Aboba, Jonathan Lennox >> > Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini >> > >> > >> >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
