Authors, Thank you for your replies to our queries!
We have updated our files accordingly with your responses to both the document-specific and cluster-wide questions we have received to date. Please review these updates carefully as we do not make changes once the document is published as an RFC. Please pay particular attention to our updates to Section 3.3.2 as we are unsure if this was your intent. Note that we will await the following prior to moving forward in the publication process: -resolution of outstanding cluster-wide queries (see separate email thread) -approvals from each author The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626 The AUTH48 status page for this cluster is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C324 Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 18, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, that's all three authors. Good stuff. > > But DON'T GO ANYWHERE! The RFC Editor will probably now produce a proposed > final version and that too will need all three of you to approve before it > can move forward to publication. Please keep checking this thread (and your > inbox generally) until this process is done. > > -MSK > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 2:38 PM Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > I agree with Mo's comments. > > -Espen > > From: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 20:20 > To: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com> > Cc: avtcore-...@ietf.org <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; avtcore-cha...@ietf.org > <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; superu...@gmail.com <superu...@gmail.com>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Jonathan Lennox > <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for > your review > > Thanks Mo for addressing the questions. After perusing it , I agree with Mo's > responses. > > Cheers > Suhas > From: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:11 AM > To: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Espen Berger (espeberg) > <espeb...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com> > Cc: avtcore-...@ietf.org <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; avtcore-cha...@ietf.org > <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; superu...@gmail.com <superu...@gmail.com>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Jonathan Lennox > <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for > your review > > Suhas, Espen, > > Please reply to this email indicating whether you agree with all my responses > below, or provide your responses if you disagree. > > Thanks, > Mo > > From: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 11:54 PM > To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Cc: Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) > <snand...@cisco.com>; avtcore-...@ietf.org <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; > avtcore-cha...@ietf.org <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; superu...@gmail.com > <superu...@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for > your review > > See Mo: inline for responses specific to frame marking. Apologies for the > delay. I thought Jonathan’s responses to the cluster-wide questions (C324 FM, > LRR, VP9), which we discussed together in November as he noted in his > response, were sufficient to progress the cluster. To be clear, I agree with > all his responses, as we discussed and agreed on this together prior to his > response. > > > From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> > Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:05 PM > To: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Cc: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com>; Espen Berger (espeberg) > <espeb...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com>; > avtcore-...@ietf.org <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; avtcore-cha...@ietf.org > <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; superu...@gmail.com <superu...@gmail.com>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for > your review > > 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. > > Mo: Thanks, Jonathan. Yes, I agree with all these. > > > 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 > > Mo: Agreed. > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, keep e.g., or expand as ‘for example’ at the editor’s discretion. > > > --> > > > > > > 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" > > Mo: Agreed, append ‘bits’ at the editor’s discretion if it helps clarify, > although I see no reader confusion without it. Do not append ‘field’ as that > would also require changing ‘are all 0’ to ‘is equal to 0’ which is confusing > for a field of separate flags that are not treated as a single numeric value. > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, this makes the or conditions clear. At the editor’s discretion, > if bullets interrupt the reading flow, it is equally clear to put the or > conditions as inline text prefaced with labels 1), 2), a), b), etc. Please > use the chosen style for all similar sentences. > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, both notes could be <aside> elements, assuming that renders in > all target formats without hiding. > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Option B with plural frames sounds best. > > > 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”. > > Mo: Agreed, and perhaps ‘video stream’ not just ‘stream’, and ‘switching > point’ not just ‘point’, depending on the editor’s discretion of clarity > versus verbosity. > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed. > > > > > > > 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? > > Mo: Agreed, Jonathan’s wording sounds best. > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed. The authors have no order preference. > > > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, all correct, except NRI is NAL Reference Indication. > > > > > 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). > > Mo: Agreed on PACI. VPX denotes VP8/VP9. > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, keep the original text. Intra, IDR, Independent, and Keyframe are > synonymous terms that appear in various video standards. Unfortunately, there > is no alignment on a single term across all video standards. > > > > > 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). > > Mo: Please keep the exact original text. These refer to the RTP payload > format names (SDP a=rtpmap name) registered in RFC 6184 for H264 (AVC for > clarification) and RFC 6190 for H264-SVC (no parenthesis because it’s part of > the actual name not a clarification). Dots are used when referring to the > underlying ITU specs, not the RTP formats. > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, video throughout. > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, keep the original text with ‘a’. > > > > > > > 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. > > Mo: Agreed, no changes. > > > > > > > Thank you. > > Mo: Thank you, and apologies for the delay. > > > > > 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
