I have reviewed the updated document and the changes looks good to me as well. Thanks for all the work.
Cheers Suhas ________________________________ From: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 1:33 PM To: Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> Cc: Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com>; avtcore-...@ietf.org <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; avtcore-cha...@ietf.org <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for your review Murray, Thank you for the quick reply and your help getting this AUTH48 restarted! We’ve recorded your approval here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626 RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 20, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've reviewed the comprehensive diff link and in particular the various "D > bit" changes. > > I approve those changes. > > -MSK, ART AD > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:21 AM Megan Ferguson > <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Authors and *AD, > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated according to the responses we > have received thus far regarding the document-specific and cluster-wide > questions. > > 1) We believe the only outstanding issue remaining from all of these > questions is *AD approval of the following change to text involving BCP 14 > keywords: > > > Hi, > > > > For bullet 4 where AD opinion has been asked, I would first like to get the > > opinion from the authors if they are OK with the changes or not. > > > > So, Authors please review the proposed changes in bullet 4 and send your > > opinion. > > > > //Zahed > > > >> 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. > > 2) Please further note that the URN change to the IANA registry that Justin > mentioned will be communicated to IANA once AUTH48 completes. > > Old: > urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarkinginfo > > New: > urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarking > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-lastdiff.html (last to current > version only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9626-lastrfcdiff.html (last to > current side by side) > > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving forward to publication. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > On Feb 19, 2025, at 10:24 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > A few changes needed. All the rest looks good. > > > > 3.1: memo -> document > > > > 3.3.2: replace this sentence: > > OLD: “These ranges cover non-reference frames as well as filler data.” > > with this: (from 3.3.3/3.3.4) > > NEW: “The NRI = 0 condition signals non-reference frames.” > > > > 3.3.3: add “(DID)” and “(QID)” in the first sentence: > > “…spatial/dependency layer (DID)…” > > “…quality layer (QID)…” > > > > Thanks, > > Mo > > > > From: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 2:49 PM > > To: Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar > > (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com>; Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com> > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; avtcore-...@ietf.org > > <avtcore-...@ietf.org>; avtcore-cha...@ietf.org <avtcore-cha...@ietf.org>; > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Jonathan > > Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com>; Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-16> for > > your review > > > > 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
