I also notice that Justin’s affiliation was updated for 9627, but not for 9628.
> On Feb 21, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 20, 2025, at 2:21 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated according to the responses we >> have received thus far to the document—specific and cluster-wide queries. >> >> We had the following questions/comments to (hopefully) finish the list of >> queries out: >> >> 1) Related to the cluster-wide bit name question: we suggest making no >> changes to this document as we were able to glean these names from the >> existing in-document descriptions (and no pattern seems to be changing in >> RFC 9626 to use “the X (name) bit” format). > > Good. > >> >> 2) Jonathan - please review the suggested text that uses “module” where the >> document used “modulo”. We will await your reply prior to closing this out. >> >>> Same item next paragraph, I realized the wording as written technically >>> contradicts the first paragraph. The last sentence should read “Every >>> picture containing a frame with show_frame==1, however, MUST have a unique >>> timestamp module the 2^32 wrap of the field.” I.e., add “picture containing >>> a” after “Every”. > > Thanks for catching that, yes, that was an autocorrect error. It should > indeed be “modulo”. > > >> 3) Just a reminder that this document has a question out to the WG and that >> IANA updates to match the changes in the Media Type Registration in Section >> 7 will be requested once all author approvals are received (as possible >> delays to moving forward in the publication process). > > Mo had a response to the WG mail about that language — I agree with him, the > parenthetical phrase would be better as “(in decoding order)” to match other > usages. > > > I also have two more changes for this document: > > In the definition of Picture ID, in section 4.2, in the phrase "if the field > transitions from 15 bits to 7 bits, it is truncated (i.e., the value after > 0x1bbe is 0xbf)” the value “0xbf” should be replaced by “0x3f”. (0xbf is not > a 7-bit value.) > > The title of section 4.5 should be “Example of a VP9 RTP Stream”, because > there is only one example. > > Thank you! -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
