Just an update to add the following change to the AD review list: > 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.)
Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 21, 2025, at 3:08 PM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, Justin, and *AD, > > Thanks for your reply. > > We have updated to use Mo’s proposed text as related to question 10 (the text > sent to the WG). We will await *AD review/confirmation that we are okay to > go forward with this text: > > Current: > U: Switching up point. When this bit is set to one, if the > current picture has a temporal-layer ID equal to value T, then > subsequent pictures with temporal-layer ID values higher than T > will not depend on any picture before the current picture (in > decode order) with a temporal-layer ID value greater than T. > > We are hoping to hear from Justin as to how to edit the postal address > (affiliation has been updated as requested). > > 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/rfc9628.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-lastdiff.html (last to current > version only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-lastrfcdiff.html (ditto but 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/rfc9628 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > >> On Feb 21, 2025, at 1:53 PM, Jonathan Lennox <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2025, at 2:21 PM, Megan Ferguson >>>> <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
