Amanda and Zahed, Thank you for the updates: everything looks as expected.
We have updated the AUTH48 status page to mark IANA’s completion and record Zahed’s approval and moved this document to AUTH48-DONE to await the AUTH48 completions of RFCs-to-be 9626 and 9627. Please see the AUTH48 status page for all documents here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C324 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Mar 17, 2025, at 3:14 AM, Amanda Baber via RT <iana-mat...@iana.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > This change is complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/VP9 > > We'll update the reference to the document once it's been published. > > thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IANA Operations Manager > > On Thu Mar 13 19:26:02 2025, mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: >> IANA, >> >> Please update https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/VP9 >> to match Section 7 of this document. >> >> We have included the text and diff files below for your convenience: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-diff.html >> >> Please let us know when these updates are complete and/or if you have >> any questions or concerns about the updates themselves. >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/mf >> >> >>> On Mar 13, 2025, at 12:18 PM, Justin Uberti <jus...@uberti.name> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I see the address has been updated. I approve the publication of this >>> document. >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:55 AM Jonathan Lennox >>> <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> wrote: >>> For this draft as well, I approve once the issue of Justin’s postal >>> address is resolved. >>> >>>> On Mar 4, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc- >>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Authors (and *AD), >>>> >>>> Just checking in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the files >>>> posted and/or *AD queries in the emails below? >>>> >>>> Please let us know if any further changes are necessary or if you’d >>>> like to approve the current version. >>>> >>>> We are awaiting approvals from authors and *AD guidance/approval: >>>> once those are received, we will send any necessary updates to IANA >>>> registries to align them with the document. After the registry >>>> update(s) are confirmed, this document will be ready to move >>>> forward in the publication process with its cluster. >>>> >>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9628 >>>> >>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for all documents in the cluster >>>> here: >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C324 >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2025, at 3:10 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc- >>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 <mfergu...@staff.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org> 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 >>>>>>> <jonathan.len...@8x8.com> 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 >>>>>>>> <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
