Tim: > Thank you for the review and the comments. Please find the following answers > to your comments below. I have modified the draft and uploaded a -13 version. > > >> Major Concerns: >> Section 7.2.1: Does the SHALL related to [SMPTE-ST2110-10] only apply when >> TP=2110TPNL or TP=2110TPW? Please reword to be clear when this SHALL >> statement applies. > > The short answer is yes, the SHALL only applies when using the RTP > specification in combination with SMPTE ST 2110. But, we chose to remove the > SHALL sentence about ST 2110. Originally it was trying to say that in the > case of using this RTP Payload under a SMPTE ST 2110 system, that the SDP > description must then also follow the rules of STMPTE ST 2110-10. But, it is > evident that when implementing another standard, the one must follow that > standard. It is a concern of a ST 2110 implementer. For this specification it > changes nothing specifically (ST 2110-10 mandates some specific SDP fields > and values, but this is allowed by the memo). We specifically made these > changes to allow the RTP payload to be used also outside of a ST 2110 > ecosystem.
That resolves my concern; thanks. >> Minor Concerns: >> Section 3.3: I do not have [ISO21122-2], and obviously an implementer will >> need that document. Can a bit more be said about "the profile" and "the >> level and sublevel used" without making this document too big? I am able to >> get a feel for the other things listed here from their names. > > We reworked this section to clarify better the concepts of the profile and > level/sublevel fields, without duplicating content from ISO21122-2. This helps; thanks. >> Section 3.4: Can you please provide some explanation of the "frat field"? > > We reformulated the text a bit and added an explicit reference for the frat > field to ISO21122-3 where it is defined. Thanks for adding that context. >> Nits: >> Section 3.2: I do not understand the the last sentence? Is it the same as: >> It represents sample values of a single image, without any interpretation >> relative to a colour space. > > Yes, that is correct. We changed the sentence to use your suggested wording. That is more clear to me; thanks. >> Section 5: s/of ST 2110-21 do not /of [SMPTE-ST2110-21] do not / > > We have updated the reference. Thanks. Russ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
