Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs

Request for Publication
May 3, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft was
originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

   This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
   format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
   video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
   Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
   resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
   quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
   to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the
PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two WGLCs.
The first garnered no responses. Once additional individuals indicated a
willingness to review it, a second WGLC was scheduled, which did get responses
(all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP, subsequently
addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/ *
intoPIX: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/
           https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray S. Kutcherawy.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

SDP Directorate review might be helpful.  It also could potentially benefit
from review by the Transport Directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/ C.
Damman (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/ A.
Descampe (UCL): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/ T.
Richter (IIS): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/ T.
Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in implementing the
JPEG XS RTP Payload. Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP
Payload appears to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild)
discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-12.txt:

 - The draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
 - Success fetching draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs state file.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 7.1) which will require
review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible
downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent
with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 7.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

No YANG modules.
Back