Draft Request for Publication
April 1, 2021
Document: RTP Payload Format for VP9 Video
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-vp9
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 VP9 Payload draft was a
PAYLOAD WG work item, is now widely deployed.
(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 describes an RTP payload specification applicable to the
transmission of video streams encoded using the VP9 video codec
[VP9-BITSTREAM]. The format described in this document can be used
both in peer-to-peer and video conferencing applications.
The VP9 video codec was developed by Google, and is the successor to
its earlier VP8 [RFC6386] codec. Above the compression improvements
and other general enhancements above VP8, VP9 is also designed in a
way that allows spatially-scalable video encoding.
Working Group Summary:
Recent discussion of the VP9 payload format has centered on support for
framemarking as well as some SDP questions. Since framemarking does not support
some popular spatial scalability modes (e.g. K-SVC), support for framemarking
has not caught on, and framemarking support was recently removed from the
webrtc.org distribution. As a result, a section on framemarking has been
removed from the VP9 RTP payload specification.
Document Quality:
The VP9 RTP payload format is widely deployed, as part of the webrtc.org
distribution. This includes implementations in browsers as well as mobile,
tablet and desktop applications.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.
(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, and made
comments that were subsequently addressed by the authors.
(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.
No additional reviews appear to be needed. The document has already been
reviewed by a member of the SDP Directorate (Christer Holmberg).
(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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
IPR disclosures have been filed:
2020-11-23 4497 Nokia Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-payload-vp9 (Updates ID#: 4496) 2020-11-23 4496 Nokia
Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-vp9
2020-11-20 4491 Nokia Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-payload-vp9 2015-05-04 2593 Vidyo, Inc.'s Statement about
IPR related to draft-uberti-payload-vp9
A summary of the disclosures was sent to the WG mailing list on 2 March 2021:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j4I6D0rvpdv51Vb4w2OAF7cpdPY/
The disclosures were also brought up at the IETF 110 AVTCORE WG meeting.
No objections to proceeding with the publication of the VP9 document were
raised either on the mailing list or at the IETF 110 meeting.
(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 the development and
deployment of the VP9 RTP payload format. This includes participants who
developed the webrtc.org implementation as well as participants who have
developed applications supporting VP9. Given this experience, WG understanding
of the VP9 payload format is good and consensus is solid.
(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-vp9-12.txt:
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. 'VP9-BITSTREAM'
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
(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 6.1).
(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?
The document includes a normative reference to the VP9 Bitstream specification
that is not an IETF document:
[VP9-BITSTREAM]
Grange, A., de Rivaz, P., and J. Hunt, "VP9 Bitstream &
Decoding Process Specification", Version 0.6, 31 March
2016,
<https://storage.googleapis.com/downloads.webmproject.org/
docs/vp9/vp9-bitstream-specification-
v0.6-20160331-draft.pdf>.
(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.
There is a reference to the LRR draft:
[I-D.ietf-avtext-lrr]
Lennox, J., Hong, D., Uberti, J., Holmer, S., and M.
Flodman, "The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback
Message", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
avtext-lrr-07, 2 July 2017, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-
drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07.txt>.
(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 6.1) 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.