RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC 61834) Video
RFC 6469

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Robert Sparks) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-30)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont on 14-Oct-2011 includes a few
  editorial suggestions.  Please consider them.

  - S3.3.1, page 14: I suggest m=* in place of m=??

  - S4, page 15: in general encryption is done after compression for
  crypto reasons and common sense: quality encryption gives a random
  result, i.e., something impossible to compress...

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-30)
No email
send info
Sent in email to IANA as well: RFC 3189 ought to have registered audio/DV when it was published in 2002, yet there is no registration for audio/DV. IANA should probably register audio/DV now with a pointer to 3189 and simply update to this document once approved.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-30)
No email
send info
1. In the intorduction the following phrase is duplicated in adjoining paragraphs: 

> In the future it can be extended into other video formats managed by
   80 byte DV Digital Interface Format (DIF) block.

2. Please expand at the first occurence IEC, SMPTE, MLDv2, LW-IGMPv3

3. It is not clear what is the meaning of the statement in the interoperability section 8: 

> In addition, the SDP examples in RFC3189 provides incorrect SDP
   "a=fmtp" attribute usage.

Is the example made not relevant or corrected by this document? Why does it show in the interoperability section 8 and not in section 7 (changes from RFC 3189)?

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection