Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netvc-requirements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Roman's Discuss. I am sympathetic to the tsv-art reviewer's concerns that this document is focused on video technology of 5 years ago and may lack relevant in the current world. I don't intend to hold a Discuss point for any specific resolution, but I do think the IESG should discuss whether this concern affects the value of publishing this document as an RFC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1 What do "PAM" and "RA" mean? Moving Appendix A earlier (before Section 2) or referring to it from the Introduction would be helpful. Note that RFC style is to expand on first use... . High Dynamic Range (HDR), Wide Color Gamut (WCG), high resolution (currently, up to 4K), high frame-rate content are important use cases, the codec should be able to encode such content efficiently. nits: missing "and" in serial list, and the last comma is a comma splice. Section 2.5 [Google didn't help me find reference [9].] Section 2.6 The (long) list in Section 2.5 includes "cloud gaming"; how much overlap does that have with this service? Section 3.1, 3.2 What is the difference between "General Requirements" and "Basic Requirements"? ection 3.2.1 Is "Exemplary input source formats" supposed to just be an example, or an indication of the pinnacle of possible values? Section 4.1 Initially, for the codec selected as a reference one (e.g., HEVC or VP9), a set of 10 QP (quantization parameter) values should be specified (in a separate document on Internet video codec testing) and corresponding quality values should be calculated. [...] This seems to suggest ("Initially", "for the codec selected") that the evaulation requirements are not yet complete. Are they intended to be a single set of requirements for the codec's development, or customized to some per-application requirements? (Is there a reference needed to ongoing work to solidify these requirements?) QP'k = argmin { abs(Q'i(QP'i) - Qk(QPk)) }, i in R I would suggest defining the argmin function. It's surprising to see no reference to draft-ietf-netvc-testing from this document. Section 6 I don't see much need for a "Conclusions" section of this nature, in this document. Appendix B Defining (e.g.) "high dynamic range" and "wide color gamut" with respect to "normal" or "conventional" mechanisms does not really provide a stable and archival reference for comparison. _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
