Subject: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-vp8-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:32:17 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video
	Author(s)       : Patrik Westin
                          Henrik F Lundin
                          Michael Glover
                          Justin Uberti
                          Frank Galligan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-payload-vp8-04.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2012-03-26

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for the VP8 video codec.
   The payload format has wide applicability, as it supports
   applications from low bit-rate peer-to-peer usage, to high bit-rate
   video conferences.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-payload-vp8-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-payload-vp8-04.txt

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:51:08 +0000

Hi all,

I had a chat with Harald on the subject of "level" negotiation for VP8.
Harald pointed me to RFC 6236, which goes a long way in alleviating my
concerns about the lack of a mechanism that limits the decoding complexity
of an VP8 bitstream.

Here is what I think should be sufficient (subject to wordsmithing):

1. In section 6, add the "note" Patrick was talking about.  "Note:
Parameters for picture size and frame rate are not included herein, and
are expected to be negotiated using, for example, RFC 6232 for the
(maximum) picture size and RFC xxxx for the maximum framerate."

2. The example in 6.2.1.1 would benefit from the inclusion of an RFC 6236
codepoint.

3. This is the important change.  The O/A section 6.2.2 needs to be
updated indicating that a system design using O/A MUST include at least
one x= and at least one y= parameter according to RFC 6236, and MUST also
limit the framerate (I don't recall off the top of my head how).  A
normative reference to 6236 needs to be included.

Finally, let me suggest you split the references into normative and
informative soon.

Thanks,
Stephan

On 3.26.2012 14:32 , "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport
>Payloads Working Group of the IETF.
>
>_______________________________________________
>payload mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
>

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:53:25 +0000

Thanks Stephan.

Given that there is still some work that needs to be done, I will ask the authors to address these and other existing comments. I will restart the WGLC after the outstanding issues are addressed.

-acbegen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:51 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-vp8-04.txt
> 
> Hi all,
>