Hi Pierre-Anthony, Thank you for your reply. We are working on updating the document and will post updated files early next week.
Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Aug 6, 2025, at 10:48 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <p...@sandflow.com> wrote: > > CIL. Many thanks for the thorough review. > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 12:30 PM <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Document title >> >> a) Please review the document title, especially "sub-codestream latency JPEG >> 2000 streaming". Would updating as follows (or in another way) improve >> clarity? >> >> Original: >> RTP Payload Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 streaming >> >> Current (title case): >> RTP Payload Format for Sub-Codestream Latency JPEG 2000 Streaming > > This works. The RTP Payload allows streaming of JPEG 2000 imagery with > (optionally) sub-codestream latency. > >> >> Perhaps: >> RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Streaming and Sub-Codestream Latency > > I feel the "and" is misleading since "sub-codestream" is specific to JPEG > 2000 (each image is encoded as an independent codestream) and the RTP > format allows > the first RTP packet for a given image to be emitted > before the entire image is available to or encoded by the sender > >> >> >> b) We updated the abbreviated title (appears in the running header at the top >> of each page in the pdf output) as follows because "JPEG 2000" (rather than >> "J2K") >> is used in this document. Are any further updates needed to align with the >> document title? >> >> Original: >> Sub-codestream latency J2K over RTP >> >> Current: >> Sub-Codestream Latency JPEG 2000 over RTP > > LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] This is a question for Pierre-Anthony. In the first-page >> header >> for this document, your name appears as "P.-A. Lemieux". However, we note >> that in RFCs 7302 and 7972, your name appears as "P. Lemieux". We have >> updated to use the single initial for consistency with those RFCs, but >> please let us know if you prefer otherwise. > > There are too many P. Lemieux, so I started using P.-A. Lemieux as with my > earlier academic papers, e.g. > https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3873 > Not a big deal if IETF prefers to stick with P. Lemieux. > >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Abstract: We have updated this sentence as follows. Let us >> know >> any concerns. >> >> Original: >> This RTP payload format defines the streaming of a video signal >> encoded as a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams. >> >> Perhaps: >> This document defines the RTP payload format for the streaming of a video >> signal >> encoded as a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams. > > LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "to be emitted" here. >> >> Original: >> * the payload format allows sub-codestream latency such that the >> first RTP packet of a given codestream to be emitted before the >> entire codestream is available. >> >> Perhaps: >> * The payload format allows sub-codestream latency such that the >> first RTP packet of a given codestream is emitted before the >> entire codestream is available. >> >> Or: >> * The payload format allows sub-codestream latency such that the >> first RTP packet of a given codestream can be emitted before the >> entire codestream is available. > > I suggest matching the abstract: The payload format allows > sub-codestream latency such that the first RTP packet for a given image can > be emitted before the entire image is available to or encoded by the sender. > >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Figure 1 >> >> a) FYI - We moved both the text defining "P" in the figure and the sentence >> about expansions in the figure title. These now follow the figure. Let us >> know >> any concerns. > > LGTM > >> >> Original: >> P = (Optional) padding bytes >> >> Figure 1: Packetization of a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams >> (not to scale). See Section 3 for an expansion of the SOC, SOD, >> SOT and EOC abbreviations. >> >> Updated: >> Figure 1: Packetization of a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams >> (not to scale). >> >> In Figure 1, P denotes (optional) padding bytes. See Section 3 for >> expansions of SOC, SOD, SOT, and EOC. >> >> b) Would you like to add text before the figure to introduce it? If so, >> please >> provide that text. > > No text needed. > >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] May we remove the square brackets here and update as follows? > > It is not the Progression Order *of* the Main or Body packet, but > progression-order-related-signaling *in* the Main or Body packet. What > about "Progression Order Flag, Main Packet" and "Progression Order > Flag, Body Packet"? > >> >> Original: >> ORDH (Progression Order [Main Packet]): 3 bits >> ... >> ORDB (Progression Order [Body Packet]): 1 bit >> >> Perhaps: >> ORDH (Progression Order of Main Packet): 3 bits >> ... >> ORDB (Progression Order of Body Packet): 1 bit >> --> >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to add a pointer to Section 3 here? This >> section mentions LRCP, RLCP, RPCL, PCRL, CPRL, and PRCL - the pattern is >> explained in Section 3. > > LGTM. > >> >> Original: >> ORDH (Progression Order [Main Packet]): 3 bits >> >> Specifies the progression order used by the codestream and whether >> resync points are signaled. >> >> Perhaps: >> ORDH (Progression Order of Main Packet): 3 bits >> >> Specifies the progression order used by the codestream and whether >> resync points are signaled. See Section 3 for details about progression >> orders. >> --> >> >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Will "no more than 45 ms = 4095/90,000" be clear to readers? >> >> Original: >> NOTE: As described in Sections 7.4 and 8.1, PTSTAMP is intended to >> improve clock recovery at the receiver and only applies when the >> transmission time of two consecutive RTP packets with identical >> timestamp fields differ by no more than 45 ms = 4095/90,000. >> >> Perhaps: >> NOTE: As described in Sections 7.4 and 8.1, PTSTAMP is intended to >> improve clock recovery at the receiver and only applies when the >> transmission time of two consecutive RTP packets with identical >> timestamp fields differ by no more than 45 ms (which is 4095/90,000). > > "Perhaps" LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] It may be unclear to readers what is being connected by >> "and" in >> this sentence. How may we clarify? >> >> Original: >> * MUST contain the same codestream main header information, >> with the exception of the SOT and COM marker segments, and >> any pointer marker segments; and >> >> Perhaps: >> * MUST contain the same codestream main header information >> (with the exception of the SOT and COM marker segments) and >> any pointer marker segments; and >> >> Or: >> * MUST contain the same codestream main header information >> (with the exception of the SOT and COM marker segments and >> any pointer marker segments); and > > "Or" proposal LGTM. > >> --> >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update the "Otherwise" part below as >> follows? Right now, it is part of <dl> in the xml file; the suggested >> update changes it to appear in <t>. (Note: We will update the QUAL >> definition in the same way.) > > Semantically, it is preferable that "otherwise" be in its own <dt> > since it is an > alternative to "0". > >> >> Current: >> RES (Resolution Levels): 3 bits >> >> 0 The payload can contribute to all resolution levels. >> >> Otherwise The payload contains at least one byte of one JPEG 2000 >> packet belonging to resolution level (N_L + RES - 7) but does >> not contain any byte of any JPEG 2000 packet belonging to lower >> resolution levels. N_L is the number of decomposition levels >> of the codestream. >> >> Perhaps: >> RES (Resolution Levels): 3 bits >> >> 0 The payload can contribute to all resolution levels. >> >> Otherwise, the payload contains at least one byte of one JPEG 2000 >> packet belonging to resolution level (N_L + RES - 7) but does >> not contain any byte of any JPEG 2000 packet belonging to lower >> resolution levels. N_L is the number of decomposition levels >> of the codestream. >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "and as described at Section 8.7" and >> "and as >> specified in Section 7.9" here for clarity? > >> >> Original: >> When C = 1, and >> as described at Section 8.7, a receiver maintains a simple cache of >> previously received code-blocks, which it uses to replace empty code- >> blocks. >> ... >> When C = 1, and as specified in Section 7.9, the sender can improve >> bandwidth efficiency by only occasionally transmitting code-blocks >> corresponding to static portions of the video and otherwise >> transmitting empty code-blocks, as defined in Section 7.9. >> >> Perhaps (add parenthetical at end): >> When C = 1, a receiver maintains a simple cache of >> previously received code-blocks, which it uses to replace empty code- >> blocks (see Section 8.7). >> ... >> When C = 1, the sender can improve >> bandwidth efficiency by only occasionally transmitting code-blocks >> corresponding to static portions of the video and otherwise >> transmitting empty code-blocks (see Section 7.9). > > "Perhaps" LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] The titles of Tables 2 and 3 are very long. We suggest >> including >> shorter titles and folding the information in the current titles into the >> text describing the figures. What are your thoughts? If you agree, please >> provide updated titles and text in OLD/NEW format. Also, would it be >> helpful to move the figures to appear after the text describing them? >> >> Original: >> Table 2: Optional discarding of Body Packets based on the value >> of the RES field when decoding a reduced resolution image, in the >> case where N_L = 5 and all DWT stages consist of both horizontal >> and vertical transforms. The image has nominal width and height >> of W x H. >> ... >> Table 3: Optional discarding of Body Packets based on the value >> of the RES field when decoding a reduced resolution image, in the >> case where N_L = 5 and some DWT stages consist of only horizontal >> transforms. The image has nominal width and height of W x H. > > After playing with this for a while I have not found a way to > meaningfully reduce > the length of table captions, without risking introducing errors/confusion in > these complex examples. [ed.: I was not aware of the size limit and > will endeavor > to steer clear of it in future documents :)] > >> --> >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] We updated "values XTRAC" to "values of XTRAC" here. Please >> let us >> know if this is incorrect. >> >> Original: >> The receiver MUST accept values XTRAC other than 0 and MUST ignore >> the value of XTRAB, whose length is given by XTRAC. >> >> Perhaps: >> The receiver MUST accept values of XTRAC other than 0 and MUST ignore >> the value of XTRAB, whose length is given by XTRAC. > > LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] How may we improve the introductory text here? >> >> Original: >> When decoding a codestream, and for each code-block in the >> codestream: >> >> * if the code-block in the codestream is empty, the receiver MUST >> replace it with a matching code-block from the cache, if one >> exists; or >> >> * if the code-block in the codestream is not empty, the receiver >> MUST replace any matching code-block from the cache with the code- >> block in the codestream. >> >> Perhaps: >> When decoding a codestream, the following procedures apply for each >> code-block in the codestream: >> >> * If the code-block in the codestream is empty, the receiver MUST >> replace it with a matching code-block from the cache, if one >> exist. >> >> * If the code-block in the codestream is not empty, the receiver >> MUST replace any matching code-block from the cache with the code- >> block in the codestream. > > LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Media Type Template >> >> a) Section 5.6 of RFC 6838 notes the following: >> >> "N/A", written exactly that way, can be used in any field if desired >> to emphasize the fact that it does not apply or that the question was >> not omitted by accident. Do not use 'none' or other words that could >> be mistaken for a response. >> >> We have thus made the following update to the template in Section 9.2 of this >> document. Let us know any concerns. >> >> Original: >> Required parameters: None >> >> Updated: >> Required parameters: N/A > > LGTM > >> >> >> b) We note that the template in Section 9.2 does not contain the "Fragment >> identifier considerations:" and "Additional information:" sections of the >> template defined in RFC 6838. We have added these as shown below. Let us know >> if "N/A" is incorrect. >> >> Updated: >> Fragment identifier considerations: N/A >> >> Additional information: N/A > > LGTM > >> --> >> >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] We got an error when parsing the line of ABNF in Section >> 9.2. We >> used the parser at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf and added some >> definitions >> from RFCs 3986 and 5234. Please review. >> >> This is one of the definitions we added when parsing: >> path-empty = 0<pchar> >> >> And it seems to be causing this error: >> (61:27): fyi: absolute repeat count of zero means this element may not >> occur at all > > I believe this is intended: the path component of a URI can be empty. > ("The scheme and path components are required, though the path may be > empty (no characters)." > >> --> >> >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] References >> >> a) Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their current >> order? > > No preference. > >> >> b) The following references have been withdrawn or superseded and replaced by >> newer versions. We updated the dates to the most recent version and added >> URLs. Please review to ensure correctness. >> >> [jpeg2000-1] >> [jpeg2000-2] >> [rec-itu-t-h273] >> [jpeg2000-9] >> >> c) FYI - We added URLs to the following reference entries. Please review. >> >> [jpeg2000-15] >> [ov2110-0] > > The [ov2110-0] URL should be: https://pub.smpte.org/doc/ov2110-0/20181204-pub/ > >> --> >> >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Notes >> >> a) In cases like the following with "stacked" notes (there are >> several instances in the document), may we update as shown below? > > I am not a big fan of stacking these notes since they are not directly related > and should be referenceable individually. There is however a bug in > the current draft, and the first note should be numbered "1" and the > second numbered "2". > >> >> Original: >> NOTE: Only ORDH = 4 and ORDH = 6 allow sub-codestream latency >> streaming. >> >> NOTE: Progression order PRCL is defined in [jpeg2000-2]. The >> other progression orders are specified in [jpeg2000-1]. >> >> Perhaps: >> NOTES: >> >> * Only ORDH = 4 and ORDH = 6 allow sub-codestream latency >> streaming. >> >> * Progression order PRCL is defined in [jpeg2000-2]. The >> other progression orders are specified in [jpeg2000-1]. >> >> >> b) Section 5.1 has numbered notes (i.e., NOTE 1 and NOTE 2), but we don't see >> this in other sections. Would you like to make these notes consistent with >> the >> others in the document? > > All notes should be numbered unless there is only one note in a section. The > idea is to be able to refer to a note like "Section 4.2, Note 1". Makes sense? > >> >> >> c) Please review whether any of the notes in this document >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > > I have not found a use for <aside> in this specification. > >> --> >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >> >> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should >> these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. >> >> coded image data vs. image coded data > > "image coded data" should be "coded image data" > >> >> resolutions level vs. resolution level > > "resolutions level(s)" should be "resolution level(s)" > >> >> Fixed Header vs. fixed header > > "RTP fixed header" should be "RTP Fixed Header" > >> >> Payload Header vs. payload header >> Note: "main header" is consistently lowercase, and "Extended Header" is >> consistently capitalized in this document. > > "Main Packet Payload Header" and "Body Packet Payload Header" should > be capitalized because they refer to a specific structure. "payload > header" in isolation is less specific can be kept lowercase. Ok? > >> >> >> b) We note inconsistencies in the term listed below. We chose the form on the >> right. Please let us know any objections. >> >> RTP Packet vs. RTP packet > > It should be "RTP packet" for consistency with RFC 3550. > >> >> >> c) This document consistently uses "code-block" and "code-byte" (with >> hyphen). We see that "code-block" is used in the ITU-T documents referenced >> by >> this document. However, "code-block" has not been used in the RFC Series, and >> "code-byte" has only been used in one early RFC; the forms with no hyphen >> (i.e., "code block" and "code byte") have been used. >> >> Would you like to update to use the forms more commonly used in the RFC >> Series, or do you prefer the current (which seems to align with ITU-T usage)? > > I think ITU/ISO folks would rebel if we dropped the hyphen. > >> --> >> >> >> 20) <!-- [rfced] Text styling >> >> a) The file below lists terms enclosed in <tt> in this document. >> Please review to ensure the usage of <tt> is correct and consistent. Let >> us know if any updates are needed. >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828-TT.txt >> >> Note: In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> appears in >> fixed-width font. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <tt> has no >> text formatting. >> >> >> b) FYI - We updated <tt> to <artwork> for the following equations: >> >> Original: >> <extended sequence number> = <ESEQ field> * 65536 + <sequence >> number field of the RTP fixed header> >> ... >> PID = c + s * num_components > > LGTM > >> >> >> c) The following are the instances of <em> in the document. Please review and >> confirm that the <em> is needed. >> >> <em>empty</em> >> <em>matching</em> > > <em> for the two terms above implies a definition, i.e., the term is > reused in a specific way in surrounding text. It feels like an > appropriate use of <em>. > >> <em>c</em> >> <em>s</em> >> <em>num_components</em> > > <em> for the terms above implies a mathematical symbol used in a > formulae. Not sure it is wise or necessary. Please advise. > >> >> Note: In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <em> appears in >> italics. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <em> appears with an >> underline character before and after. >> --> >> >> >> 21) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations >> >> a) Should "LSBs" be expanded as "least significant bits" here (or perhaps >> just >> use the expansion since this is the only instance in the document)? Our list >> also includes the expansion "Locator-Status-Bit". See >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list. >> >> Original: >> The counter is sampled at the point >> in time when each RTP Packet is transmitted and the 12 LSBs of the >> sample are stored in the PTSTAMP field. > > Yes, please expand to "least significant bits". > >> >> >> b) How should "HT" be expanded? Below is the only instance in the document. >> >> Original: >> * if the code-block conforms to [jpeg2000-15], contains an HT >> cleanup segment and the first two bytes of the Magsgn byte-stream >> are between 0xFF80 and 0xFF8F. > > "HT cleanup segment" is a defined term from ITU T.814. > >> --> >> >> >> 22) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/rv >> >> >> >> On Aug 6, 2025, at 12:19 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/08/06 >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >> >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >> your approval. >> >> Planning your review >> --------------------- >> >> Please review the following aspects of your document: >> >> * RFC Editor questions >> >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >> follows: >> >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >> >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >> >> * Changes submitted by coauthors >> >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >> >> * Content >> >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >> - contact information >> - references >> >> * Copyright notices and legends >> >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >> >> * Semantic markup >> >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >> >> * Formatted output >> >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >> >> >> Submitting changes >> ------------------ >> >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >> include: >> >> * your coauthors >> >> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >> >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >> >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >> list: >> >> * More info: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> >> An update to the provided XML file >> — OR — >> An explicit list of changes in this format >> >> Section # (or indicate Global) >> >> OLD: >> old text >> >> NEW: >> new text >> >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >> >> >> Approving for publication >> -------------------------- >> >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> >> >> Files >> ----- >> >> The files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9828-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9828 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9828 (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-08) >> >> Title : RTP Payload Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 >> streaming >> Author(s) : P. Lemieux, Ed., D. Taubman >> WG Chair(s) : Dr. Bernard D. Aboba, Jonathan Lennox >> Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
