RTP Payload Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 streaming
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-08

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl and RFC 9828, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

A revised I-D was submitted that has responded to all comments. I see this addresses the IESG comments or justifies the current form where this is the common practice of this WG. This document is ready.

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

I have no objections to the publication of this document as an RFC.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well-written document. My comments are minor; they may be incorporated or not at the authors' and responsible AD's discretion.

Section 1, "such that the first RTP packet of a given codestream to be emitted before the entire codestream is available"
Should this be read "to be emitted" => "can be emitted" or "is able to be emitted"? Or instead, is it "the first RTP packet ... to be emitted can be generated before...."?

SOC, SOD, SOT, and EOC are expanded in 5.1 (Figure 1), but are used as abbreviations earlier in the document. Consider expanding these on first use.

In Section 4, is "temporarily" ("not permanently") the intended word? Or is this supposed to be "temporally" ("involving time")?

We generally say that figures are illustrative, not normative; that implies the text of the document should state things like the number of bits in each field. Figures 2 and 3 appear to be the only indication of the size of the fields they illustrate. Consider adding the lengths to the field definitions.

In Section 7.1, consider shifting from "Only Main Packets MAY" to "Packets other than Main Packets MUST NOT" or similar.

In Section 8.3, should "some of DWT stage" be "some DWT stages" to match the figure's title text?

In Section 9.2, does the prohibition of ';' in absolute-URIs need to reference any method of percent-encoding or is the authority minting these URIs able to guarantee that character's exclusion from all possible values?

I'm confused why Section 9 isn't simply in Section 11, but there may be precedent here.

In Section 9.2, should the change controller be the IETF, rather than a particular working group?

In Section 11, please include a link to the registry to which this media type should be added.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for the work on these documents. Please find below some comments to help improve/clarify:

1) I concur with Gunter on his concerns with the use of the "Note:" in several places in the document. From my layperson's reading, some of them seem to be reminders (to existing specs/behaviors), some an observation, some indicate a consequence of certain choice/action, etc. My concern is that all of these get swept under "Note:" and will likely miss conveying the true meaning to a reader. I would much rather that the authors/WG choose the right words to convey the desired meaning of all those inline "notes" - they occur far more frequently than "usual".

2) This is a note to the AD (Gorry) - I am wondering why IANA or people on the media type mailing lists have not responded to registration of the new type as requested by the WG? This is what the shepherd write-up says ...

3) The IANA Considerations section is not very precise in stating the exact registry (not sure if this is the usual practice in this WG/area): i.e. the "video" type under the IANA Media Types registry. Further, I wonder if section 9 should not be a sub-section of the IANA considerations section itself. And, this document should be making an explicit request for allocation since this hasn't yet been serviced by IANA.

4) Please add note to RFC editor to remove Appendix D before publication as an RFC

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06.txt

# The technology detailed in this specification is far from my own technological comfort zone. Hence, please consider my comments as observations from network generalist perspective.

# One thing that stood out to me while reading the draft, I noticed quite a few "NOTE: explanation" inserts (I counted 15). While there's nothing technically wrong with using them, it did feel a bit unusual. It made me wonder if some of those notes could be integrated more smoothly into the main flow of the text instead of standing out as side comments or exceptions. Maybe there are other constructs that could help maintain the narrative a bit more naturally?

# Now, about the abstract of the document:

13   This RTP payload format defines the streaming of a video signal
14   encoded as a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams.  The format allows
15   sub-codestream latency, such that the first RTP packet for a given
16   codestream can be emitted before the entire codestream is available.

GV> When I read this, it felt like the message was meant to be clear and concise, but I still found myself a bit unsure about what exactly is being communicated. Isn't "live streaming" inherently about processing data as it comes in? So what does it mean here that "the first RTP packet can be emitted before the entire codestream is available"? I suspect that there's some important background or context here, and I did eventually find that in Section 3, but maybe a quick hint or clarifying line in the abstract would help readers like me who are not as deep in this domain.

# Thanks for all the work on this, it's a very interesting draft!

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde,
Routing AD

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Reese Enghardt for the GENART review.

** Section 1
  These
  features have made it a mainstay in high-performance applications,
  including medical geo-spatial, archival, cinema, studio post-
  production and TV production.

What is a “medical geo-spatial” application, or is there a missing comma (i.e., “medical, geospatial”)

** Section 5.3 and 5.4.  Consider explicitly stating the size of the fields in the narrative text below Figures 2 and 3.

** Section 5.3
  C (Code-block Caching Usage)
      0
        Code-block caching is not in use.

      1
        Code-block caching is in use.

        R MUST be equal to 1.

Is the “R MUST be equal to 1”, referencing the “R flag” for “Codestream Main Header Reuse”?  If so, why is this normative guidance part of the guidance for the “C flag”?

** Section 5.4
  RES (Resolution Levels)
      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.
…
  QUAL (Quality Layers)
      0
        The payload can contribute to all quality layers.

      Otherwise
        The payload contributes only to quality layer index QUAL or
        above.

I am assuming that “Otherwise” is a synonym for a value of 1 for the RES and QUAL fields since these are one-bit fields.  However, please say that explicitly.

** Section 7.3
  A sender can improve bandwidth efficiency by only occasionally
  transmitting code-blocks corresponding to static portions of the
  video and otherwise transmitting empty code-blocks.

What kind of guidance or constraints does “only occasionally” place on how often code-blocks are transmitted?  This seems like a subjective definition.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Pierre-Anthony Lemieux and David,

Thanks for the effort put into this specification.

Please find below some very few comments:

# Protect network from overload/congestion control

CURRENT:
      This contrasts with [RFC5371], which also specifies
      an RTP payload format for JPEG 2000, but relies on codestream
      structures that cannot be emitted until the entire codestream is
      available.

I also see that 5371 has a dedicated section on congestion control section, but not this spec. Are there considerations that we need to mention to avoid from overloading networks?

# Network agent

CURRENT:
  Finally, the payload format also makes use of the unique scalability
  features of JPEG 2000 to allow a network agent or recipient to

…

  A network agent MAY strip out RTP Packet from a codestream that are
  of no interest to a particular client, e.g., based on a resolution or
  a spatial region of interest.

What is a network agent in this context?

# Reserved values & Future Specifications

CURRENT:
  Future edition of this specification can specify other values such
  that these values can be ignored by receivers that conform to this
  specification.

## What is meant by “other values”? Do we mean that we can assign values than zeros for the RSVD field?

## If it is envisioned to assign values in the future, then more accurate to rename this field top Unassigned. FWIW, RFC8126 has the following:

      Unassigned:  Not currently assigned, and available for assignment
            via documented procedures.  While it's generally clear that
            any values that are not registered are unassigned and
            available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to
            explicitly specify that situation.  Note that this is
            distinctly different from "Reserved".

      Reserved:  Not assigned and not available for assignment.
            Reserved values are held for special uses, such as to extend
            the namespace when it becomes exhausted.  "Reserved" is also
            sometimes used to designate values that had been assigned
            but are no longer in use, keeping them set aside as long as
            other unassigned values are available.  Note that this is
            distinctly different from "Unassigned".

## Couldn’t these values be defined outside a bis (i.e., “Future edition of this specification”)? If so, please reword accordingly.

# Media type

I would move Section 9 to be listed under IANA considerations.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stephan Wenger for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

Punctuation probably needs to be checked in `medical geo-spatial, archival, cinema, studio post-production and TV production`.

Please add expansion for acronyms in `JPEG 2000 PLM and PLT`.

### Section 3

Nice tutorial, thanks. It would benefit of expansion for SOC/SOT/EOC though, i.e., before figure 1.

About PRCL, the acronym does not reflect the order of the points above it.

### Section 5.1

What are the values for the Padding bytes ? Please specify a value with a MUST.

### Section 5.2

Probably due to my lack of expertise in RTP, but isn't the definition of sequence number recursive `ESEQ * 65536 + sequence number` or is 'sequence number' in the formula not the 'RTP sequence number'? Then, let's be specific.

### Section 7.2

Where is 'network agent' defined in `A network agent MAY strip out RTP Packet` ?

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file format ;-)

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-06
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S1

* "codec that support resolution" ->
  "codec that supports resolution"

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

A single media type is to be registered in the video namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

as follows:

Name: jpeg2000-scl
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-04-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl@ietf.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, stewe@stewe.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 streaming) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'RTP Payload
Format for sub-codestream latency JPEG 2000 streaming'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-04-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This RTP payload format defines the streaming of a video signal
  encoded as a sequence of JPEG 2000 codestreams.  The format allows
  sub-codestream latency, such that the first RTP packet for a given
  codestream can be emitted before the entire codestream is available.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Thank you for submitting this well-written I-D for the JPEG 2000 image codec as draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-j2k-scl-04, this email contains my AD review.

I think this draft is technically good, but I do have a few questions/comments:

1. It would seem useful to provide at least one reference for the initial mention to “JPEG 2000 codestreams” perhaps this reference could be: [jpeg2000-1] or something other?

2. To help the reader, I suggest it would be helpful for the Introduction to also mention, and then cite [RFC3550]. It would be OK to also cite the RTP profiles here, such as [RFC3551], [RFC4585], [RFC3711], [RFC5124].

3, I wonder whether /is/ actually was intended to be /if/  in: /MUST be 0 is the codestream consists of more than one tile /

4. Please explain the impact of not following the recommendation in:
/Such a network agent SHOULD include a CSRC identifier to identify the SSRC field of the original source from
which content was stripped./ - please could you add a short sentence explaining what happens if this is not included?

5. I don’t understand the use of the “SHOULD” RFC 2119 requirement expressed in:
/The counter is sampled at the point when each RTP Packet is or SHOULD be at least notionally transmitted and the 12 LSBs of the sample are stored in the PTSTAMP field./
- Please could you clarify this text, is this perhaps “should” in lower case?

I hope this review is helpful. Please reply to these comments and questions, replies from others in the WG are also welcome.

I expect this will then require a new revision of the draft, before we proceed to IETF review. I will put this in the substate of "revised ID needed".

Best wishes,
Gorry Fairhurst
(as responsible WIT AD)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document was initially submitted in September 2023. It was revised a few times based on feedback received. Within the WG, the document was driven by a few individuals with indication of support from several others on the mailing list, including:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3MqgtbTZ0UyetwDRXbNVv1uZVEE/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XTWN9lnTIjyTjAPuzncacN6P2QA/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/YLomFkWsItV5eWYFxg2hJ1QHCa8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/0O67w7qPt71llIIFkCGBkV3eKqQ/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/6QDBymvd08UAEzhm-Ix77MWs36U/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Xdu7Re-2IO1jf1vQau0jMqWVRkg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XoT5fqj0NkXZtut-iTNI5ozMr5Q/

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
No significant controversy arose.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)
No extreme discontent was expressed.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
The protocol is implemented in the Kakadu Software SDK (https://kakadusoftware.com/) and the OpenJPH open-source library (https://github.com/aous72/OpenJPH). Osamu Watanabe (Takushoku University) and Shigetaka Ogawa (ICT Link) are developing another implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
The contents of the document are a straightforward application of the RTP transport protocol (RFC 3550), which is maintained by the AVT Core WG, to the JPEG 2000 image codec, which is maintained by ISO, IEC and ITU.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The jpeg2000-scl RTP Payload Format Media Type defined in Section 9 will be submitted for registration with IANA in accordance with RFC 4855.  The shepherd reviewed the proposed registration and believed it follows the newest template and is complete and reasonable.  A review request was sent to the media-types list on 2/19/25, with reminders sent on 2/28/25 and 3/13/25.  As of 3/17/25, no replies have been forthcoming.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?


The document does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document contains only one trivial ANBF definition, which was checked using
the ABNF Tools provided at IETF Author Tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes. The existence of multiple implementations both reduces the risk of egregious errors and suggests community interest.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
The lists were reviewed. No issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. The document defines the streaming of a video signal and is intended to be implemented by a diversity of senders and receivers. Interoperability between an arbitrary sender and receiver require both to strongly agree on syntax, semantics and operations.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
A call for BCP79 compliance and authorship willingness was made on 12/9/2024: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/uz1cZfsI1trYM-H7RPlSyJj0cGw/
Both authors responded positively:
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux responded positively on 12/11/2024: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/KAb9DGM4JUQSn5gEwGRRu6kNUgs/
David Taubman also responded positively the call, but for reasons unknown his response doens’t show up in the mailing list archives.  The document shepherd forwarded one of his emails to the reflector on 1/18/2025: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/1WXK1-36sMxfeLwsIJPTuCjQi3M/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Each author has indicated their willingness to be listed as an author.  See Q.12 for links.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No nits are outstanding.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
At least one version of all normative references is available freely.  (JPEG 2000 is available from ISO for a fee, but technically identical text is available from the ITU free of charge.)

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The document contains RTP payload format media type registration request.  The shepherd reviewed the proposed registration and believes it follows the newest template and is complete and reasonable.  A review request was sent to the media-types list on 2/19/25, with reminders sent on 2/28/25 and 3/13/25.  As of 3/17/25, no replies have been forthcoming.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document was initially submitted in September 2023. It was revised a few times based on feedback received. Within the WG, the document was driven by a few individuals with indication of support from several others on the mailing list, including:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3MqgtbTZ0UyetwDRXbNVv1uZVEE/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XTWN9lnTIjyTjAPuzncacN6P2QA/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/YLomFkWsItV5eWYFxg2hJ1QHCa8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/0O67w7qPt71llIIFkCGBkV3eKqQ/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/6QDBymvd08UAEzhm-Ix77MWs36U/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Xdu7Re-2IO1jf1vQau0jMqWVRkg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/XoT5fqj0NkXZtut-iTNI5ozMr5Q/

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
No significant controversy arose.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)
No extreme discontent was expressed.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
The protocol is implemented in the Kakadu Software SDK (https://kakadusoftware.com/) and the OpenJPH open-source library (https://github.com/aous72/OpenJPH). Osamu Watanabe (Takushoku University) and Shigetaka Ogawa (ICT Link) are developing another implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
The contents of the document are a straightforward application of the RTP transport protocol (RFC 3550), which is maintained by the AVT Core WG, to the JPEG 2000 image codec, which is maintained by ISO, IEC and ITU.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The jpeg2000-scl RTP Payload Format Media Type defined in Section 9 will be submitted for registration with IANA in accordance with RFC 4855.  The shepherd reviewed the proposed registration and believed it follows the newest template and is complete and reasonable.  A review request was sent to the media-types list on 2/19/25, with reminders sent on 2/28/25 and 3/13/25.  As of 3/17/25, no replies have been forthcoming.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?


The document does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document contains only one trivial ANBF definition, which was checked using
the ABNF Tools provided at IETF Author Tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes. The existence of multiple implementations both reduces the risk of egregious errors and suggests community interest.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
The lists were reviewed. No issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. The document defines the streaming of a video signal and is intended to be implemented by a diversity of senders and receivers. Interoperability between an arbitrary sender and receiver require both to strongly agree on syntax, semantics and operations.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
A call for BCP79 compliance and authorship willingness was made on 12/9/2024: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/uz1cZfsI1trYM-H7RPlSyJj0cGw/
Both authors responded positively:
Pierre-Anthony Lemieux responded positively on 12/11/2024: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/KAb9DGM4JUQSn5gEwGRRu6kNUgs/
David Taubman also responded positively the call, but for reasons unknown his response doens’t show up in the mailing list archives.  The document shepherd forwarded one of his emails to the reflector on 1/18/2025: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/1WXK1-36sMxfeLwsIJPTuCjQi3M/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Each author has indicated their willingness to be listed as an author.  See Q.12 for links.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No nits are outstanding.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
At least one version of all normative references is available freely.  (JPEG 2000 is available from ISO for a fee, but technically identical text is available from the ITU free of charge.)

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
The document contains RTP payload format media type registration request.  The shepherd reviewed the proposed registration and believes it follows the newest template and is complete and reasonable.  A review request was sent to the media-types list on 2/19/25, with reminders sent on 2/28/25 and 3/13/25.  As of 3/17/25, no replies have been forthcoming.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/