RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-18

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and Stephan Wenger for prompt action to make the ISO specification available to us.

I have removed the discuss as the main reason for the discuss was resolved.

I however have one major issue which I think need to be addressed.

* Section 4.1 : the assertion here is that the jpeg xs produces constant bitrate. However, now I know that this codec can operate on both constant and variable bitrate mode. This section should clarify that when VBR mode is used the RTP payload format still holds or not. Also it might be helpful to discuss the two mode of operations somewhere in the introduction and state if the focus is only on constant bitrate mode with reasoning. The will level out the scope of the payload definition and also the impact on section 6.


And more comments:

* I can agree with Martin Duke's comment that the polymorphic use of "end-to-end latency" need to be explained a bit.

* Section 3:  having the statement that we are describing some terminologies or naming for this specification like it section 4 does, would help the reader to understand the context a bit more.

* Section 3.3: I would suggest to add reference to Ppih and Plev at the first use of them.

* Section 4.3: says --

    "If codestream packetization mode is
      used, L bit and M bit are equivalent."
 
  does this mean it is enough to set the M bit only in the codestream packetization mode?

* Section 4.3: says --
    "In the case of codestream packetization mode (K=0), this
        counter resets whenever the Packet counter resets (see
        hereunder)"

  hereunder? can we give more specific reference instead?

* Section 6: Usually when RTP is used congestion control and corresponding required rate control is done by the RTP applications. The use of RTP AVPF profile is the recommended profile to be used for real-time communication when efficient rate control (nope not the video encoder rate control :-)) is needed. Hence, I think we should recommend that use of AVPF profile here and also refer to RFC8888. The inclusion of circuit breaker makes lot of sense here.
I also got to know that jpeg xs is designed to be used in a controller network environment. Hence, there should be a warning about use of this in a best effort Internet prior to the requirement on packetloss observation. If there is any acceptable parameter defined somewhere for packet loss then that also should be referenced here.

[Ballot discuss]
This memo is defining a RTP payload for JPEG XS that is not publicly available. This hampers the review of the memo, specially when it is defining terminologies which ask me to look at the specifications.

This concerns has also been raised by other ADs.

Was this document made available during the work in the working group?

[Ballot discuss]
This memo is defining a RTP payload for JPEG XS that is not publicly available. This hampers the review of the memo, specially when it is defining terminologies which ask me to look a the specifications.

This concerns has also been raised by other ADs.

Was this document made available during the work in the working group?

[Ballot discuss]
This memo is defining a RTP payload for JPEG XS that is not publicly available. This hampers the review of the memo, specially when it is defining terminologies which ask me to look a the specifications.

This concerns has also been raised by other ADs.

was this document made available during the work in the working group?

[Ballot comment]
I'll echo the sentiment of other reviewers that the scope of review
possible is limited witout access to the underlying ISO specification.
I further note that in the recent case of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-vp9/ (for which the
underlying specification is freely available), there was an error in
replicating the chroma subsampling details from the underlying reference
to the internet-draft.  Any such errors are undetectable for this draft.

Section 4.3

Does the value of the T and K bits need to be identical for all packets
of a given RTP stream?

Section 4.4

It's perhaps needlessly confusing to have the human-readable slice
labels in Figures 8 and 9 start at 1 but the SEP counter start at 0.

nit: if SLH is an acronym it should be expanded somewhere (it only
appears in the figures, at present).

In the slice packetization modes, do we have reasonable guarantees that
the JPEG XS header (including all markers and marker segments) will fit
into a single RTP packet?

Section 7.1

  Applications that use this media type:
      For example: SMPTE ST 2110, Video over IP, Video conferencing,
      Broadcast applications.

I think bland declarative statements like "applications that transmit
video over RTP" tend to be more common than longer "for example"
listings, in this type of registration.

Section 8

nit: s/SPD/SDP in the section heading.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document. I have some non-blocking comments and observations.

Francesca

1. -----

  A JPEG XS codestream header, starting with an SOC marker, followed by
  one or more slices, and terminated by an EOC marker form a JPEG XS
  codestream.

FP: I understand from the terminology what this is meant to specify, however how this is expressed makes it slightly confusing: it is not clear that the subject of "followed" is "A JPEG XS codestream header" and not "an SOC marker".

2. -----

FP: I agree with John that without access to ISO21122-{1,2,3}, it's not possible to do a complete review; in particular the media type registration contains parameters that are inherited by the ISO standards, with normative text that I cannot review. Like John, I trust the responsible AD on that the doc has had sufficient reviews in the WG, from people with access to the ISO specifications.

3. -----

FP: I couldn't find that the Media type registration has been posted to the media-type mailing list, was that done? This was also highlighted in the shepherd write up, which I found helpful, so thank you Bernard.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks, I found this spec very readable -- modulo the fact that I have no expertise in the subject area! Below are some questions and comments I hope may be useful.

I'm concerned that since the underlying ISO21122-{1,2,3} normative references are not readily available, it's not possible to do a complete review. I take it on faith that the document has received review within the WG by subject matter experts who are conversant with, and have access to, the relevant ISO specifications.

1. Section 4.1

      In the case of an interlaced frame, the
      JPEG XS header segment of the second field SHALL be in its own
      packetization unit.

I’m confused why the second field even needs its own header segment, considering you earlier told us (§3.4) that

  Both picture segments SHALL contain identical
  boxes (i.e. concatenation of the video support box and the colour
  specification box is byte exact the same for both picture segments of
  the frame).

Surely this means the VS and CS boxes could have been elided from the second field? (Probably they’re left in for uniformity, but I thought it worth asking.)


2. Section 4.1

  Due to the constant bit-rate of JPEG XS, the codestream packetization
  mode guarantees that a JPEG XS RTP stream will produce a constant
  number of bytes per frame, and a constant number of RTP packets per
  frame.  To reach the same guarantee with the slice packetization
  mode, an additional mechanism is required.  This can involve a
  constraint at the rate allocation stage in the JPEG XS encoder to
  impose a constant bit-rate at the slice level, the usage of padding
  data, or the insertion of empty RTP packets (i.e. a RTP packet whose
  payload data is empty).

The “… additional mechanism is required” text is ambiguous. Does this mean to say that an implementation MUST use an (implementation-specific!) method, that makes its output CBR? That’s insinuated by the use of the word “required”. Or, does it mean that if an implementation wishes to render a CBR stream instead of a VBR one, it will need to adopt one of these strategies? Assuming your intent is the latter, I think the text should be clarified, for example

OLD
  To reach the same guarantee with the slice packetization
  mode, an additional mechanism is required.

NEW
  If an implementation wishes to provide the same guarantee
  with the slice packetization mode, it will need to use an
  additional mechanism.


3. Section 4.3

      In the case that the Transmission mode
      (T) is set to 0, the slice packetization mode SHALL be used and K
      SHALL be set to 1.

Presumably the reason for this is evident to someone conversant with JPEG XS?


4. Section 7.1

        level:  The JPEG XS level [ISO21122-2] in use.  Any white space in
        the level name SHALL be omitted.  Examples of valid levels
        names are '2k-1' or '4k-2'.

Nit: s/levels/level/ (alternately, delete “names”).

      width:  Determines the number of pixels per line.  This is an
        integer between 1 and 32767.

      height:  Determines the number of lines per frame.  This is an
        integer between 1 and 32767.

It would be less ambiguous to say “between 1 and 32767 inclusive”.

[Ballot comment]
In the abstract and intro, it promises "end-to-end latency confined to a fraction of a frame".

I am not sure what to make of this guarantee. Latency is a measure of time and a frame is measured in ... bytes?

Moreover, end-to-end latency is mostly a property of the path, and not something an encoding format can promise.

[Ballot comment]
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 2. , paragraph 8, nit:
> nit is the first (resp. last) byte of a RTP packet payload (excluding its pay
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour". (Also elsewhere in the document.)

Section 2. , paragraph 17, nit:
> ferent slices can be decoded independently from each other. Note, however, t
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independently of"?

[Ballot comment]
** Section 4.1. Typo. s/preceeded/preceded/

** Section 10.  . Thanks for mentioning the possibility of a denial of service due computational complexity.  Please considering adding a comment about processing untrusted input (similar to the language in other RTP payload drafts like: draft-ietf-payload-vp9 and draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1).  Roughly:

OLD
  This payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do not exhibit any
  substantial non-uniformity, ...

NEW

Implementations of this RTP payload format need to take appropriate security considerations into account.  It is important for the decoder to be robust against malicious or malformed payloads and ensure that they do not cause the decoder to overrun its allocated memory or otherwise misbehave.  An overrun in allocated memory could lead to arbitrary code execution by an attacker.  The same applies to the encoder, even though problems in encoders are typically rarer.

This payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do not exhibit any substantial non-uniformity, ...

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the video namespace of the Media Type registry located at:

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

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

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

Second, in the RTP Payload Format Media Types registry on the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Media Type: video
Subtype: jxsv
Clock Rate (Hz):
Channels (audio):
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> Should there be an entry for the Clock Rate for this new registration?

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions 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 list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-05-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Ali Begen , avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)) 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 ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)'
  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 2021-05-17. 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 document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs/



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

Request for Publication
May 3, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two WGLCs. The first garnered no responses.
Once additional individuals indicated a willingness to review it, a second WGLC was scheduled, which did get
responses (all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP, subsequently addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/
* intoPIX: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray S. Kutcherawy.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

SDP Directorate review might be helpful.  It also could potentially benefit from review by the Transport Directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/
C. Damman (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/
A. Descampe (UCL): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/
T. Richter (IIS): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/
T. Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in implementing the JPEG XS RTP Payload.
Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP Payload appears to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-12.txt:

- The draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs state file.


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 7.1) which will require review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 7.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

No YANG modules.

Request for Publication
May 2, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two WGLCs. The first garnered no responses.
Once additional individuals indicated a willingness to review it, a second WGLC was scheduled, which did get
responses (all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP, subsequently addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/
* intoPIX: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

SDP Directorate review might be helpful.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/
C. Damman (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/
A. Descampe (UCL): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/
T. Richter (IIS): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/
T. Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in implementing the JPEG XS RTP Payload.
Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP Payload appears to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05


tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11.txt:


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 6.1).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 6.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

No YANG modules.

Request for Publication
May 2, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two WGLCs. The first garnered no responses.
Once additional individuals indicated a willingness to review it, a second WGLC was scheduled, which did get
responses (all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP, subsequently addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/
* intoPIX: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

SDP Directorate review might be helpful.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/
C. Damman (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/
A. Descampe (UCL): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/
T. Richter (IIS): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/
T. Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in implementing the JPEG XS RTP Payload.
Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP Payload appears to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05


tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-11.txt:


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 6.1).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 6.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

No YANG modules.

Draft Request for Publication
April 26, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba
WG: AVTCORE

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The JPEG XS Payload draft was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.

Working Group Summary:

The JPEG-XS RTP Payload format document was originally a work item of the PAYLOAD WG (now merged with AVTCORE).

Within AVTCORE WG, the JPEG-XS RTP Payload format has been through two WGLCs. The first garnered no responses.
Once additional individuals indicated a willingness to review it, a second WGLC was scheduled, which did get
responses (all positive) and some comments (mostly relating to SDP, subsequently addressed by the authors).

Document Quality:

The JPEG XS RTP payload format has been implemented by:

* Fraunhofer IIS: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/j9nC4kB9fygACp2sgG0oQfKcGr8/
* intoPIX: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/aN48eHsxU0GgAv1XG0NOKavvQMc/
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/AyDY95l2AAUbQun_hmdPlbyebao/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No additional reviews appear to be needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The authors have provided acknowledgement of BCP 78/79 compliance:

S. Lugan (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/w4w7DVPkOx5B9fw8RHfzcZOhEZk/
C. Damman (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Cl-Xl5vmIbyu8xpLQRgObLIkV0M/
A. Descampe (UCL): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mzJXlbr2KIHAYy0E1LTWKkJeryY/
T. Richter (IIS): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/nqHbHc2SJgfbZN-H79xTu-Jr4Ic/
T. Bruylants (intoPIX): Ack: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/7l4uzwD30UsAY7U77G-EwmSid7E/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG has multiple participants who have been involved in the development of the JPEG XS RTP Payload.
Given this experience, WG understanding of the JPEG XS RTP Payload appears to be good.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).
   
    Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:
   
    As per specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 4175 [RFC4175], the
    RTP timestamp designates the sampling instant of the first octet of the
    frame to which the RTP packet belongs.  Packets SHALL not include data
    from multiple frames, and all packets belonging to the same frame SHALL
    have the same timestamp.  Several successive RTP packets will
    consequently have equal timestamps if they belong to the same frame (that
    is until the marker bit is set to 1, marking the last packet of the
    frame), and the timestamp is only increased when a new frame begins.

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).
   
    Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:
   
    The payload data of a JPEG XS RTP stream consists of a
    concatenation of multiple JPEG XS frames.  Within the RTP stream, all of
    the video support boxes and all of the colour specification boxes SHALL
    retain their respective layouts for each JPEG XS frame.  Thus, each video
    support box in the RTP stream SHALL define the same sub boxes.  The
    effective values in the boxes are allowed to change under the condition
    that their relative byte offsets SHALL not change.

  -- The document date (March 8, 2021) is 49 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 1253
    '[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-10'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-21'


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 6.1).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is an obsolete normative reference to RFC 4566.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

The following non-RFC references have been identified as possible downreferences:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-10'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-21'

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No changes to the status of existing RFCs.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The Media Type Definition (Section 6.1) will require review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

No YANG modules.

Authors need to submit a -10 addressing the IDNIts identified in the draft:

idnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).
   
    Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:
   
    As per specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 4175 [RFC4175], the
    RTP timestamp designates the sampling instant of the first octet of the
    frame to which the RTP packet belongs.  Packets SHALL not include data
    from multiple frames, and all packets belonging to the same frame SHALL
    have the same timestamp.  Several successive RTP packets will
    consequently have equal timestamps if they belong to the same frame (that
    is until the marker bit is set to 1, marking the last packet of the
    frame), and the timestamp is only increased when a new frame begins.

  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
    or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please
    use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
    mean).
   
    Found 'SHALL not' in this paragraph:
   
    The payload data of a JPEG XS RTP stream consists of a
    concatenation of multiple JPEG XS frames.  Within the RTP stream, all of
    the video support boxes and all of the colour specification boxes SHALL
    retain their respective layouts for each JPEG XS frame.  Thus, each video
    support box in the RTP stream SHALL define the same sub boxes.  The
    effective values in the boxes are allowed to change under the condition
    that their relative byte offsets SHALL not change.

  -- The document date (March 8, 2021) is 49 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 1253
    '[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-1'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-2'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO21122-3'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-10'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SMPTE-ST2110-21'


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--).

avtcore                                                        S. Lugan
Internet-Draft                                                  intoPIX
Intended status: Standards Track                            A. Descampe
Expires: September 9, 2021                                          UCL
                                                              C. Damman
                                                                intoPIX
                                                              T. Richter
                                                                    IIS
                                                            T. Bruylants
                                                                intoPIX
                                                          March 8, 2021


            RTP Payload Format for ISO/IEC 21122 (JPEG XS)
                    draft-ietf-payload-rtp-jpegxs-09

Abstract

  This document specifies a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format to be used for transporting JPEG XS (ISO/IEC 21122) encoded
  video.  JPEG XS is a low-latency, lightweight image coding system.
  Compared to an uncompressed video use case, it allows higher
  resolutions and frame rates, while offering visually lossless
  quality, reduced power consumption, and end-to-end latency confined
  to a fraction of a frame.

Status of This Memo

  This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
  provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
  Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
  working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
  Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

  Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
  and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
  time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
  material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

  This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2021.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
  document authors.  All rights reserved.




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 1]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
  Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
  (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
  publication of this document.  Please review these documents
  carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
  to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
  include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
  the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
  described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
  2.  Conventions, Definitions, and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . .  3
  3.  Media Format Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    3.1.  Image Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    3.2.  Codestream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    3.3.  Video support box and colour specification box  . . . . .  5
    3.4.  JPEG XS Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
  4.  RTP Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    4.1.  RTP packetization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    4.2.  RTP Header Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
    4.3.  Payload Header Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
    4.4.  Payload Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    4.5.  Traffic Shaping and Delivery Timing . . . . . . . . . . .  17
  5.  Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
  6.  Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    6.1.  Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
    6.2.  Mapping to SDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
      6.2.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
      6.2.2.  Media type and subtype  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
      6.2.3.  Traffic shaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
      6.2.4.  Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
  7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
  8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
  9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
  10. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
  11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
    11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
    11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
    11.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
  Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

  This document specifies a payload format for packetization of JPEG XS
  [ISO21122-1] encoded video signals into the Real-time Transport
  Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550].



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 2]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  The JPEG XS coding system offers compression and recompression of
  image sequences with very moderate computational resources while
  remaining robust under multiple compression and decompression cycles
  and mixing of content sources, e.g. embedding of subtitles, overlays
  or logos.  Typical target compression ratios ensuring visually
  lossless quality are in the range of 2:1 to 10:1, depending on the
  nature of the source material.  The end-to-end latency can be
  confined to a fraction of a frame, typically between a small number
  of lines down to below a single line.

2.  Conventions, Definitions, and Abbreviations

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

  Application Data Unit (ADU)
      The unit of source data provided as payload to the transport
      layer, and corresponding, in this RTP payload definition, to a
      single JPEG XS frame.

  Colour specification box (CS box)
      A ISO colour specification box defined in ISO/IEC 21122-3
      [ISO21122-3] that includes colour-related metadata required to
      correctly display JPEG XS frames, such as colour primaries,
      transfer characteristics and matrix coefficients.

  EOC marker
      A marker that consists of the two bytes 0xff11 indicating the end
      of a JPEG XS codestream.

  JPEG XS codestream
      A sequence of bytes representing a compressed image formatted
      according to JPEG XS Part-1 [ISO21122-1].

  JPEG XS codestream header
      A sequence of bytes, starting with a SOC marker, at the beginning
      of each JPEG XS codestream encoded in multiple markers and marker
      segments that does not carry entropy coded data, but metadata such
      as the frame dimension and component precision.

  JPEG XS frame
      A JPEG XS picture segment in the case of a progressive frame, or,
      in the case of an interlaced frame, the concatenation of two JPEG
      XS picture segments.

  JPEG XS header segment




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 3]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      The concatenation of a video support box, as defined in ISO/IEC
      21122-3 [ISO21122-3], a colour specification box, as defined in
      ISO/IEC 21122-3 as well [ISO21122-3] and a JPEG XS codestream
      header.

  JPEG XS picture segment
      The concatenation of a video support box, as defined in ISO/IEC
      21122-3 [ISO21122-3], a colour specification box, as defined in
      ISO/IEC 21122-3 as well [ISO21122-3] and a JPEG XS codestream.

  JPEG XS stream
      A sequence of JPEG XS frames.

  Marker
      A two-byte functional sequence that is part of a JPEG XS
      codestream starting with a 0xff byte and a subsequent byte
      defining its function.

  Marker segment
      A marker along with a 16-bit marker size and payload data
      following the size.

  Packetization unit
      A portion of an Application Data Unit whose boundaries coincide
      with boundaries of RTP packet payloads (excluding payload header),
      i.e. the first (resp. last) byte of a packetization unit is the
      first (resp. last) byte of a RTP packet payload (excluding its
      payload header).

  Slice
      The smallest independently decodable unit of a JPEG XS codestream,
      bearing in mind that it decodes to wavelet coefficients which
      still require inverse wavelet filtering to give an image.

  SOC marker
      A marker that consists of the two bytes 0xff10 indicating the
      start of a JPEG XS codestream.

  Video support box (VS box)
      A ISO video support box defined in ISO/IEC 21122-3 [ISO21122-3]
      that includes metadata required to play back a JPEG XS stream,
      such as its maximum bitrate, its subsampling structure, its buffer
      model and its frame rate.








Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 4]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


3.  Media Format Description

3.1.  Image Data Structures

  JPEG XS is a low-latency lightweight image coding system for coding
  continuous-tone grayscale or continuous-tone colour digital images.

  This coding system provides an efficient representation of image
  signals through the mathematical tool of wavelet analysis.  The
  wavelet filter process separates each component into multiple bands,
  where each band consists of multiple coefficients describing the
  image signal of a given component within a frequency domain specific
  to the wavelet filter type, i.e. the particular filter corresponding
  to the band.

  Wavelet coefficients are grouped into precincts, where each precinct
  includes all coefficients over all bands that contribute to a spatial
  region of the image.

  One or multiple precincts are furthermore combined into slices
  consisting of an integer number of precincts.  Precincts do not cross
  slice boundaries, and wavelet coefficients in precincts that are part
  of different slices can be decoded independently from each other.
  Note, however, that the wavelet transformation runs across slice
  boundaries.  A slice always extends over the full width of the image,
  but may only cover parts of its height.

3.2.  Codestream

  A JPEG XS codestream header, followed by several slices, and
  terminated by an EOC marker form a JPEG XS codestream.

  The overall codestream format, including the definition of all
  markers, is further defined in ISO/IEC 21122-1 [ISO21122-1].  It
  represents sample values of a single image, bare any interpretation
  relative to a colour space.

3.3.  Video support box and colour specification box

  While the information defined in the codestream is sufficient to
  reconstruct the sample values of one image, the interpretation of the
  samples remains undefined by the codestream itself.  This
  interpretation is given by the video support box and the colour
  specification box which contain significant information to correctly
  play the JPEG XS stream.  The layout and syntax of these boxes,
  together with their content, are defined in ISO/IEC 21122-3
  [ISO21122-3].  The video support box provides information on the
  maximum bitrate, the frame rate, the frame mode (progressive or



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 5]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  interlaced), the subsampling image format, the timecode of the
  current JPEG XS frame, the profile, level and sublevel used (as
  defined in ISO/IEC 21122-2 [ISO21122-2]), and optionally on the
  buffer model and the mastering display metadata.  The colour
  specification box indicates the colour primaries, transfer
  characteristics, matrix coefficients and video full range flag needed
  to specify the colour space of the video stream.

3.4.  JPEG XS Frame

  The concatenation of a video support box, a colour specification box,
  and a JPEG XS codestream forms a JPEG XS picture segment.

  In the case of a progressive video stream, each JPEG XS frame
  consists of one single JPEG XS picture segment.

  In the case of an interlaced video stream, each JPEG XS frame is made
  of two concatenated JPEG XS picture segments.  The codestream of each
  picture segment corresponds exclusively to one of the two fields of
  the interlaced frame.  Both picture segments SHALL contain identical
  boxes (i.e. concatenation of the video support box and the colour
  specification box is byte exact the same for both picture segments of
  the frame).

  Note that the interlaced mode as signaled by the frat field in the
  video support box indicates either progressive, interlaced top-field
  first, or interlaced bottom-field first mode.  Thus, its value too
  SHALL be identical in both picture segments.

4.  RTP Payload Format

  This section specifies the payload format for JPEG XS streams over
  the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550].

  In order to be transported over RTP, each JPEG XS stream is
  transported in a distinct RTP stream, identified by a distinct SSRC.

  A JPEG XS stream is divided into Application Data Units (ADUs), each
  ADU corresponding to a single JPEG XS frame.

4.1.  RTP packetization

  An ADU is made of several packetization units.  If a packetization
  unit is bigger than the maximum size of a RTP packet payload, the
  unit is split into multiple RTP packet payloads, as illustrated in
  Figure 1.  As seen there, each packet SHALL contain (part of) one and
  only one packetization unit.  A packetization unit may extend over
  multiple packets.  The payload of every packet SHALL have the same



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 6]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  size (based e.g. on the Maximum Transfer Unit of the network), except
  (possibly) the last packet of a packetization unit.  The boundaries
  of a packetization unit SHALL coincide with the boundaries of the
  payload of a packet (excluding the payload header), i.e. the first
  (resp. last) byte of the packetization unit SHALL be the first (resp.
  last) byte of the payload (excluding its header).

  RTP        +-----+------------------------+
  Packet #1  | Hdr | Packetization unit #1  |
              +-----+------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------+
  Packet #2  | Hdr | Packetization unit #2                |
              +-----+--------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #3  | Hdr | Packetization unit #3  (part 1/3)                |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #4  | Hdr | Packetization unit #3  (part 2/3)                |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+----------------------------------------------+
  Packet #5  | Hdr | Packetization unit #3  (part 3/3)            |
              +-----+----------------------------------------------+
                ...
  RTP        +-----+-----------------------------------------+
  Packet #P  | Hdr | Packetization unit #N  (part q/q)      |
              +-----+-----------------------------------------+

                  Figure 1: Example of ADU packetization

  There are two different packetization modes defined for this RTP
  payload format.

  1.  Codestream packetization mode: in this mode, the packetization
      unit SHALL be the entire JPEG XS picture segment (i.e. codestream
      preceeded by boxes).  This means that a progressive frame will
      have a single packetization unit, while an interlaced frame will
      have two.  The progressive case is illustrated in Figure 2.

  2.  Slice packetization mode: in this mode, the packetization unit
      SHALL be the slice, i.e. there SHALL be data from no more than
      one slice per RTP packet.  The first packetization unit SHALL be
      made of the JPEG XS header segment (i.e. the concatenation of the
      VS box, the CS box and the JPEG XS codestream header).  This
      first unit is then followed by successive units, each containing
      one and only one slice.  The packetization unit containing the
      last slice of a JPEG XS codestream SHALL also contain the EOC
      marker immediately following this last slice.  This is
      illustrated in Figure 3.  In the case of an interlaced frame, the



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 7]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      JPEG XS header segment of the second field SHALL be in its own
      packetization unit.

  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #1  | Hdr | VS box + CS box + JPEG XS codestream (part 1/q)  |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #2  | Hdr | JPEG XS codestream (part 2/q)                    |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
                ...
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------+
  Packet #P  | Hdr | JPEG XS codestream (part q/q)        |
              +-----+--------------------------------------+

            Figure 2: Example of codestream packetization mode

  RTP        +-----+----------------------------+
  Packet #1  | Hdr | JPEG XS header segment    |
              +-----+----------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #2  | Hdr | Slice #1  (part 1/2)                            |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+-------------------------------------------+
  Packet #3  | Hdr | Slice #1  (part 2/2)                      |
              +-----+-------------------------------------------+
  RTP        +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
  Packet #4  | Hdr | Slice #2  (part 1/3)                            |
              +-----+--------------------------------------------------+
                ...
  RTP        +-----+---------------------------------------+
  Packet #P  | Hdr | Slice #N  (part q/q) + EOC marker    |
              +-----+---------------------------------------+

              Figure 3: Example of slice packetization mode

  Due to the constant bit-rate of JPEG XS, the codestream packetization
  mode guarantees that a JPEG XS RTP stream will produce a constant
  number of bytes per frame, and a constant number of RTP packets per
  frame.  To reach the same guarantee with the slice packetization
  mode, an additional mechanism is required.  This can involve a
  constraint at the rate allocation stage in the JPEG XS encoder to
  impose a constant bit-rate at the slice level, the usage of padding
  data, or the insertion of empty RTP packets (i.e. a RTP packet whose
  payload data is empty).







Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 8]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


4.2.  RTP Header Usage

  The format of the RTP header is specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and
  reprinted in Figure 4 for convenience.  This RTP payload format uses
  the fields of the header in a manner consistent with that
  specification.

  The RTP payload (and the settings for some RTP header bits) for
  packetization units are specified in Section 4.3.

      0                  1                  2                  3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | V |P|X|  CC  |M|    PT      |      sequence number        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          timestamp                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |            contributing source (CSRC) identifiers            |
      |                            ....                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 4: RTP header according to RFC 3550

  The version (V), padding (P), extension (X), CSRC count (CC),
  sequence number, synchronization source (SSRC) and contributing
  source (CSRC) fields follow their respective definitions in RFC 3550
  [RFC3550].

  The remaining RTP header information to be set according to this RTP
  payload format is set as follows:

  Marker (M) [1 bit]:

      If progressive scan video is being transmitted, the marker bit
      denotes the end of a video frame.  If interlaced video is being
      transmitted, it denotes the end of the field.  The marker bit
      SHALL be set to 1 for the last packet of the video frame/field.
      It SHALL be set to 0 for all other packets.

  Payload Type (PT) [7 bits]:

      A dynamically allocated payload type field that designates the
      payload as JPEG XS video.

  Timestamp [32 bits]:




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 9]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      The RTP timestamp is set to the sampling timestamp of the content.
      A 90 kHz clock rate SHALL be used.

      As per specified in RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 4175 [RFC4175], the
      RTP timestamp designates the sampling instant of the first octet
      of the frame to which the RTP packet belongs.  Packets SHALL not
      include data from multiple frames, and all packets belonging to
      the same frame SHALL have the same timestamp.  Several successive
      RTP packets will consequently have equal timestamps if they belong
      to the same frame (that is until the marker bit is set to 1,
      marking the last packet of the frame), and the timestamp is only
      increased when a new frame begins.

      If the sampling instant does not correspond to an integer value of
      the clock, the value SHALL be truncated to the next lowest
      integer, with no ambiguity.

4.3.  Payload Header Usage

  The first four bytes of the payload of an RTP packet in this RTP
  payload format are referred to as the payload header.  Figure 5
  illustrates the structure of this payload header.

      0                  1                  2                  3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |T|K|L| I |F counter|    SEP counter    |    P counter      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 5: Payload header

  The payload header consists of the following fields:

  Transmission mode (T) [1 bit]:

      The T bit is set to indicate that packets are sent sequentially by
      the transmitter.  This information allows a receiver to dimension
      its input buffer(s) accordingly.  If T=0, nothing can be assumed
      about the transmission order and packets may be sent out-of-order
      by the transmitter.  If T=1, packets SHALL be sent sequentially by
      the transmitter.

  pacKetization mode (K) [1 bit]:

      The K bit is set to indicate which packetization mode is used.
      K=0 indicates codestream packetization mode, while K=1 indicates
      slice packetization mode.  In the case that the Transmission mode




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 10]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      (T) is set to 0, the slice packetization mode SHALL be used and K
      SHALL be set to 1.

  Last (L) [1 bit]:

      The L bit is set to indicate the last packet of a packetization
      unit.  As the end of the frame also ends the packet containing the
      last unit of the frame, the L bit is set whenever the M bit is
      set.  If codestream packetization mode is used, L bit and M bit
      are equivalent.

  Interlaced information (I) [2 bit]:

      These 2 bits are used to indicate how the JPEG XS frame is scanned
      (progressive or interlaced).  In case of an interlaced frame, they
      also indicate which JPEG XS picture segment the payload is part of
      (first or second).

      00:  The payload is progressively scanned.

      01:  Reserved for future use.

      10:  The payload is part of the first JPEG XS picture segment of
        an interlaced video frame.  The height specified in the
        included JPEG XS codestream header is half of the height of the
        entire displayed image.

      11:  The payload is part of the second JPEG XS picture segment of
        an interlaced video frame.  The height specified in the
        included JPEG XS codestream header is half of the height of the
        entire displayed image.

  F counter [5 bits]:

      The frame (F) counter identifies the frame number modulo 32 to
      which a packet belongs.  Frame numbers are incremented by 1 for
      each frame transmitted.  The frame number, in addition to the
      timestamp, may help the decoder manage its input buffer and bring
      packets back into their natural order.

  SEP counter [11 bits]:

      The Slice and Extended Packet (SEP) counter is used differently
      depending on the packetization mode.

      *  In the case of codestream packetization mode (K=0), this
        counter resets whenever the Packet counter resets (see




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 11]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


        hereunder), and increments by 1 whenever the Packet counter
        overruns.

      *  In the case of slice packetization mode (K=1), this counter
        identifies the slice modulo 2047 to which the packet
        contributes.  If the data belongs to the JPEG XS header
        segment, this field SHALL have its maximal value, namely 2047 =
        0x07ff.  Otherwise, it is the slice index modulo 2047.  Slice
        indices are counted from 0 (corresponding to the top of the
        frame).

  P counter [11 bits]:

      The packet (P) counter identifies the packet number modulo 2048
      within the current packetization unit.  It is set to 0 at the
      start of the packetization unit and incremented by 1 for every
      subsequent packet (if any) belonging to the same unit.
      Practically, if codestream packetization mode is enabled, this
      field counts the packets within a JPEG XS picture segment and is
      extended by the SEP counter when it overruns.  If slice
      packetization mode is enabled, this field counts the packets
      within a slice or within the JPEG XS header segment.

4.4.  Payload Data

  The payload data of a JPEG XS RTP stream consists of a concatenation
  of multiple JPEG XS frames.  Within the RTP stream, all of the video
  support boxes and all of the colour specification boxes SHALL retain
  their respective layouts for each JPEG XS frame.  Thus, each video
  support box in the RTP stream SHALL define the same sub boxes.  The
  effective values in the boxes are allowed to change under the
  condition that their relative byte offsets SHALL not change.

  Each JPEG XS frame is the concatenation of one or more packetization
  unit(s), as explained in Section 4.1.  Figure 6 depicts this layout
  for a progressive frame in the codestream packetization mode,
  Figure 7 depicts this layout for an interlaced frame in the
  codestream packetization mode, Figure 8 depicts this layout for a
  progressive frame in the slice packetization mode and Figure 9
  depicts this layout for an interlaced frame in the slice
  packetization mode.  The Frame counter value is not indicated because
  the value is constant for all packetization units of a given frame.









Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 12]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  +=====[ Packetization unit (PU) #1 ]====+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  P counter=0
  |  :      Sub boxes of the VS box    :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |      Colour specification box        |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :    Fields of the CS box        :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |          JPEG XS codestream          |
  :            (part 1/q)                :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  |          JPEG XS codestream          |  SEP counter=0
  |            (part 2/q)                |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  |          JPEG XS codestream          |  SEP counter=0
  |            (part 3/q)                |  P counter=2
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |          JPEG XS codestream          |  SEP counter=1
  |            (part 2049/q)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |          JPEG XS codestream          |  SEP counter=(q-1) div 2048
  |            (part q/q)                |  P counter=(q-1) mod 2048
  :                                      :  M=1, K=0, L=1, I=00
  +=======================================+

    Figure 6: Example of JPEG XS Payload Data (codestream packetization
                        mode, progressive frame)














Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 13]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  +=====[ Packetization unit (PU) #1 ]====+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+  P counter=0
  |      Colour specification box        |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (1st field)    |
  :            (part 1/q)                :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (1st field)    |  SEP counter=0
  |            (part 2/q)                |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (1st field)    |  SEP counter=1
  |            (part 2049/q)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (1st field)    |  SEP counter=(q-1) div 2048
  |            (part q/q)                |  P counter=(q-1) mod 2048
  :                                      :  M=1, K=0, L=1, I=10
  +===============[ PU #2 ]===============+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+  P counter=0
  |      Colour specification box        |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (2nd field)    |
  |            (part 1/q)                |
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=11
  +---------------------------------------+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (2nd field)    |  SEP counter=0
  |            (part 2/q)                |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, K=0, L=0, I=11
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |    JPEG XS codestream (2nd field)    |  SEP counter=(q-1) div 2048
  |            (part q/q)                |  P counter=(q-1) mod 2048
  :                                      :  M=1, K=0, L=1, I=11
  +=======================================+

    Figure 7: Example of JPEG XS Payload Data (codestream packetization
                          mode, interlaced frame)






Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 14]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  +===[ PU #1: JPEG XS Header segment ]===+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0x07FF
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+  P counter=0
  |      Colour specification box        |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |      JPEG XS codestream header        |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :  Markers and marker segments    :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=00
  +==========[ PU #2: Slice #1 ]==========+
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  SEP counter=0
  |  |          SLH Marker            |  |  P counter=0
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :      Entropy Coded Data        :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=00
  +==========[ PU #3: Slice #2 ]==========+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part 1/q)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part 2/q)              |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part q/q)              |  P counter=q-1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=00
  +=======================================+
  :                                      :
  +========[ PU #N: Slice #(N-1) ]========+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |              (part 1/r)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=00
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |              (part r/r)              |  P counter=r-1
  :            + EOC marker              :  M=1, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=00
  +=======================================+

  Figure 8: Example of JPEG XS Payload Data (slice packetization mode,
                            progressive frame)






Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 15]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  +====[ PU #1: JPEG XS Hdr segment 1 ]===+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0x07FF
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+  P counter=0
  |      Colour specification box        |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |      JPEG XS codestream header 1      |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :  Markers and marker segments  :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=10
  +====[ PU #2: Slice #1 (1st field) ]====+
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  SEP counter=0
  |  |          SLH Marker            |  |  P counter=0
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :      Entropy Coded Data        :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=10
  +====[ PU #3: Slice #2 (1st field) ]====+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |            (part 1/q)                |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |            (part 2/q)                |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |            (part q/q)                |  P counter=q-1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=10
  +=======================================+
  :                                      :
  +==[ PU #N: Slice #(N-1) (1st field) ]==+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |            (part 1/r)                |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=10
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |            (part r/r)                |  P counter=r-1
  :            + EOC marker              :  M=1, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=10
  +=======================================+
  +===[ PU #N+1: JPEG XS Hdr segment 2 ]==+
  |          Video support box          |  SEP counter=0x07FF
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+  P counter=0
  |      Colour specification box        |
  +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
  |      JPEG XS codestream header 2    |



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 16]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :  Markers and marker segments    :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=11
  +===[ PU #N+2: Slice #1 (2nd field) ]===+
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  SEP counter=0
  |  |          SLH Marker            |  |  P counter=0
  |  +---------------------------------+  |
  |  :      Entropy Coded Data        :  |
  |  +---------------------------------+  |  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=11
  +===[ PU #N+3: Slice #2 (2nd field) ]===+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part 1/s)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=11
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part 2/s)              |  P counter=1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=11
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |              Slice #2                |  SEP counter=1
  |              (part s/s)              |  P counter=s-1
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=11
  +=======================================+
  :                                      :
  +==[ PU #2N: Slice #(N-1) (2nd field) ]=+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |              (part 1/t)              |  P counter=0
  :                                      :  M=0, T=0, K=1, L=0, I=11
  +---------------------------------------+
  :                                      :
  +---------------------------------------+
  |            Slice #(N-1)              |  SEP counter=N-2
  |              (part t/t)              |  P counter=t-1
  :            + EOC marker              :  M=1, T=0, K=1, L=1, I=11
  +=======================================+

  Figure 9: Example of JPEG XS Payload Data (slice packetization mode,
                            interlaced frame)

4.5.  Traffic Shaping and Delivery Timing

  The traffic shaping and delivery timing SHALL be in accordance with
  the Network Compatibility Model compliance definitions specified in
  SMPTE ST 2110-21 [SMPTE-ST2110-21] for either Narrow Linear Senders
  (Type NL) or Wide Senders (Type W).  The session description SHALL
  include a format-specific parameter of either TP=2110TPNL or




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 17]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  TP=2110TPW to indicate compliance with Type NL or Type W
  respectively.

  NOTE: The Virtual Receiver Buffer Model compliance definitions of ST
  2110-21 do not apply.

5.  Congestion Control Considerations

  Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RFC 3550
  [RFC3550], and with any applicable RTP profile: e.g., RFC 3551
  [RFC3551].  An additional requirement if best-effort service is being
  used is users of this payload format SHALL monitor packet loss to
  ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters.
  Circuit Breakers [RFC8083] is an update to RTP [RFC3550] that defines
  criteria for when one is required to stop sending RTP Packet Streams
  and applications implementing this standard SHALL comply with it.
  RFC 8085 [RFC8085] provides additional information on the best
  practices for applying congestion control to UDP streams.

6.  Payload Format Parameters

6.1.  Media Type Definition

  Type name:  video

  Subtype name:  jxsv

  Required parameters:

      rate:  The RTP timestamp clock rate.  Applications using this
        payload format SHALL use a value of 90000.

      transmode:  This parameter specifies the configured transmission
        mode as defined by the Transmission mode (T) bit in the payload
        header of Section 4.3.  This value SHALL be equal to the T bit
        value configured in the RTP stream (i.e. 0 for out-of-order-
        allowed or 1 for sequential).

  Optional parameters:

      packetmode:  This parameter specifies the configured packetization
        mode as defined by the pacKetization mode (K) bit in the
        payload header of Section 4.3.  If specified, this value SHALL
        be equal to the K bit value configured in the RTP stream (i.e.
        0 for codestream or 1 for slice).

      profile:  The JPEG XS profile in use, as defined in ISO/IEC
        21122-2 (JPEG XS Part 2) [ISO21122-2].  Any white space in the



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 18]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


        profile name SHALL be replaced by a dash (-).  Examples are
        'Main-444.12' or 'High-444.12'.

      level:  The JPEG XS level in use, as defined in ISO/IEC 21122-2
        (JPEG XS Part 2) [ISO21122-2].  Any white space in the level
        name SHALL be replaced by a dash (-).  Examples are '2k-1' or
        '4k-2'.

      sublevel:  The JPEG XS sublevel in use, as defined in ISO/IEC
        21122-2 (JPEG XS Part 2) [ISO21122-2].  Any white space in the
        sublevel name SHALL be replaced by a dash (-).  Examples are
        'Sublev3bpp' or 'Sublev6bpp'.

      depth:  Determines the number of bits per sample.  This is an
        integer with typical values including 8, 10, 12, and 16.

      width:  Determines the number of pixels per line.  This is an
        integer between 1 and 32767.

      height:  Determines the number of lines per frame.  This is an
        integer between 1 and 32767.

      exactframerate:  Signals the frame rate in frames per second.
        Integer frame rates SHALL be signaled as a single decimal
        number (e.g. "25") whilst non-integer frame rates SHALL be
        signaled as a ratio of two integer decimal numbers separated by
        a "forward-slash" character (e.g. "30000/1001"), utilizing the
        numerically smallest numerator value possible.

      interlace:  If this parameter name is present, it indicates that
        the video is interlaced, or that the video is Progressive
        segmented Frame (PsF).  If this parameter name is not present,
        the progressive video format SHALL be assumed.

      segmented:  If this parameter name is present, and the interlace
        parameter name is also present, then the video is a Progressive
        segmented Frame (PsF).  Signaling of this parameter without the
        interlace parameter is forbidden.

      sampling:  Signals the colour difference signal sub-sampling
        structure.

        Signals utilizing the non-constant luminance Y'C'B C'R signal
        format of Recommendation ITU-R BT.601-7, Recommendation ITU-R
        BT.709-6, Recommendation ITU-R BT.2020-2, or Recommendation
        ITU-R BT.2100 SHALL use the appropriate one of the following
        values for the Media Type Parameter "sampling":




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 19]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


            YCbCr-4:4:4    (4:4:4 sampling)
            YCbCr-4:2:2    (4:2:2 sampling)
            YCbCr-4:2:0    (4:2:0 sampling)

        Signals utilizing the Constant Luminance Y'C C'BC C'RC signal
        format of Recommendation ITU-R BT.2020-2 SHALL use the
        appropriate one of the following values for the Media Type
        Parameter "sampling":

            CLYCbCr-4:4:4  (4:4:4 sampling)
            CLYCbCr-4:2:2  (4:2:2 sampling)
            CLYCbCr-4:2:0  (4:2:0 sampling)

        Signals utilizing the constant intensity I CT CP signal format
        of Recommendation ITU-R BT.2100 SHALL use the appropriate one
        of the following values for the Media Type Parameter
        "sampling":

            ICtCp-4:4:4    (4:4:4 sampling)
            ICtCp-4:2:2    (4:2:2 sampling)
            ICtCp-4:2:0    (4:2:0 sampling)

        Signals utilizing the 4:4:4 R' G' B' or RGB signal format (such
        as that of Recommendation ITU-R BT.601, Recommendation ITU-R
        BT.709, Recommendation ITU-R BT.2020, Recommendation ITU-R
        BT.2100, SMPTE ST 2065-1 or ST 2065-3) SHALL use the following
        value for the Media Type Parameter sampling.

            RGB            (RGB or R' G' B' samples)

        Signals utilizing the 4:4:4 X' Y' Z' signal format (such as
        defined in SMPTE ST 428-1) SHALL use the following value for
        the Media Type Parameter sampling.

            XYZ            (X' Y' Z' samples)

        Key signals as defined in SMPTE RP 157 SHALL use the value key
        for the Media Type Parameter sampling.  The Key signal is
        represented as a single component.

            KEY            (Samples of the key signal)

        Signals utilizing a colour sub-sampling other than what is
        defined here SHALL use the following value for the Media Type
        Parameter sampling.

            UNSPECIFIED    (Sampling signaled by the payload.)




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 20]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      colorimetry:  Specifies the system colorimetry used by the image
        samples.  Valid values and their specification are:

            BT601-5      ITU-R Recommendation BT.601-5.
            BT709-2      ITU-R Recommendation BT.709-2.
            SMPTE240M    SMPTE ST 240M.
            BT601        ITU-R Recommendation BT.601-7.
            BT709        ITU-R Recommendation BT.709-6.
            BT2020      ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020-2.
            BT2100      ITU-R Recommendation BT.2100
                        Table 2 titled "System colorimetry".
            ST2065-1    SMPTE ST 2065-1 Academy Color Encoding
                        Specification (ACES).
            ST2065-3    SMPTE ST 2065-3 Academy Density Exchange
                        Encoding (ADX).
            XYZ          ISO/IEC 11664-1, section titled
                        "1931 Observer".
            UNSPECIFIED  Colorimetry is signaled in the payload by
                        the Color Specification Box of ISO/IEC
                        21122-3, or it must be manually coordinated
                        between sender and receiver.

        Signals utilizing the Recommendation ITU-R BT.2100 colorimetry
        SHOULD also signal the representational range using the
        optional parameter RANGE defined below.  Signals utilizing the
        UNSPECIFIED colorimetry might require manual coordination
        between the sender and the receiver.

      TCS:  Transfer Characteristic System.  This parameter specifies
        the transfer characteristic system of the image samples.  Valid
        values and their specification are:

            SDR          Standard Dynamic Range video streams that
                        utilize the OETF of ITU-R Recommendation
                        BT.709 or ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020. Such
                        streams SHALL be assumed to target the EOTF
                        specified in ITU-R Recommendation BT.1886.
            PQ          High dynamic range video streams that utilize
                        the Perceptual Quantization system of ITU-R
                        Recommendation BT.2100.
            HLG          High dynamic range video streams that utilize
                        the Hybrid Log-Gamma system of ITU-R
                        Recommendation BT.2100.
            UNSPECIFIED  Video streams whose transfer characteristics
                        are signaled by the payload as specified in
                        ISO/IEC 21122-3, or must be manually
                        coordinated between sender and receiver.




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 21]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


      RANGE:  This parameter SHOULD be used to signal the encoding range
        of the sample values within the stream.  When paired with ITU
        Rec BT.2100 colorimetry, this parameter has two allowed values
        NARROW and FULL, corresponding to the ranges specified in table
        9 of ITU Rec BT.2100.  In any other context, this parameter has
        three allowed values: NARROW, FULLPROTECT, and FULL, which
        correspond to the ranges specified in SMPTE RP 2077.  In the
        absence of this parameter, and for all but the UNSPECIFIED
        colometries, NARROW SHALL be the assumed value.  When paired
        with the UNSPECIFIED colometry, FULL SHALL be the default
        assumed value.

  Encoding considerations:

      This media type is framed and binary; see Section 4.8 in RFC 6838
      [RFC6838].

  Security considerations:

      Please see the Security Considerations section in RFC XXXX

6.2.  Mapping to SDP

6.2.1.  General

  A Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] media description
  SHALL be created for each RTP stream and it SHALL be in accordance
  with the provisions of SMPTE ST 2110-10 [SMPTE-ST2110-10].

  The information carried in the media type specification has a
  specific mapping to the SDP fields, used to describe RTP sessions.
  This information is redundant with the information found in the
  payload data (namely, in the JPEG XS header segment) and SHALL be
  consistent with it.  In case of discrepancy between parameters values
  found in the payload data and in the SDP fields, the values from the
  payload data SHALL prevail.

6.2.2.  Media type and subtype

  The media type ("video") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

  The media subtype ("jxsv") goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding
  name, followed by a slash ("/") and the required parameter "rate"
  corresponding to the RTP timestamp clock rate (which for the payload
  format defined in this document SHALL be 90000).  The required
  parameter "transmode" and the additional optional parameters go in
  the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them directly from the MIME




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 22]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  media type string as a semicolon-separated list of parameter=value
  pairs.

  A sample SDP mapping for JPEG XS video is as follows:

      m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 112
      a=rtpmap:112 jxsv/90000
      a=fmtp:112 transmode=1;sampling=YCbCr-4:2:2;width=1920;
                height=1080;depth=10;colorimetry=BT709;TCS=SDR;
                RANGE=FULL;TP=2110TPNL

  In this example, a JPEG XS RTP stream is being sent to UDP
  destination port 30000, with an RTP dynamic payload type of 112 and a
  media clock rate of 90000 Hz.  Note that the "a=fmtp:" line has been
  wrapped to fit this page, and will be a single long line in the SDP
  file.

6.2.3.  Traffic shaping

  The SDP media description SHALL include the TP parameter (either
  2110TPNL or 2110TPW as specified in Section 4.5) and may include the
  CMAX parameter as specified in SMPTE ST 2110-21 [SMPTE-ST2110-21].

6.2.4.  Offer/Answer Considerations

  When XS is offered using An Offer/Answer Model with Session
  Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC3264] for negotiation for unicast
  usage, the following limitations and rules apply:

  All parameters are declarative, i.e. apply only to media sent by the
  entity that generated the SDP RFC 4568 [RFC4568].  Thus, a
  declarative parameter in an offer applies to media sent by the
  offeror, whereas a declarative parameter in an answer applies to
  media sent by the answerer.  All parameters must be supported by both
  sides, i.e. the answerer SHALL either maintain all parameters or
  remove the media format (payload type) completely if one or more of
  the parameter values are not supported.

7.  IANA Considerations

  This memo requests that IANA registers video/jxsv as specified in
  Section 6.1.  The media type is also requested to be added to the
  IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format MIME types" [1].








Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 23]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


8.  Security Considerations

  RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
  are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
  specification [RFC3550] and in any applicable RTP profile such as
  RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/
  SAVPF [RFC5124].  This implies that confidentiality of the media
  streams is achieved by encryption.

  However, as "Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a
  Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202] discusses, it is not an RTP
  payload format's responsibility to discuss or mandate what solutions
  are used to meet the basic security goals like confidentiality,
  integrity, and source authenticity for RTP in general.  This
  responsibility lies on anyone using RTP in an application.  They can
  find guidance on available security mechanisms and important
  considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions" [RFC7201].
  Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong security
  mechanisms.

  This payload format and the JPEG XS encoding do not exhibit any
  substantial non-uniformity, either in output or in complexity to
  perform the decoding operation and thus are unlikely to pose a
  denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological
  datagrams.

  It is important to note that HD or UHDTV JPEG XS-encoded video can
  have significant bandwidth requirements (typically more than 1 Gbps
  for ultra high-definition video, especially if using high framerate).
  This is sufficient to cause potential for denial-of-service if
  transmitted onto most currently available Internet paths.

  Accordingly, if best-effort service is being used, users of this
  payload format SHALL monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet
  loss rate is within acceptable parameters.  Packet loss is considered
  acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path, and
  experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an average
  throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than
  the RTP flow is achieving.  This condition can be satisfied by
  implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission
  rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast
  session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the
  loss rate is unacceptably high.

  This payload format may also be used in networks that provide
  quality-of-service guarantees.  If enhanced service is being used,
  receivers SHOULD monitor packet loss to ensure that the service that
  was requested is actually being delivered.  If it is not, then they



Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 24]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  SHOULD assume that they are receiving best-effort service and behave
  accordingly.

9.  Acknowledgments

  The authors would like to thank the following people for their
  valuable contributions to this specification: Arnaud Germain,
  Alexandre Willeme, Gael Rouvroy, and Jean-Baptise Lorent.

10.  RFC Editor Considerations

  Note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed after carrying out
  all the instructions of this section.

  RFC XXXX is to be replaced by the RFC number this specification
  receives when published.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

  [ISO21122-1]
              International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -
              International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
              "Information technology - JPEG XS low-latency lightweight
              image coding system - Part 1: Core coding system", ISO/
              IEC IS 21122-1, 2019,
              .

  [ISO21122-2]
              International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -
              International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
              "Information technology - JPEG XS low-latency lightweight
              image coding system - Part 2: Profiles and buffer models",
              ISO/IEC IS 21122-2, 2019,
              .

  [ISO21122-3]
              International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -
              International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
              "Information technology - JPEG XS low-latency lightweight
              image coding system - Part 3: Transport and container
              formats", ISO/IEC IS 21122-3, 2019,
              .







Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 25]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              .

  [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
              .

  [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, .

  [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
              .

  [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
              .

  [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, .

  [RFC4568]  Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing, "Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media
              Streams", RFC 4568, DOI 10.17487/RFC4568, July 2006,
              .

  [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              .

  [RFC8083]  Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
              Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
              .

  [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, .




Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 26]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  [SMPTE-ST2110-10]
              Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, "SMPTE
              Standard - Professional Media Over Managed IP Networks:
              System Timing and Definitions", SMPTE ST 2110-10:2017,
              2017, .

  [SMPTE-ST2110-21]
              Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, "SMPTE
              Standard - Professional Media Over Managed IP Networks:
              Traffic Shaping and Delivery Timing for Video", SMPTE ST
              2110-21:2017, 2017,
              .

11.2.  Informative References

  [RFC4175]  Gharai, L. and C. Perkins, "RTP Payload Format for
              Uncompressed Video", RFC 4175, DOI 10.17487/RFC4175,
              September 2005, .

  [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
              .

  [RFC5124]  Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
              Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
              (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
              2008, .

  [RFC7201]  Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
              Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
              .

  [RFC7202]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
              Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
              Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April
              2014, .

11.3.  URIs

  [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters

Authors' Addresses







Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 27]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  Sebastien Lugan
  intoPIX S.A.
  Rue Emile Francqui, 9
  1435 Mont-Saint-Guibert
  Belgium

  Phone: +32 10 23 84 70
  Email: rtp@intopix.com
  URI:  https://www.intopix.com/


  Antonin Descampe
  Universite catholique de Louvain
  Place du Levant, 3 - bte L5.03.02
  1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
  Belgium

  Phone: +32 10 47 25 97
  Email: antonin.descampe@uclouvain.be
  URI:  https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/icteam


  Corentin Damman
  intoPIX S.A.
  Rue Emile Francqui, 9
  1435 Mont-Saint-Guibert
  Belgium

  Phone: +32 10 23 84 70
  Email: c.damman@intopix.com
  URI:  https://www.intopix.com/


  Thomas Richter
  Fraunhofer IIS
  Am Wolfsmantel 33
  91048 Erlangen
  Germany

  Phone: +49 9131 776 5126
  Email: thomas.richter@iis.fraunhofer.de
  URI:  https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/









Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 28]
?
Internet-Draft      RTP Payload Format for JPEG XS          March 2021


  Tim Bruylants
  intoPIX S.A.
  Rue Emile Francqui, 9
  1435 Mont-Saint-Guibert
  Belgium

  Phone: +32 10 23 84 70
  Email: t.bruylants@intopix.com
  URI:  https://www.intopix.com/










































Lugan, et al.          Expires September 9, 2021              [Page 29]