Subject: [Cellar] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:58:22 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission WG of the IETF.

        Title           : FF Video Codec 1
        Authors         : Michael Niedermayer
                          Dave Rice
                          Jerome Martinez
	Filename        : draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-01.txt
	Pages           : 40
	Date            : 2018-01-26

Abstract:
   This document defines FFV1, a lossless intra-frame video encoding
   format.  FFV1 is designed to efficiently compress video data in a
   variety of pixel formats.  Compared to uncompressed video, FFV1
   offers storage compression, frame fixity, and self-description, which
   makes FFV1 useful as a preservation or intermediate video format.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

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

---

From: Reto Kromer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 09:44:06 +0100

[email-masked] wrote:

>This draft is a work item of the Codec Encoding for LossLess
>Archiving and Realtime transmission WG of the IETF.
>
>        Title           : FF Video Codec 1

Thank you for publishing this!

Could the next version possibly have a better presentation? In
the plain text parts, end of lines like:

  and "plane_pixel_height[ 1 + (
  chroma_planes ? 2 : 0 ) ]"

or:

  value is "ceil(slice_pixel_width / (1 <<
  log2_h_chroma_subsample))"

would be much easier to read when written as:

  and "plane_pixel_height[ 1
  + ( chroma_planes ? 2 : 0 ) ]"

or:

  value is "ceil(slice_pixel_width
  / (1 << log2_h_chroma_subsample))"

Thank you for consideration!