Subject: [payload] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:01:46 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work on this document.

Given that the underlying format doesn't appear to be resilient to loss, I'm a
little surprised to see no discussion of FEC; and, in particular, no treatment
of the allocation of unequal error protection to the various packet types. For
example, it sounds like the transform parameters packet is significantly more
important than, e.g., a picture fragment that contains slices. I suspect there
is a general prioritization among the various types that would useful to call
out for implementors.