Subject: Re: [payload] FW: WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis-00 - askin for reviews!!!!

From: Kazuhiro Mishima <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:01:33 +0900

Glen, Carsten and all,

Thank you for comments.
Now, I submitted the new version of draft which is revised by comments.

Thanks,
Kazuhiro

2011/5/30 Katsushi Kobayashi <[email-masked]>:
> Glen,
>
> Thank you for your clarification. We will update our draft.
>
> On 2011/05/29, at 12:12, Glen Zorn wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2011 8:50 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should reword table head to
>>>
>>> Increase of 90kHz timestamp per DV frame
>>
>> Sorry, I guess that my comments may have lacked clarity: what I'm saying
>> is that it would be much clearer if the text and table heading matched:
>> either change "nominal interval for one DV frame time" to "increase of
>> the 90kHz timestamp per DV frame" or vice versa.  Basically, I want to
>> be able to think less about a table than the surrounding text, but in
>> this case I had to think more about it.
>
> ----
> Katsushi Kobayashi
>
>

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:13:23 +0700

On 6/8/2011 11:26 PM, Kazuhiro Mishima wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> thank you for your comments!
> 
> I've just updated our draft.
> If there no problem, I'll submit (and update) this latest draft.

I note that the table in Section 2.2 has not been updated as a result of
my previous comments.  Just as well, I suppose, since the more I look at
the table & preceding paragraph the less sense it makes (& not just
because of the gratuitous & confusing use of synonymous phrases).  For
example, why say "90 kHz timestamp"?  What relevance does this have to
the actual contents of the header, which appears to be incremented in a
fixed fashion?  The mention of the clock/timer frequency seems to only
be relevant for playback, but this is AFAICT never mentioned in the
draft.  "32-bit 90 kHz timestamp representing the time at which the
first data in the frame was sampled."  With reference to what?  The
beginning of the transmission?  The epoch?  The beginning of the
universe?  This would be useful information, as opposed to "a multiple
of the nominal interval for one DV frame time" in which the term
"multiple" adds no value whatsoever and the phrase "the nominal interval
for one DV frame time" appears to be present only to force the reader to
translate it to "Frame Rate".  Finally, as specified the "timestamp"
isn't, but appears to be much more akin to a time code.

...