Subject: [payload] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 06:34:33 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-10: 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-ancillary/

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

I'd like to begin by noting that I know basically nothing about SMPTE or ST 291
or Ancillary Data. I opened the document thinking that this was going to be
either impenetrable, a huge waste of my time, or both...

I was very pleasantly surprised by how clear, accessible and interesting the
document is -- it clearly describes the use case / problem, provides just
enough background to make understanding the discussion (relatively) easy, and
documents the solution / protocol in a clear and concise manner.

I'm not really qualified to evaluate if this is the best way to implement / if
it has hidden landmines (see first sentence!), but I'd like to thank the author
and WG for producing a document which was a pleasure to read.

I'd also like to draw your attention to Nevil's OpsDir review, which contains
some good questions, and some nits:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-06-opsdir-lc-brownlee-2016-11-03/