Conversation
bsriramprasad
changed the title
| <para>IETF RFC 8285, A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions</para> | ||
| <para role="reference"><<link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8285.txt"></link>></para> | ||
| <para>AV1 Bitstream and Decoding Process Specification</para> | ||
| <para role="reference"><<link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-spec/"></link>></para> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This link goes to a WIP document. You get the following notice:
"Notice
This is an internal AOMedia working document and not an approved version of the AV1 specification. The approved AV1 bitstream specification can be found here: https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-spec/av1-spec.pdf"
Probably better to point to the explicit pdf.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason we were referring to the 'home' link instead of specific document is, we don't want to keep maintaining the versions on our end.
| </entry> | ||
| </row> | ||
| <row> | ||
| <entry valign="middle">OBU</entry> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need to define OBU? We have not defined NAL. If you have to explicitly state OBU somewhere you then have to explicitly state NAL for the same reason.
So for consistency you should either add and update the spec with NALs, or remove this.
Looking at this PR, I'd say you can remove it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have added this because I referred this in the text, if we can avoid reference in text this can be removed.
| <para>In addition it is recommended to support the PLI messages as described in [RFC 4585] in order to allow receivers as defined in the ONVIF Receiver Service Specification to request a Synchronization Point. </para> | ||
| <para>For H.264 and H.265 Video the SPS/PPS header shall be sent in-band if these have been changed during the transmission.</para> | ||
| <para>For AV1 video, the device shall generate a Key Frame in response to a synchronization | ||
| point request. If the Sequence Header OBU changes during transmission, it shall be sent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can remove "OBU". It is implicit when you mention AV1, just like we don't write "SPS/PPS NAL" for H.26x in the paragraph above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have any objection to remove it.
| @@ -876,6 +893,9 @@ | |||
| <para>The WebService based methods require to support the Synchronization Point request as defined in the section “Synchronization Point” of the ONVIF Media Service Specification. </para> | |||
| <para>In addition it is recommended to support the PLI messages as described in [RFC 4585] in order to allow receivers as defined in the ONVIF Receiver Service Specification to request a Synchronization Point. </para> | |||
| <para>For H.264 and H.265 Video the SPS/PPS header shall be sent in-band if these have been changed during the transmission.</para> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out-of-scope, but why is not VPS for H.265 mentioned? Can't that be changed during transmission?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can add VPS as part of this edit to keep it consistent?
4 participants
This is PR is a feature proposal to add ONVIF configuration and streaming support for AV1 encoded video.
Introduction
Changes description