RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt
"Anders Klemets" <Anders.Klemets@microsoft.com> Thu, 05 January 2006 21:04 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EucHl-0004Aj-8K; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:04:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EucHj-0004Ac-N8 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:04:35 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15107 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:03:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EucNT-0003uC-4V for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:10:32 -0500
Received: from mailout2.microsoft.com ([157.54.1.120]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:04:24 -0800
Received: from red-hub-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.3.6]) by mailout2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:04:23 -0800
Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.169]) by red-hub-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:04:23 -0800
Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.88]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:04:22 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:04:22 -0800
Message-ID: <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D0DC9B72A@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt
thread-index: AcYQeJR5MQzvtNKHSBmETxv6bFX7FwBh7UswAApnw1A=
From: Anders Klemets <Anders.Klemets@microsoft.com>
To: miska.hannuksela@nokia.com, avt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2006 21:04:22.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A6A3560:01C6123B]
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Miska, > T1. > Comment: The very first frame of a stream is naturally a non-B frame. > The draft lacks a rule how the decode time of the very first frame SHALL > be set. It can be set as if the stream has gone on forever. This is suggested by Figure 1. Figure 1 shows frame I0 appearing at time 2 in the coded order. So, the decode time could be 2 and that is equal to the presentation time of a hypothetical previous frame I(-1). I have verified with my colleagues that it is also acceptable to make the decode time of the very first frame equal to its presentation time. It would probably be good to have a sentence that explains how to handle the case of the first frame. I prefer the second option (DT=PT) as it is easiest to implement and describe. > T2. > Comment: As far as we can see, the only use for decode time is specified > in the Hypothetical Reference Decoder section of the VC-1 spec. HRD is > something that decoders need not implement. Moreover, as specified in > section 4.3, the decode time is something that can be derived from > presentation times. But some decoders may have implemented the HRD. They also can't compute the decode time in the case the previous RTP packet was lost. These reasons alone should be a good enough. Furthermore, some decoders may prefer to use the DT to determine buffer occupancy levels and for pacing of packets prior to decoding. Also, because the DT for reference frames are a function of the PT of the previous reference frame, if there were lost RTP packets receiver implementations could check DT to determine if any of the lost RTP packets contained a reference frame. The Internet-Draft is already quite clear about the transmitter's required behavior. (It says the DTS Delta field MUST be present if DT != PT). But since the use of the field by the receiver is optional, I don't think it is absolutely required to give specific implementation examples. > T3. > It is therefore ambigous whether the values of height and max-height > refer to the height of fields or frames in the Advanced profile. We > suggest replacing "coded picture" with "frame" in the specification of > height and max-height. I think it is unlikely that anyone would believe that "height" only refers to half the size of the video image. The term "coded picture" is used in the VC-1 spec, see for example "Annex I.3: Coded Picture Size". If it was meant to refer to only one of the fields, I think the term "coded field" or "coded field picture" would have been used. I don't really mind changing the word "picture" to "frame" as you suggested, but I don't think it is very important. > T4. > Comment: A similar, though more straightforward, procedure also applies > to FRMCNT field (which is present in the Main profile streams, whereas > TFCNTR is conditionally present in the Advanced profile streams). It > might be good to add discussion on FRMCNT to this paragraph. I thought it was important to mention the TFCNTR field in particular because there is a real chance that someone may make a mistake in their implementation by forgetting to account for it. TFCNTR is an optional field and it increments differently from the packet transmission order. In my opinion it is less likely that someone will make a similar mistake with the FRMCNT field. And the way I understand the intent of the Congestion Control section is that it should provide strict normative language about what kind of behaviors are expected when congestion is detected. However, it provides only informative language about how to actually implement these behaviors. So, it is not really necessary to go in to every implementation detail in the Congestion Control section. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to add a sentence reminding developers to fix up the FRMCNT field. > T5. > Comment: The sentence "(or the number of layers subscribed for a layered > multicast session)" suggests that this payload specification can be used > for layered multicast. We don't think this payload specification is > capable for layered multicast The wording is consistent with other RFCs that also don't explicitly define how layered multicast will work. See for example RFC 4175 (Uncompressed Video). It uses the same wording, without any explanation for how layered multicast would actually work with that payload format. I think the "Congestion Control" section is similar to the "Security Considerations" section, in that it tries to describe how to handle unlikely scenarios. (In some RTP payload format specs, the treatment of congestion control is actually included in the Security Considerations section itself.) The intent is that the section should provide clear normative language for the appropriate behavior (in this case, unsubscribing to a multicast group), but detailed discussions about implementations are out of scope, in my opinion. As you mentioned in option #2, using this payload format with layered multicast is not completely impossible. It could be done in conjunction with some other RTP payload format or with some new RTP header extension. I think that is enough justification for keeping the sentence in there, just in case someone will attempt it in the future. But it is simply out of scope to go in to specific details about how layered multicast can or cannot be implemented. Anders _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt Anders Klemets
- [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt Anders Klemets
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt miska.hannuksela
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt Anders Klemets
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt miska.hannuksela
- Re: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt Colin Perkins
- RE: [AVT] draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-05.txt Anders Klemets