IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-05

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Fri, 01 September 2017 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35B9134509 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RcOMBNeoGPSp for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E26BE132E10 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1512; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504304103; x=1505513703; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=UuOhXKYW+/3W22SiMH1ZqNdKLQ3kDMKhXnOe1OnJa00=; b=Rjdwhvrq324EWP9ii9r79usnoDv9bfbco5uIagjyx2stXUjptX/Ktb60 uv/6cc2yUTY7cdRzIsGyhCIuTfjCshyEKrKPWXt6wmcFSzIJt3/qL7y8n TpVcmyQQLRxW6YLUN+0v6M6wozOOQ27eySSNT8sxWbFegtaGxx43Mxj1m 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CmAADf2qlZ/5BdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1qBeQeOEJAggXGWKIIShUcChBU/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRgBAQEBAgE6PwULAgEIDgoeEDIlAgQBDQWKKQixa4tVAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYMqggKBToFjgyiBPIktBaBzApRPghOJZIZ5lkYBHziBDXcVhWEMEIFndolwgQ8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,459,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="279978395"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2017 22:15:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v81MF14w006036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 22:15:02 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:15:01 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:15:00 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
CC: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-05
Thread-Index: AQHTI2/AlRfq5gy5XUmfnaT3Kk3Sbw==
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 22:15:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D5CF4DA6.720C9%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <DFA81494-B0E4-4B82-B895-C9B5D5163E96@iii.ca> <F313249E-59C3-44FF-ADA9-5416078A9CFF@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <F313249E-59C3-44FF-ADA9-5416078A9CFF@iii.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.3.170325
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.170.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4B13A4816E0D254883719D64F22E3A09@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mqFbTEklhod4ClodPYEyMm9m_kI>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-05
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 22:15:06 -0000

Thanks for bumping this, Cullen.

At IETF 99, it was decided that priority marking beyond the Discardable
bit should go in a separate draft. Roni submitted
draft-even-avtcore-priority-markings for this. So that is closed.

The only other open issue was the mapping of the VP9 U/P bits to the frame
marking B/I bits. In version 05 of frame marking, we already moved VP9
LID/TID mappings to the VP9 RTP payload draft. If the frame marking B/I
bits are sufficient for the needs of VP9 SVC applications, then the
mapping of VP9 U/P bits to frame marking B/I bits should also be
documented in the VP9 draft rather than frame marking, and we can request
WGLC for frame marking without waiting for the VP9 draft updates. If the
frame marking B/I bits are insufficient, or if their definition needs to
be altered to support VP9 SVC applications, and the WG feels those
applications are important, then we need to finalize any changes needed
for frame marking B/I bits ASAP then start WGLC.

Jonathan, Sergio, Bernard,
You expressed interest in VP9 SVC applications. Are the frame marking B/I
bits sufficient for your needs? If not, what are the specific issues we
need to address? Is it only switching up to a higher spatial layer when
there are multiple spatial enhancement layers?

Thanks,
Mo
 

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
> 
> I read this draft and did not see any issues. Where are we with this
>draft and what happens next ?
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email