Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 13 June 2017 16:13 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=23375b132e=jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5221C131B94; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 gaQOh_09-nlT; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D003131BEA; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073110.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5DFwsXH010494; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:03:25 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com (mail2.vidyo.com [162.209.16.214]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2b0bh4j2cd-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:03:25 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:03:24 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
CC: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
Thread-Index: AQHS2qO4IAQ0EK1qvUeY+IF4GawhgaIYtpMAgAAtEkCAAQCzAIAFrKRwgAPKzwA=
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:03:24 +0000
Message-ID: <116D9947-414D-47EB-A0C7-8031999E5A89@vidyo.com>
References: <149629998360.19813.14889515687249184753@ietfa.amsl.com> <BAFC5C7C-466C-4756-9AF1-A803196E7D25@vidyo.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7CFF25@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <B9294064-4F4E-4FA1-A864-4F9790767B5C@vidyo.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7D0641@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7D0641@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <21981E940CDBFB41BA11CCAD1E27437E@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-13_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706130276
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avtext/2uks7ZrPza9mv6GDqv-QWkdDlkU>
Subject: Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avtext/>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:13:18 -0000
Hi, Roni — You seem to be assuming that a refresh and an upgrade are two different actions. That’s not the intention — a refresh is a characteristic of a stream that allows a decoder to upgrade. I’ll try to draft some text that makes it clear that it’s possible either to independently upgrade temporal or spatial, or else upgrade both at once. > On Jun 11, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > I assume the new text you propose is > > "When C is 1, TTID MUST NOT be less than CTID, and TLID MUST NOT be > less than CLID; at least one of TTID or TLID MUST be greater than > CTID or CLID respectively. That is to say, the target layer index > <TTID, TLID> MUST be a layer upgrade from the current layer index > <CTID, CLID>. A sender MAY request an upgrade in both temporal and > spatial/quality layers simultaneously." > > I think that this text still only implies the behavior, also the current text talks about upgrade but I assume it is also for a refresh not only to upgrade > > Maybe " A sender MAY request an upgrade or refresh in both temporal and > spatial/quality layers simultaneously by either having C =1 or by having both CLID and CTID with lower values then TTID and TLID. If the sender want to upgrade or refresh only one layer then C MUST be equal to 1 and only the CTID or the CLID of the layer to be upgraded or refreshed should be lower than the TTID or TLID respectively " > > > Roni >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonathan Lennox [mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com] >> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 18:30 >> To: Roni Even >> Cc: Roni Even; draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org; General Area Review Team; >> avtext@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05 >> >> >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:15 AM, Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jonathan, >>> I did not see the text you added yet as a response to my first >>> question So to better clarify my question . If the FCI has TTID=0 and TLID=2 . >> does it mean that it is a request to update both? >>> This was also the reason for the question about both TTID=0 and TLID=0, >> which layer need update or is it both? >>> Can you say that you want just to update temporal or spatial? >> >> Yes, if the FCI has TTID=0 and TLID=2, it’s a request to update both layers — >> or more specifically, to make sure that you can start decoding the substream >> with TTID=0 and TLID=2. (For most scalability structures this would mean >> updating both, but exotic structures are possible.) >> >> If you want to just update one part of the stream, that’s what CTID and CLID >> are for. If you sent TTID=0 and TLID=2, accompanied by CTID=0 and CLID=0, >> that means that you already have TID 0, and you just want to increase the >> LID. >> >> The current text is at https://github.com/juberti/draughts/tree/master/lrr , >> if you want to take a look at the latest revisions, or suggest text that you >> think would make it cleaner. >> >> >>> Roni >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan >>>> Lennox >>>> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 00:30 >>>> To: Roni Even >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@ietf.org; General Area Review Team; >>>> avtext@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of >>>> draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05 >>>> >>>> Hi, Roni — thanks for your review. Responses inline. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>>> >>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by >>>>> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like >>>>> any other last call comments. >>>>> >>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>>> >>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>> >>>>> Document: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-?? >>>>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>>>> Review Date: 2017-05-31 >>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08 >>>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>>>> >>>>> Summary: >>>>> The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC Major >>>>> issues: >>>>> >>>>> Minor issues: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI. >>>> >>>> Syntactically, they must both occur. >>>> >>>> If you mean can you request an upgrade in both at once, yes; I’ve >>>> added text to clarify this. >>>> >>>>> 2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0 >>>>> in frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability. >>>>> This relates to the previous question. >>>> >>>> I’m not sure I understand this question. >>>> >>>> I’ve added text that if C=1, at least one of <TTID, TLID> MUST be >>>> greater than <CTID, CLID>, and both MUST be greater than or equal to >>>> their counterpart, so the LRR is actually requesting a layer upgrade. >>>> Is that what you were asking about? >>>> >>>>> 3. What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean. >>>> >>>> It means you want a refresh of the base temporal/spatial layer, only. >>>> >>>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a >>>>> Real…". >>>> >>>> Colin pointed out that it should say “an RTP Control Protocol” anyway. >>>> >>>>> 2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to >>>>> section >>>>> 3.5.1 but it does not work. >>>> >>>> xml2rfc doesn’t have any way to link to sections of other documents, >>>> so the “(Section 3.5.1)” part is just a comment. >>>> >>>> I think the internet-draft tooling may have thought I was trying to >>>> link to a non-existent section 3.5.1 of this document, but that’s outside >> my control. >>>> >>>>> 3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice. >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gen-art mailing list >>>> Gen-art@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >
- [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-av… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Roni Even
- Re: [avtext] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of… Alissa Cooper