Re: [avtext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05

Hi Jonathan,
This will be good but maybe explain the upgrade means also refresh. Because my poor understanding in English is that upgrade is adding a new layer that was not available to the media receiver while refresh is to restore existing layer (e.g. decoder synchronization loss).
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Lennox [mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:03 PM
> 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
> 
> 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
> >