Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330A512894E for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:39:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 MNADJQ4wrBGH for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 5FE8712008A for <payload@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AB11ABF4F7DAE68B43C0 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:39:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:39:13 +0000
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:39:13 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:39:12 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.222]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:38:46 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>, "'Ali C. Begen'" <ali.begen@networked.media>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
CC: "'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'" <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>, 'John Punaro' <John.Punaro@vocal.com>
Thread-Topic: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUYGTb/Ck/lD1KcUi9WL2LGJ4ieaUYQaVwgAomUfCAuH/0oA==
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:38:46 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CB38C8@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAA4MczvuQUw-q4xmDSm+yC0WPb0MVkmS+w_Rv=qCEg8jxx1pMA@mail.gmail.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8E47AD@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <148c01d46595$4f6f6560$ee4e3020$@demjanenko@vocal.com>
In-Reply-To: <148c01d46595$4f6f6560$ee4e3020$@demjanenko@vocal.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.80]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CB38C8dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/N9GIuHwcaI5qn-khdYlvbwA7P2Y>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/payload/>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:39:19 -0000

Hi,
My comments were addressed in the -01 version
Roni Even as individual

From: Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D. [mailto:victor.demjanenko@vocal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:15 AM
To: Roni Even (A); 'Ali C. Begen'; payload@ietf.org
Cc: 'Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.'; 'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'; 'John Punaro'
Subject: RE: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt

Hi Roni,

Thanks for your comments.  We have incorporated most of them into the latest draft.  As best I know, the NRL paper is the best public description.  I am trying to see if a more detailed document can be released.  I should know that perhaps in a month or two.

The TSVCIS speed data is used always in combination with a MELP 2400 bps frame.  So the two of them must reside in the same RTP packet.  I added “in the same RTP payload” to the sentence you asked about in section 3.2.  As for you comment in section 3.3, I did not feel a change was necessary given the clarification just added.

Again thank you for the concise comments and your help with shepparding this through the approval process.

Regard,

Victor, Dave and John

From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even (A)
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:36 AM
To: Ali C. Begen; payload@ietf.org<mailto:payload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt

Hi,
I read the document, some comments

1.   Add a reference to TSVCIS in section 1 when first mentioned. Is there a reference to tsvcis that is publically available?

2. the following sentence in 3.1 is not clear  “RTP packetization of MELPe follows RFC 8130 and is repeated here for all three MELPe rates [RFC8130] which with promoted suggestions or recommendations now regarded as requirements “

3.  Typo in section 3.1 “The comfort nosie frame”

4. In section 3.2 “The TSVCIS augmented speech data as packed parameters MUST be placed immediately after a corresponding MELPe 2400 bps payload “ does it mean in the same RTP packet?




5. section 3.3 “TSVCIS coder frames in a single RTP packet MAY be of different coder bitrates.  With the exception for the variable length TSVCIS parameter frames, the coder rate bits in the trailing byte identify

   the contents and length as per Table 1.” I understand that the parsing is done by looking at the expected position for the CODA, CODB and CODC, this is similar to MELPE but here there is tsvcis data which is variable length. Is the parsing done by assuming that the tsvcis data frame may only appear after a 2400 frame?



6. In section 4.1 for tcmax maybe specify 35 and ask for feedback



7. In section 4.1 published specification should be RFCXXXXand ask the RFC editor to replace with the RFC number of this document.



Roni Even as individual





From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali C. Begen
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:43 AM
To: payload@ietf.org<mailto:payload@ietf.org>
Subject: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt

All,

This is to start the WGLC for the following draft:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-payload-tsvcis-00.txt

Please send comments to the list by Oct. 24th.

Thanks.
-acbegen