IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-vp8-03 ending March 1st

Patrik Westin <pwestin@google.com> Wed, 21 March 2012 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pwestin@google.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 F1D7E21F85FC for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QHhPdPnhdgwg for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF46E21F865B for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-f44.google.com with SMTP id k25so1156245yhk.31 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-system-of-record; bh=V3kdYOn8+/uSb5SO3EagKjIGDmFU47Wta8TAvooBjaA=; b=lU0HmN+DzppFyfXSO72cMuBL+YTsY5u2XiWlJZJ8aAqT3Mk1DCjy+JIA0T7AzvbdoT zmmmaMrIUBH2Y0kP3HLriMRM61gob71ar+ZkY9KgcZRvhbuE4vz5654P4i44j5m5Y4Ti hROTvujfHYQ/PZEmkJWBDnvj+MGKk6Qd60v+F2Dj0s3MULGS6CojnwuBDZyrtrkTZeA9 HtdEfcRF0NSBctiL05BSEWtLFW6HXE+wN6hOltVVEkvdVFmG6K2/LBgxJ7omxuHoWU1T mrjxwNfVyDXbzHFaOpYWiv7N1Iw/ILO1ruxoD7TTl4BBF2tvpZAsdOae8fRDxGyDjA0N CKzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=V3kdYOn8+/uSb5SO3EagKjIGDmFU47Wta8TAvooBjaA=; b=AGSOaRDEG4LnVsBnl6jkQz5THYI3W+RTQKLGNhbwLuPC7Vaucy234PBQSuatQLdv3/ y6POXdGtfmrXcA0hNAEerA1aaWnSfZeX/XqA2zCxTTim/dp6XNd1qrYksq7yqKgRUL8/ FphcZSzz25z1VPiCnSg9QuhMqbbiIzSQfwB6Cs0Q9c90QAmw4VWL6YsWVdLwVf22EO7h tfBVnRwlglntXlIMxk8TgIQr70PZzR8GMmHUN2aaMlUafJmPdLAUuX5aeXJ0P6OYd/aX jZPtN2HV0LIXNEIe3K1ELMOstr4X8QrmI5N3aONkxzny0gRM4gb1051UwpqOwR0rXJUd ZJQg==
Received: by 10.236.182.67 with SMTP id n43mr4358453yhm.75.1332344829604; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.182.67 with SMTP id n43mr4358438yhm.75.1332344829468; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.16.6 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrik Westin <pwestin@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:46:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAESWC-zwn4FXA3QRQvw26esPp0qwesUSi_dSkgwTpQYpx30vRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: payload@ietf.org, ron.even.tlv@gmail.com, abegen@cisco.com, stewe@stewe.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6/c9Xl08ld4oc+G7w2mfk3zi/g5E1TEqq5PpwaKiXaqO/VFjPFBXD5lBek5SFjnjXYI4rJrsknT4RYc8R/CwRgeZt10SNmWPiedmksSHE5/vwPTPHqhsH2xHlaU7SI2SAbk+B
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-vp8-03 ending March 1st
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:50:21 -0000

Answers to questions regarding draft-ietf-payload-vp8-03.

Answers to question from Stephan Wenger

The decoder does not exhibit a significant non-uniformity
computational complexity, we assume that the call set up process will
provide a method for negotiating the max received resolution. Given
that this is a commonly needed feature, we do not define any
codec-specific way of doing this negotiation here. We will add a note
about the need for it.


Answers to questions from Roni Even

1. Good idea, we will add it to figure 2.

2. We will reformulate the paragraph so that it is clear that it's
only summarizing information from RFC 6386.

3. The packet does not belong to a discardable frame, will add a note about it.

4. Will change to reference RFC 4566



-Patrik Westin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email