Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04
"Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com> Wed, 18 January 2017 21:58 UTC
Return-Path: <victor.demjanenko@vocal.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 C17EC129495 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:58:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 B1HAJ6K3PJ25 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cuda.olm1.com (cuda.olm1.com [72.236.255.32]) (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 F0850129485 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1484776712-092fd31b35248930001-U2jSCT
Received: from host105.olm1.com (host105.olm1.com [72.236.255.15]) by cuda.olm1.com with ESMTP id 2M5anTAGOXEiRUzN (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:58:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: victor.demjanenko@vocal.com
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 72.236.255.15
Received: from ClintonLT (rrcs-72-43-202-98.nys.biz.rr.com [72.43.202.98]) by host105.olm1.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C3ECB44E40; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:58:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>
To: payload@ietf.org
References: <148271835146.28347.7596373310873834703.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <032901d25f53$436d5a50$ca480ef0$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <032901d25f53$436d5a50$ca480ef0$@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:58:34 -0500
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04
Message-ID: <00c101d271d6$044338a0$0cc9a9e0$@demjanenko>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQGh7RTHRkjSPW71RMsHqDmGjiufkKF6y4iQgCUEvVA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Barracuda-Connect: host105.olm1.com[72.236.255.15]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1484776712
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://72.236.255.32:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at olm1.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.01
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.01 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.0 tests=BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.35901 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters 0.00 BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO Envelope rcpt doesn't match header
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/Yvfc6xKG55poCu5uYgJ-BeZ2coo>
Cc: "'Ali C. Begen'" <acbegen@gmail.com>, "'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'" <dave.satterlee@vocal.com>
Subject: Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:58:40 -0000
Hi Everyone, I would like to thank everyone for their comments and specific improvements to our document, draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04. We will produce a full document after any responses to this email are collected. We have made the suggested changes and have the following detailed notes. If anyone can spot other deficiencies or NITS we would be happy to correct them in hopefully this last pass. Regards, Victor & Dave 1. Corrected Spelling - (Declaritive -> Declarative) 3 places (table of contents and section 4.3 twice) 2. Section 3 Improvement (removed last sentence, combined paragraphs, referenced Figure 1 explicitly) (was) The RTP payload for MELPe has the format shown in the figure below. No additional header specific to this payload format is required. This format is intended for the situations where the sender and the receiver send one or more codec data frames per packet. The RTP packet looks as follows: (now) The RTP payload for MELPe has the format shown in Figure 1. No additional header specific to this payload format is required. This format is intended for the situations where the sender and the receiver send one or more codec data frames per packet. 3. Section 3.1 Improvement (last sentence improved) (was) The total number of bits used to describe one frame of 2400 bps speech is 54, which fits in 7 octets (with two unused bits). For the 1200 bps speech the total number of bits used is 81, which fits in 11 octets (with seven unused bits). For the 600 bps speech the total number of bits used is 54, which fits in 7 octets (with two unused bits). Unused bits are coded as described in 3.3 in support of dynamic bit-rate switching. (now) The total number of bits used to describe one frame of 2400 bps speech is 54, which fits in 7 octets (with two unused bits). For the 1200 bps speech the total number of bits used is 81, which fits in 11 octets (with seven unused bits). For the 600 bps speech the total number of bits used is 54, which fits in 7 octets (with two unused bits). Unused bits, shown below as RSVA, RSVB, etc., are coded as described in 3.3 in support of dynamic bit-rate switching. 4. Table 3.4 Note (recommended -> preferred) (was) Note: The default value shall be the respective parameters from the vocoder frame. It is recommended that msvq[0] and gain[1] values be derived by averaging the respective parameter from some number of previous vocoder frames. (now) Note: The default value shall be the respective parameters from the vocoder frame. It is preferred that msvq[0] and gain[1] values be derived by averaging the respective parameter from some number of previous vocoder frames. 5. Section 3.3 Last Paragraph (recommended -> RECOMMENDED) (was) When dynamic bit-rate switching is used and more than one frame is contained in a RTP packet, it is recommended to inspect the coder rate bits contained in the last octet. If the coder bit rate indicates a Comfort Noise frame, then inspect the third last octet for the coder bit rate. All MELPe speech frames in the RTP packet will be of this same coder bit rate. (now) When dynamic bit-rate switching is used and more than one frame is contained in a RTP packet, it is RECOMMENDED to inspect the coder rate bits contained in the last octet. If the coder bit rate indicates a Comfort Noise frame, then inspect the third last octet for the coder bit rate. All MELPe speech frames in the RTP packet will be of this same coder bit rate. 6. Section 3.4 First Paragraph (efficient congestion control -> congestion management) and (the transmission rate -> packet rate) (was) The target bitrate of MELPe can be adjusted at any point in time, thus allowing efficient congestion control. Furthermore, the amount of encoded speech or audio data encoded in a single packet can be used for congestion control, since the transmission rate is inversely proportional to the packet duration. A lower packet transmission rate reduces the amount of header overhead, but at the same time increases latency and loss sensitivity, so it ought to be used with care. (now) The target bitrate of MELPe can be adjusted at any point in time, thus allowing congestion management. Furthermore, the amount of encoded speech or audio data encoded in a single packet can be used for congestion control, since packet rate is inversely proportional to the packet duration. A lower packet transmission rate reduces the amount of header overhead, but at the same time increases latency and loss sensitivity, so it ought to be used with care. 7. Section 4.2 Third Paragraph (may -> MAY) (was) When conveying information by SDP, the encoding name SHALL be "MELP" (the same as the media subtype). Alternative encoding name types, "MELP2400", "MELP1200", and "MELP600", may be used in SDP to convey fixed bit-rate configurations. These names have been observed in systems that do not support dynamic frame rate switching as specified by the parameter, "bitrate". (now) When conveying information by SDP, the encoding name SHALL be "MELP" (the same as the media subtype). Alternative encoding name types, "MELP2400", "MELP1200", and "MELP600", MAY be used in SDP to convey fixed bit-rate configurations. These names have been observed in systems that do not support dynamic frame rate switching as specified by the parameter, "bitrate". 8. Section 6 First Paragraph (may utilize -> utilizes) and (recommended -> preferred) (was) MELPe packet loss concealment (PLC) uses the special properties and coding for the pitch/voicing parameter of the MELPe 2400 bps coder. The PLC erasure indication may utilize any of the errored encodings of a non-voiced frame as identified in Table 1 of [MELPE]. For the sake of simplicity it is recommended to use a code value of 3 for the pitch/voicing parameter (represented by the bits P6 to P0 in Table 3.1). Hence, set bits P0 and P1 to one and bits P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 to zero. (now) MELPe packet loss concealment (PLC) uses the special properties and coding for the pitch/voicing parameter of the MELPe 2400 bps coder. The PLC erasure indication utilizes any of the errored encodings of a non-voiced frame as identified in Table 1 of [MELPE]. For the sake of simplicity it is preferred to use a code value of 3 for the pitch/voicing parameter (represented by the bits P6 to P0 in Table 3.1). Hence, set bits P0 and P1 to one and bits P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 to zero. 9. References (MELP, MELPE and SCIP210 are now normative) (I could not find meaningful URI for documents. Available from various search pages.) -----Original Message----- From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 3:37 AM To: 'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'; Victor.Demjanenko@vocal.com Cc: Ali C. Begen Subject: FW: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04 Hi guys, These comments make sense. Please look at using capital letters for RFC2119 language and if not meant to be RFC2119 try using other words to replace. As for the reference, I agree that they must be normative. You can respond to the mail on the list but wait for the IETF last call to finish before updating since there may be other comments Thanks Roni -----Original Message----- From: payload [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 4:13 AM To: ops-dir@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe.all@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org Subject: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04 Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro Review result: Has Nits Hi, This document is mostly ready but has some potential issues: 1. Normative statements -- there are a number of "recommended" and "shall" among "RECOMMENDED" and "SHALL". It would not hurt to revise and confirm the normative level of each of these. Specifically, a couple of these relate to one operational aspect of Default values: E.g.: Note: The default value shall be the respective parameters from the vocoder frame. It is recommended that msvq[0] and gain[1] values be derived by averaging the respective parameter from some number of previous vocoder frames. Should thouse be normative / uppercase as per its operational implications? 2. References It is not entirely clear to me that the references are adequately split in Normative vs. Informative. I understand these three for example are not produced by the IETF; but are they necessary to understand the spec? [MELP] Department of Defense Telecommunications Standard, "Analog-to- Digital Conversion of Voice by 2,400 Bit/Second Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction (MELP)", MIL-STD-3005, December 1999. [MELPE] North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), "The 600 Bit/S, 1200 Bit/S and 2400 Bit/S NATO Interoperable Narrow Band Voice Coder", STANAG No. 4591, January 2006. [SCIP210] National Security Agency, "SCIP Signaling Plan", SCIP-210, December 2007. Also, sure, a google search can find them (I believe), but is there an authoritative pointer (URI) where these can be normatively found? Thanks, -- Carlos. _______________________________________________ payload mailing list payload@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
- [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04 Carlos Pignataro
- Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-… Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
- [payload] FW: Review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-… Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.