IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-01

Thomas Edwards <Thomas.Edwards@fox.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Edwards@fox.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 40E74127B5A for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxgroupinc.onmicrosoft.com
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 n96TN7hUL6Vs for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00195501.pphosted.com (mx0b-00195501.pphosted.com [67.231.157.160]) (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 D323012706D for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0087373.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00195501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v35J75nQ017008 for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:12:50 -0700
Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp0015.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.15]) by mx0b-00195501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 29n3321gva-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:12:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=FoxGroupInc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-fox-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=fYjrg1IPQwTmc58RiK2E91f6jUc/znYQJL40WZ1mGvs=; b=IPEzFEJ7xKCOYbYT0ohgKAhc/iUus+TwCTXPsz9AHMW3NZg1u1bki1ZghmOXhW1z/bNwY0k8xhxhQSTIh0Cpt9EYZUV3/ld9njlUOuhQJ/2tEvZnPGLI1xuZUKudhw1jTNSE3M+iDzXiz81gSbJo3NzitOYRtLoIRgkEzxRcdWk=
Received: from CY4PR05MB3109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.172.157.7) by CY4PR05MB3110.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.172.157.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1019.8; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:12:45 +0000
Received: from CY4PR05MB3109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.172.157.7]) by CY4PR05MB3109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.172.157.7]) with mapi id 15.01.1019.019; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:12:44 +0000
From: Thomas Edwards <Thomas.Edwards@fox.com>
To: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-01
Thread-Index: AQHSrVFdAQPtYY+22EyNByYEhANqy6G2mYUAgAAXtgA=
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:12:44 +0000
Message-ID: <10EDA7F6-2703-4A9E-9568-7AFB3E8FA52B@fox.com>
References: <CAA4Mczssf9Bt+LoamPpJa0kXuaOfE+n6bJH15GvQdZ3j+ZHjsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4McztuCK3RF0YWZtNyMbuWL_SVpdcPCEpzMH6WthPO6jaoWw@mail.gmail.com> <B1D49063AD5FBD4688F3EEDEC68B2017C37DE099@bgb01xud1011>
In-Reply-To: <B1D49063AD5FBD4688F3EEDEC68B2017C37DE099@bgb01xud1011>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=fox.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [216.205.246.226]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR05MB3110; 7:G8V7tg1Hry6XA//7czSqTTxkZJX++UfLfpToEc97BJ/vmgUAotQy+6ZpT2aaDa7jBCNU/oHmL0afShYkrsK9A9RQA5aWyQ4nSE4b0lychlslTvd58Cn5W8pem7vjqTi9EwagmHfcTsbeIbm0MvhDtntKEg58V7bxZly4v9DV6CRMiVgoqRBA5qDlu9DcjwarJoesfnfWeqfALdop4bwPEQByF11jPdzEXKQL6DE/lwQ3hY5pTKDaAI9Rtl2ZfrbHPnFqpvw2NHbTOiDhxGoiHCSrvSlaBiPkwT7cMoiClm+zw+HQHosk0EVlDciaqBvXCkV9KwNke3Nwtz+ZPYrL2w==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: addebd61-0828-4448-a2e7-08d47c57bd70
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY4PR05MB3110;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR05MB31103E10EDAE7924502B0094940A0@CY4PR05MB3110.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(100405760836317)(127952516941037)(21748063052155)(177823376758907);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:CY4PR05MB3110; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR05MB3110;
x-forefront-prvs: 0268246AE7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39850400002)(39450400003)(377454003)(189998001)(83716003)(3660700001)(229853002)(4001350100001)(82746002)(76176999)(54356999)(2906002)(8676002)(3280700002)(6916009)(2950100002)(83506001)(50986999)(81166006)(8936002)(1730700003)(33656002)(2351001)(122556002)(2501003)(25786009)(53546009)(110136004)(5640700003)(38730400002)(99286003)(86362001)(53936002)(6506006)(6512007)(6486002)(54896002)(77096006)(6246003)(2900100001)(6306002)(7736002)(6436002)(5660300001)(3846002)(230783001)(66066001)(6116002)(102836003)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR05MB3110; H:CY4PR05MB3109.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10EDA7F627034A9E95687AFB3E8FA52Bfoxcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: fox.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Apr 2017 19:12:44.6075 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: de99ade3-81db-4070-ae0d-3c1562041b30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR05MB3110
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-05_15:, , 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=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1704050162
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/ZMUZnOaIR1NOY2VV6U_Xlj0_IC4>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-01
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 Apr 2017 19:13:00 -0000

This discussion of the “true meaning” of RTP timestamps for all possible use cases has been going on for quite a while in SMPTE, and frankly is not quite over (will it ever be over?)

My suggestion for IETF process would be to not burden any particular RTP payload with this debate, but perhaps once SMPTE has come to some industry-wide consensus, that consensus can be passed to the IETF for revision of the base RTP document RFC 3550.

I feel that the key is that this payload document is to be clear that the RTP timestamp refers to the timing of the entire picture, not the timing of a subset of the picture or the timing of a particular individual RTP packet - and I believe the document is clear on this issue.  This will be true regardless of any further interpretation of the meaning of the RTP timestamp in a wide variety of use cases.

-Thomas

--
Thomas Edwards
VP Engineering & Development
FOX Networks Engineering and Operations
thomas.edwards@fox.com
Phone: +1.310.369.6696
10201 West Pico Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90035

From: payload <payload-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of John Fletcher <John.Fletcher@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 3:47 AM
To: "Ali C. Begen" <ali.begen@networked.media>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vc2hq-01

In section 4.1, the description of the Timestamp field says it “corresponds to the sampling instant of the coded picture”.  This will not be the case if source of the RTP stream is replayed video.  It also may not be the case if the input to the RTP encoder is slightly delayed with respect to image capture (highly likely) and/or the interface does not provide the capture time.  I suggest re-wording this section.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email