IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [payload] Significant Differences Between draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08 and -09

Thomas Edwards <Thomas.Edwards@fox.com> Mon, 15 May 2017 17:59 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 32398128896 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:59:33 -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 oNeZf7agOOq4 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:59:30 -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 BA512124E15 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0082293.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00195501.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v4FHqX8S017976 for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:56:17 -0700
Received: from nam01-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01lp0116.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.116]) by mx0b-00195501.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2afe5gh7ke-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <payload@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:56:17 -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=cH7atG2w9LuPBi+Jucol0ZUJXuPfbVG09hn1sFGsQmc=; b=CvS/vdSXJqroE96dj8AoMGmLMos3zyzN98noIa4vZ5z76GtcunOd4k/Ejp+k1FK5838VM/2y558ugCO3o/CFy7whiUFUwO63tvnSLf831vfofbMaeGFxXPNfDBHSeFrO2j7QYaD5Q4sZSG7MM55EH1hLs5JZhlV0yCORyX7ikF0=
Received: from BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.59.11) by BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.59.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1101.8; Mon, 15 May 2017 17:56:16 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.16.210]) by BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.16.210]) with mapi id 15.01.1101.009; Mon, 15 May 2017 17:56:16 +0000
From: Thomas Edwards <Thomas.Edwards@fox.com>
To: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Significant Differences Between draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08 and -09
Thread-Index: AQHSyrZiGvSczZmxek+HC40CeN/Tn6H1hE3o//+6BgA=
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:56:15 +0000
Message-ID: <90439242-F466-45B0-9AF8-5E733E42669D@fox.com>
References: <142B2248-5244-4179-8AFD-A5BF7CCD91ED@fox.com> <B1D49063AD5FBD4688F3EEDEC68B2017C3833979@bgb01xud1011>
In-Reply-To: <B1D49063AD5FBD4688F3EEDEC68B2017C3833979@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-originating-ip: [76.171.122.204]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR05MB453; 7:152jifUjdHG9C8n2WQVXqrincSzP43CGt6iVGa0vXoQmwirPYmrioEmu9U4WE614F9lIOfTKJnxSuxJRoJiddZeGvhSvLkzaVa28ncI5bTr/8aI1ocWKX1R01SBr2r7sfXhDYif5t7XgQ2B2XQgOzoufUOt6xArrNSL36YH1+3sFbcQvTdYK0xJAnAZCqXsJeUNJMsU7ck5Z+kpeSr+E8bdq9nJGXPkyLAte/AxqVzC3TZcQYOUSqOBVmEXxS2SFYSuiUzBPPKjhBKRvPtPPpMRu/c3KK1DBRdiFCG5S/iujcY+A6ZriMbpYVhZVAikMNrJ4ENw3BF5l5j6wae7PlQ==
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN1PR05MB453:
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 512a2e38-70eb-4e7c-eb0d-08d49bbbaece
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BN1PR05MB453;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN1PR05MB453EB88DF913C2ADB334D5394E10@BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(127952516941037)(21748063052155)(177823376758907);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(6072148); SRVR:BN1PR05MB453; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR05MB453;
x-forefront-prvs: 0308EE423E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39400400002)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(377454003)(81166006)(2351001)(230783001)(1730700003)(3660700001)(5640700003)(5660300001)(8936002)(99286003)(53936002)(36756003)(2950100002)(6916009)(3280700002)(2501003)(83716003)(189998001)(229853002)(8676002)(122556002)(6436002)(82746002)(38730400002)(110136004)(6246003)(54896002)(6306002)(6512007)(83506001)(2906002)(6486002)(86362001)(25786009)(50986999)(7736002)(76176999)(53546009)(54356999)(6116002)(3846002)(102836003)(4001350100001)(478600001)(6506006)(33656002)(2900100001)(72206003)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB453; H:BN1PR05MB453.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90439242F46645B09AF85E733E42669Dfoxcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: fox.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 May 2017 17:56:15.8168 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: de99ade3-81db-4070-ae0d-3c1562041b30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR05MB453
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-15_09:, , 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=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705150172
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/kYqoZyigxZFUoIhQsjgFkwr8ofU>
Subject: Re: [payload] Significant Differences Between draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08 and -09
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: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:59:33 -0000

I don’t see the problem – In ST 425-3 there are four data streams numbered 1-4, and Figures 1 & 2 show that data streams 1 & 2 go on 3G SDI link #1, and streams 3 & 4 go on 3G SDI link #2.

If you are concerned about the fact that the 3G SDI link itself (ST 424) also has two data streams each, that also should not matter because the ST 425-3 data streams also clearly define which of those ST 424 data streams are used (i.e. ST 425-3 data stream #3 is carried on 3G-SDI Link #2, ST 424 data stream #1).   I think it should be clear that if the VPID Code refers to “1080-line Video Payloads for Level A Mapping on a Dual-link 3 Gb/s (nominal) Serial Interface” that the stream number we are describing is from that standard, and not the stream number from ST 424.  That said, I blame SMPTE for not providing an appropriate adjective (such as “image stream number” or “link stream number”), but I think that it is perilous for IETF to invent one for them.

BTW I understand why link numbers are carried in the VPID – the goal of the VPID is to describe the video format and to help you plug the coaxial cables into the proper connector.  Once the coaxes are plugged in properly, the stream numbers follow naturally based on timing, so a VPID ANC packet does not need to be in every data stream, just on at least one per link.

If I am missing something and you have alternative suggested language, please provide it.

-Thomas

From: John Fletcher <John.Fletcher@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM
To: Thomas Edwards <Thomas.Edwards@fox.com>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Significant Differences Between draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-08 and -09

Section 2.1 "StreamNum" doesn't give enough information about numbering of the data streams.  For example, in dual-link 3G there are 4 data streams split across two links, see ST 425-3 Figure 2.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email