Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 09:36 UTC

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<payload@ietf.org>" <payload@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08
Thread-Index: AQHOE+SBCBGG65gUD0CDCg9/8nULH5iMVuuA
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:36:01 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CF2C696@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113403D6E@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.0.121105
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9A239E07A805174E9162CBB1459DB247@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08
Precedence: list

Cullen, thanks for the review. I was just writing my pub-request email to
the AD. I am hoping the authors can respond back to your comments shortly
so that we don't delay this document any further.

Thanks.
-acbegen


-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:45 AM
To: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08

>
>My major issues is I think it is not appropriate to define a temperable
>scalable codec in the same draft as the payload. I'm fine with the
>payloads for it but I think the temporal scalability stuff should be
>moved to a separate draft outside of payload - it's very confusing having
>the two mixed together.
>
>Need to be able to negotiate upper bound on resolution and frame rates -
>every time I have brought this up in the past the authors have strongly
>objected but I don't understand how hardware codecs work without this.
>The hardware codecs need to have the 4 image buffers and they will have a
>limit to the size of theses. My preferred way of dealing with resolution
>would be just to mandate use of rfc6236 when using VP8.
>
>I don't see a need for 7 bit pictureID, it just adds to complexity that
>will not be tested
>
>The temporal stuff does not seem to be specified very well. To be more
>specific, I think creating a layered codec from a non layered codec would
>better be done in a spec other than the payload description. Among other
>things that space is littered with IPR issues that should not be confused
>with the base payload
>
>The SDP does not allow one to specify the color space's supported but is
>seems that VP8 does so seems like something is needed in SDP.
>
>I'd like to see negotiation of the loop filter type used for a variety of
>reasons 
>
>I'd like to see negotiation of the reconstrcuction filter type(s) used -
>amount other things new ones can be added to VP8 and we need a way to
>support that. 
>
>I'd like to see what the limits are of google hardware implementation (or
>anyone else's if they exist) and make sure that all theses limits can be
>expressed in SDP. 
>
>I'd like to see a way of describing upper bound on macro block rate
>instead of the combined max-fs / max-fr solution. I don't see how to make
>hardware decoders work without this.
>
>It would be good to see more advice on how many partitions to use and
>why. 
>
>I'm confused on the Y bit.
>
>Unclear if receiver is supposed to send positive ACK RPSI
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>payload mailing list
>payload@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
>

[payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 Ali C. Begen (abegen)
Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 Stephan Wenger
Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 Harald Alvestrand
Re: [payload] Review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-08 Ali C. Begen (abegen)