Re: [payload] [AVTCORE] Some changes to rfc3984bis, SVC, and RCDO payload drafts

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Sun, 20 March 2011 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: payload@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04A73A6BC5; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2XmZ-fG+1sZU; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8863A6A03; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [156.106.237.64] (unverified [156.106.237.64]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 14264-1743317 for multiple; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:20:52 +0100
References: <B99DECD58A94E143BA6F1508CC688351B417FB@dfweml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4D85C5FA.4010407@net-zen.net> <000701cbe6f9$f44b1e80$dce15b80$%roni@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <000701cbe6f9$f44b1e80$dce15b80$%roni@huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8C148)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <594FCF5C-180C-423E-A96B-E0BEB399A529@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148)
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:20:41 +0100
To: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: 156.106.237.64
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
Cc: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] [AVTCORE] Some changes to rfc3984bis, SVC, and RCDO payload drafts
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:19:28 -0000

+1
Stephan (also in Geneve)


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2011, at 13:25, Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Glen,
> The technical change is more in H.264/AVC specification. In the payload
> specifications (3984bis/ RCDO and SVC) the change is to specify the
> conversion between the old and new parameter and to explain the change in
> H.264.
> It can be looked as a technical and I will leave it to the AD to help here.
> 
> As for the quality of the change it was done by YK with the help of Steve
> Botzko (H.241 editor) and Gary Sullivan the Rapportuer of Q6 SG16 that does
> the video codec in a f2f meeting. It was also reviewed by me and by some
> other experts on video coding and I feel good about the solution,
> 
> This change involves also an update to H.241 that has the same issue and the
> objective is to approve the H.241 change this week at the ongoing ITU Study
> Group 16 meeting. The solution for the IETF draft and ITU draft should be
> the same to address interoperability.
> 
> Thanks
> Roni Even
> As individual.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Glen Zorn
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 11:17 AM
>> To: Ye-Kui Wang
>> Cc: avt@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Some changes to rfc3984bis, SVC, and RCDO
>> payload drafts
>> 
>> On 3/20/2011 3:20 PM, Ye-Kui Wang wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The three H.264/AVC related payload formats, namely,
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-12, draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-27, and
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-08, are all at the AUTH48 stage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The RFC-Editor has found the following problem: In
>>> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-12, the definition of the max-dpb media
>>> parameter refers to the MaxDPB that was defined the first version of
>> the
>>> H.264/AVC spec, but not any more in the latest version (the 2010
>>> version). The parameter in the latest H.264/AVC version corresponding
>> to
>>> MaxDPB is MaxDpbMbs, and the unit of the new parameter (i.e.,
>>> macroblocks) is different from the original one (i.e. 1024 bytes).
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> Since the drafts are at the AUTH48 stage, please provide comments by
>>> Monday, March 21, if any. Many thanks!
>> 
>> Just my opinion but these seem like technical changes that can't really
>> be dealt with in AUTH48.
>> 
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> avt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload