Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02
"Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com> Fri, 19 August 2016 14:30 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 5E94A12DAAB for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ZtjG6erRXDxr for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 DC9B912DAEF for <payload@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1471617026-092fd35b1604300001-U2jSCT
Received: from host105.olm1.com (host105.olm1.com [72.236.255.15]) by cuda.olm1.com with ESMTP id qCuwe2nvgSdKZu8E (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
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 92022B43627; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <victor.demjanenko@vocal.com>
To: 'Roni Even' <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, payload@ietf.org
References: <011901d1f1bd$7b734580$7259d080$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:30:13 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02
Message-ID: <007301d1fa26$33109100$9931b300$@demjanenko>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0074_01D1FA04.ABFEF100"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdHnBhrfOOr7ktHaRfyfFTzHl5kaagKsQreAAMFUm9ABWk598A==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Barracuda-Connect: host105.olm1.com[72.236.255.15]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1471617026
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=HTML_MESSAGE, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.32152 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/payload/rS0E9s7Xw6FmEvCFV3mOJzqTF3w>
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, "'Dave Satterlee (Vocal)'" <Dave.Satterlee@vocal.com>
Subject: Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:30:38 -0000
To Payload Members: We have addressed all of Roni's comments with the exception of item 2. Comments on all other items are below in the original list. In response to item 2, we recommend leaving sections 3.1 and 3.2 the way they are. Each of the three MELP speech coder rates were developed by different groups. The notation that each one used is similar but different. 1. One group presented their bits in LSB to MSB order. This was a potential confusion that our draft cleared up with at least one party implementing a MELP RTP payload. (They did not notice the inconsistency between speech coder rates until reading our draft.) 2. The MS Word typesetting nomenclature used non-simple ASCII parameter/field names/bit numbering which is addressed by the normalized tables we present in these sections. 3. Comfort noise is described in yet some other document (SCIP I believe) and is only done verbally. While we do understand the desire for removing unnecessary redundancy, we do believe our normalized tables in 3.1 and 3.2 do help in ensuring an interoperable implementation. As such, they are not an exact copy of reference tables and we recommend leaving these sections as we have written. Regards, Victor Demjanenko David Satterlee From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 5:40 PM To: payload@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Hi, I reviewed the document and have some comments 1. In the abstract you can delete the last sentence "Also, within the document there are included necessary details for the use of MELP with SDP." v-> Done 2. I assume that sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2 are copied from STANAG 4591 in which case you can just provide a reference to the relevant sections v-> We recommend leaving the normalized tables to clear up potential confusion 3. In section 3.3 it looks like a MELPE packet can be of zero coded frame and zero comfort noise frame? v-> We added a sentence to clarify and permit such use. This could be used for encoder connectivity confirmation and not specifically as an RTP keep-alive (which is specifically different and outside this recommended purpose.) 4. For section 3.4 look at RFC7587 section 5 for text suggestions v-> Section 3.4 replaced by recommended text from RFC7587. 5. In section 4.1 the type name is audio while the subtype names are MELP,. v-> The name and subtype name have been corrected. 6. In section 4.1 published specification "RFCXXXX" to be replaced by the RFC Editor v-> RFCXXXX was replaced with RFC6562. 7. In section 4.2 we do not use MIME but "media type" (audio) and "media subtype " (MELPE,.) v-> The word MIME has been removed and "media" added where needed. 8. The following text is not clear "A remote MELPe encoder SHALL receive "bitrate" parameter in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them directly from the MIME media type string as a semicolon separated with parameter=value, where parameter is "bitrate", and value can be one or more of 2400, 1200, and 600 separated by commas (where each bit-rate value indicates the corresponding MELPe coder). Is this for the an offer? v-> The language has been changed to "The optional media type parameter, "bitrate", when present, MUST be included in the "a=fmtp" attribute in the SDP, expressed as a media type string in the form of a semicolon-separated list of parameter=value pairs. The string, "value", can be one or more of 2400, 1200, and 600 separated by commas (where each bit-rate value indicates the corresponding MELPe coder)." v-> The bitrate parameter can be used by both offerer and answerer as the example suggests in a later example (now in a new section 4.4 9. We use "For declarative SDP" and not "For streaming media". It also better to have a sub section for SDP offer answer considerations and Declarative SDP considerations v-> Sections 4.3 and 4.4 have been added for declarative SDP and offer/answer SDP. Paragraphs that originally followed offer/answer SDP have been moved up as they apply to all SDP. 10. In section 8 "its media decoder" use "the MELPe encoder" v-> Text now uses "the MELPe decoder". Roni Even From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:24 AM To: 'payload@ietf.org' (payload@ietf.org) Cc: 'draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org' Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Hi, I would like to start a WGLC on https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 , RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec The WGLC will end on August 9th , 2016 Please review the draft and send comments to the list. For the draft authors; Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? The above question is needed for the document write-up when sent to publication. Thanks Roni Even Payload co-chair
- Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
- [payload] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Dave Satterlee (Vocal)
- Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Roni Even
- [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Roni Even
- Re: [payload] WGLC on draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02 Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.