Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt
Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com> Sun, 16 August 2015 18:44 UTC
Return-Path: <vinayakh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF0B1A3B9B for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 yvYheGFPj9wP for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D611A21C4 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacum4 with SMTP id um4so7042045pac.3 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Zh5AiKRb6/UUJn5Df1VGV+ahtMJZYOAlq2ApGRp/A+s=; b=joSM2Fh0lnJrSOvrz0LLZ/bExZe29Dr3Z+ofE5mXRrjETVNq1W9HOzhrV2/rWE5kg+ aPOjnRN4hFuUPuUQSuW3WraoAzIaelIG+UZIPFTSQrHfi8ulEeYSBwOSSRbv+ZBbbLhS koEff0cMQXcxNo7a7JLMTnY843HpcnfBnNMwILEfJB1af/1GnXz4aFtzBcmuaG3xH4I9 KAGrKUT8AMO+cn7pELaXTgSeUkkpFoz5DxvvWgkgiiX5lwyInhJT5Ss0Kpiw//QpeXiP sdY717TbNWDQX4AiDY7Tt1TEIOsh+sRDE9hQSMdJly1gT74abVanLiZ2XQWcx2vXPBM8 tjGQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.249.101 with SMTP id yt5mr109566702pac.116.1439750691543; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.11.167 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D09A003D7DB@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5CAF9F3B@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D09A003D7DB@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:14:51 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKe6YvN9aVkoDRt5PoGNJbATxHYZRmPGPzywR+OkKFz9k9Rrrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/-JF8mxK1KLIzYKd2yd0xd8DL1gI>
Cc: "shida@ntt-at.com" <shida@ntt-at.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:44:54 -0000
Hi Qin Wu, You can also review it. More eyes make better standards :) Review Follows. 1. In section 3, where you describe loss concealment methods, I get the impression after reading the draft that all frames are created equal after reading the draft. Generally in video encoding there are key frames[1] which are more important as they carry full information and are not dependent on other frames so methods 3b and 3c would require a lot of computation to reconstruct atleast parts of the frame. This aspect is not emphasized in the draft. 2. Also in Section 3d (Error Resilient Encoding), there are two clear subparts a. You can have vector related extra metadata that can be used to reconstruct the scene based on loss of primary data b. You can have bit-block level encoding like Reed-Solomon error correction[2] Both of these are different techniques so should be split under their own subheadings. 3. Also it would be great to have some explanation of why frame freeze was chosen for special treatment (in bit reservation) 4. In section 4.1 The definition of MIFP is confusing especially the part where it says "after multiplying the fraction by 256" 5. In section 4.1 The definition of MCFP, did not get this part "which loss concealment (using V) was applied" (Missing reference ?) 6. Same comment as above for definition of FFSC Thanks Vinayak 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression_picture_types#Intra_coded_frames.2Fslices_.28I.E2.80.91frames.2Fslices_or_Key_frames.29 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:19 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote: > Thanks for your request, Dan. > > Who will volunteer to do this review? > > Al > pmdir admin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pm-dir [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, >> Dan (Dan) >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 8:47 AM >> To: pm-dir@ietf.org >> Cc: shida@ntt-at.com; Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com); >> alissa@cooperw.in >> Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt >> >> >> Hi PMDIR, >> >> As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 >> review of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc- >> 01.txt. This document is in WGLC until 9/4. >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pm-dir mailing list >> pm-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir > > _______________________________________________ > pm-dir mailing list > pm-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir
- [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of https:… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Vinayak Hegde
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Qin Wu
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Vinayak Hegde
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Qin Wu
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Qin Wu
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Qin Wu
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Qin Wu
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Vinayak Hegde
- [pm-dir] [xrblock] RE: request for an RFC 6390 re… Huangyihong (Rachel)
- Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of ht… Huangyihong (Rachel)