Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Wed, 09 September 2015 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.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 2C9551ACE39 for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 23:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ieHBvBglKomB for <pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 23:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E0C1A8715 for <pm-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 23:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CBA95693; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:37:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:37:52 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.99]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:37:42 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdDVxidBSHzMucppStWUbDahg3lk2AAACMwQAJKSa4AAIGYmIASC9N6AAArdq5A=
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:37:41 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB863E46AA@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84817CFD@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA84817CFD@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/kPGpQjTJjqRjlkD_74HMyu4rHhs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 09:58:18 -0700
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: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:38:01 -0000

Hi Qin,

Thank you for the additional comments. Please see inline.

BR,
Rachel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:24 AM
> To: pm-dir@ietf.org; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: Huangyihong (Rachel)
> 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
> 
> FYI.
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Qin Wu
> 发送时间: 2015年8月17日 10:22
> 收件人: 'Vinayak Hegde'; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> 抄送: shida@ntt-at.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org; Benoit
> Claise (bclaise@cisco.com); alissa@cooperw.in
> 主题: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt
> 
> Your comments look good, Agree with your opinion.
> here are a few additional comments:
> 1. Abstract
> What are “those” in the abstract? RTCP XR Reporting Block or Block types?
> What does "augment" stands for?
> Suggest to make the following change
> NEW TEXT:
> “
> This document defines a new RTCP XR Report Block that allows the reporting of
> concealment metrics for video applications of RTP. This XR report block
> complete ones defined in RFC[7294].

[Rachel]: looks good.

> ”
> 2.Section 4, 1st paragraph, last sentence What is “consistent point”? remove
> it?

[Rachel]: Okay. I'll remove this sentence.

> 
> 3.Section 4, definition of " Mean Concealed Frame Proportion (MCFP) "
> loss concealment (using V)? Suggest to make the following change:
> Loss concealment method (depicted as “V” in the definition of “Video Loss
> Concealment Method Type”)

[Rachel]: Agree.

 4. Section 7.3 To get in line with other XR Block
> related RFC, suggest the following change:
> NEW TEXT:
> “
>    The contact information for the registrations is:
> 
>    RAI Area Directors
> 
>    rai-ads@tools.ietf.org

[Rachel]: Okay.

> ”
> 5. Appendix A:
> s/incorporated into/applied to
> What does “V” stand for? Please specify it clearly without dependency on the
> figure in this document, suggest the following change:
> s/V/ Video Loss Concealment Method Type

[Rachel]: Will do.

> 6.Appendix A,bullet e:
> "
>       The concealed
>       proportion of each video frame is obtained by dividing the number
>       of concealed macroblocks from this video frame by the total
>       macroblock number of the video frame, which is equivalent to
>       taking the integer part after multiplying the fraction by 256.
> "
> Suggest the following change:
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> which is equivalent to
> taking the integer part after multiplying the fraction by 256 "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
> multiplying the result of the division by 256, limiting the maximum value to 255
> (to avoid overflow), and taking the integer part.
> "

[Rachel]: Good suggestion. And it may also address the confusion of Vinayak.

> 
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: pm-dir [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Vinayak Hegde
> 发送时间: 2015年8月17日 2:45
> 收件人: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> 抄送: shida@ntt-at.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org; Benoit
> Claise (bclaise@cisco.com); alissa@cooperw.in
> 主题: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt
> 
> 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 mailing list
> pm-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir