[video-codec] Comments on draft-maxwell-videocodec-requirements-00

[Kevin Gross <[e-mail]>]

Section 3.4

I would assume teleoperation would require greatly reduced latency compared
to telepresence.

Section 4, first paragraph:

Expand CDN -> Content Delivery Network

Section 4, third paragraph:

Here's an opportunity to focus the project. Instead of trying
to accommodate lossy and lossless networks, why not concentrate on the
lossy networks the IETF is most familiar with?

Lossless networks are the highest-performance networks and conserving
bandwidth on these is not likely a priority.

Section 4, fourth paragraph, last sentence:

There certainly are video interfaces (e.g. HDMI) that support incremental
delivery of frames. What are the interfaces that do not support subframes?

Section 4, fifth paragraph, bullet 2:

This is great for storage but, I'm not convinced this is helpful for
networks. For network operations, lower average bitrates with higher
unpredictability may be worse than higher average bitrates with greater
predictability.

If you want to keep this in, reference the teleconference applications in
sections 3.2 and 3.3 and explain how this helps those applications.

Section 5.1:

Justify the goal of reduced bitrates. On wired networks, available
bandwidth has been doubling every 18 months. Media bandwidth requirements
have been largely stagnate. See http://tinyurl.com/aes44wp figure 1 and 2.
Situations where quality is expected to be limited by available bandwidth
need to be identified.

If we're going to compare to existing codecs, we need to specify which
version of the codec we're referencing and what method(s) we'll use to do
the quality comparison.

Section 5.2 first paragraph:

Here's another opportunity to focus the project. The current text seems to
be saying that the the codec can be all things to everyone. At the BoF, the
primary IETF value of the effort was identified as open connectivity and
the biggest risk identified was IPR issues.

I will suggest that we want to build a low-complexity codec. A simpler
codec should interoperate more easily and be better at achiving our
connectivity goal. The reduced complexity should present a smaller surface
of exposure for IPR issues.

Section 5.2 second paragraph:

To maximize adoption potential the codec should be optimized, within
reason, for small memory footprint. Small memory footprint should be taken
to be small enough to fit on a smartphone or set-top box. If a
low-complexity codec is made a design goal, a small footprint should be
a natural consequence.

Section 7

During the BoF, the strength of the project was identified as open
connectivity, if we achieve this, we need to assume the codec will have
a long lifetime. Extensible as described here can help extend the usable
lifetime of the codec. It is well worth the cost of a small amount of
bandwidth.

Kevin Gross
[phone]
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org