[video-codec] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 13 June 2019 13:23 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EC1120153; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements@ietf.org, Mo Zanaty <mzanaty@cisco.com>, netvc-chairs@ietf.org, mzanaty@cisco.com, video-codec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <156043220008.12531.8325545739299673939.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:23:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/video-codec/4Vrz6EULHP9js-dpFgKJRQXiowU>
Subject: [video-codec] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/video-codec/>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:23:21 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netvc-requirements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Roman's Discuss. I am sympathetic to the tsv-art reviewer's concerns that this document is focused on video technology of 5 years ago and may lack relevant in the current world. I don't intend to hold a Discuss point for any specific resolution, but I do think the IESG should discuss whether this concern affects the value of publishing this document as an RFC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1 What do "PAM" and "RA" mean? Moving Appendix A earlier (before Section 2) or referring to it from the Introduction would be helpful. Note that RFC style is to expand on first use... . High Dynamic Range (HDR), Wide Color Gamut (WCG), high resolution (currently, up to 4K), high frame-rate content are important use cases, the codec should be able to encode such content efficiently. nits: missing "and" in serial list, and the last comma is a comma splice. Section 2.5 [Google didn't help me find reference [9].] Section 2.6 The (long) list in Section 2.5 includes "cloud gaming"; how much overlap does that have with this service? Section 3.1, 3.2 What is the difference between "General Requirements" and "Basic Requirements"? ection 3.2.1 Is "Exemplary input source formats" supposed to just be an example, or an indication of the pinnacle of possible values? Section 4.1 Initially, for the codec selected as a reference one (e.g., HEVC or VP9), a set of 10 QP (quantization parameter) values should be specified (in a separate document on Internet video codec testing) and corresponding quality values should be calculated. [...] This seems to suggest ("Initially", "for the codec selected") that the evaulation requirements are not yet complete. Are they intended to be a single set of requirements for the codec's development, or customized to some per-application requirements? (Is there a reference needed to ongoing work to solidify these requirements?) QP'k = argmin { abs(Q'i(QP'i) - Qk(QPk)) }, i in R I would suggest defining the argmin function. It's surprising to see no reference to draft-ietf-netvc-testing from this document. Section 6 I don't see much need for a "Conclusions" section of this nature, in this document. Appendix B Defining (e.g.) "high dynamic range" and "wide color gamut" with respect to "normal" or "conventional" mechanisms does not really provide a stable and archival reference for comparison.
- [video-codec] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [video-codec] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on dra… Filippov Alexey
- Re: [video-codec] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on dra… Benjamin Kaduk