IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [video-codec] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 13 June 2019 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7F312008B; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 14nDLQdbPo1i; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 F2EF3120074; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x5D2u2N1016300 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:56:04 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1560394567; bh=9iOzSTa22r4NyVp5LyGFY7NgL7XaoQdiWMHRSgD053M=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GmmBuOZbPCyoH4CFl027ZJiy5qKTAqw4Hm6XHvi4equQKFnejYwZL0IBmej4jan6F eOm93a4WiFBTgazm31OP3zC9xWL/BfTf+OCfaorSmBrCqOVdRxPS/XOHo3gzaZkR7g wcVVFFFp0y8EliNjOQHcjmLHj3cQ6dLDo9hMTyoQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: netvc-chairs@ietf.org, video-codec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netvc-requirements@ietf.org, mzanaty@cisco.com
References: <156030268519.5895.7315446863069831893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <8d9e74af-cbd4-24de-b4a9-e1ee0d9eb969@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:55:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <156030268519.5895.7315446863069831893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/video-codec/HPzgZUlRSN5AN7fXr_JaTB93sm8>
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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 02:56:21 -0000

On 6/11/19 8:24 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> -- What does “codec implementation (for both an encoder and a decoder) should
> cover the worst case of computational complexity, memory bandwidth, and
> physical memory size” mean?


Would this be clearer if it were rephrased as "...should take into 
consideration the worst-case..." ?

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email