[video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 05 June 2019 19:33 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 9816712021B; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netvc-testing@ietf.org, Matthew Miller <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, netvc-chairs@ietf.org, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net, video-codec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <155976320861.22415.998674089792385186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:33:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/video-codec/QZ6Ly79fV9gg1KS9ynhFhvQPZhk>
Subject: [video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08: (with 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: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:33:28 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08: Abstain 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-testing/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Update: This document has no security considerations section, while having this section is required. This document reads more like a user manual of the Daala tools repository (together with the test sequences). I wonder why this is not simply achieved within the repo? What’s the benefit of having this in an RFC? Especially I’m worried that this document is basically useless in case the repo and test sequences disappear, and are therefore not available anymore in future, or change significantly. I understand that this is referenced by OAM and therefore publication is desired, however, I don't think that makes my concern about the standalone usefulness of this document invalid. If you really want to publish in the RFC series, I would recommend to reduce the dependencies to these repos and try to make this document more useful as a standalone test description (which would probably mean removing most of section 4 and adding some additional information to other parts). Also, the shepherd write-up seems to indicate that this document has an IPR disclosure that was filed after WG last call. Is the wg aware of this? Has this been discussed in the wg? Other more concrete comments: 1) Quick question on 2.1: Is the tester supposed to view one image after the other or both at the same time? And if one ofter the other, could the order impact the results (and should maybe be randomly chosen therfore)? 2) Sec 2.3: Would it make sense to provide a (normative) reference to MOS? Or is that supposed to be so well know that that is not even necessary? 3) Sec 3.1: maybe spell out PSNR on first occurrence. And would it make sense to provide a reference for PSNR? 4) Sec 3.2: “ The weights used by the dump_pnsrhvs.c tool in the Daala repository have been found to be the best match to real MOS scores.” Maybe document these weights in this document as well…? 5) Sec 5.3: Maybe spell out CQP at first occurrence
- [video-codec] Mirja Kühlewind's Abstain on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker