Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi,Roni:
Thank for your followup comments, see my reply inline below.

Regards!
-Qin

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:55 PM
To: Qin Wu; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi Qin,
See inline
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
> Sent: 22 August, 2013 3:02 PM
> To: Roni Even; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> Hi,Roni:
> Thank for your valuable comments to the update. Please see my rely inline
> below.
> 
> Regards!
> -Qin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Roni Even
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:38 PM
> To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> Hi,
> I reviewed the document looks OK. Two editorial comments
> 
> 1. In section 4.1, mosref has three values l, m, h yet the text " the
syntax
> element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution  relative reference
> (e.g., Narrowband (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard  Definition (SD) Resolution
> Video with lower resolution, Wideband
>    (7kHz) Speech and High Definition (HD) Resolution Video with higher
> resolution).  MOS scores reported in the mos metrics block might vary with
> the MoS reference; For example, MOS values for narrowband,
>    wideband codecs occupy the same range but SHOULD be reported in
> different value.  For video application, MoS scores for SD resolution, HD
> resolution video also occupy the same ranges and
>    SHOULD be reported in different value."
> I think a better example and division should be for audio l = narrow band
> 3.5 Khz, m should be wideband 7 Khz and h should be super wideband or
> higher
> >14kHz. For video l should be CIF or lower and h should  be 1080HD or
> >higher
> and m should be betwee CIF and 1080HD.
> 
> [Qin]: Good suggestion. Yes, in the syntax of mosref, we distinguish
mosref
> with 3 vlaues so does text description.
> Here is my proposed change:
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution  relative
> reference (e.g., Narrowband (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard  Definition (SD)
> Resolution Video with lower resolution, Wideband
>    (7kHz) Speech and High Definition (HD) Resolution Video with higher
> resolution).  MOS scores reported in the mos metrics block might vary with
> the MoS reference; For example, MOS values for narrowband,
>    wideband codecs occupy the same range but SHOULD be reported in
> different value.  For video application, MoS scores for SD resolution, HD
> resolution video also occupy the same ranges and
>    SHOULD be reported in different value.
> "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
>    The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution
>    relative reference and has three valules 'l','m','h'.(e.g., Narrowband
> (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard
>    Definition (SD) Resolution Video have 'l' resolution, Super Wideband
>    (>14kHz) Speech and High Definition (HD) Resolution Video have 'h'
>    Resolution,Wideband speech(7khz) and Video with resolution between SD
> and HD has 'm' resolution).
>     MOS scores reported in the mos metrics block might vary
>    with the MoS reference; For example, MOS values for narrowband,
>    wideband,super wideband codecs occupy the same range but SHOULD be
> reported in
>    different value.  For video application, MoS scores for SD
>    resolution, HD resolution video also occupy the same ranges and
>    SHOULD be reported in different value.

[Roni Even]  I have no problem with having SD as 'l' but it should say SD or
lower. And for 'h' HD or higher.
For audio 'h' should be super wideband or higher since the next term is
fullband (20Khz)

[Qin]: Okay, I agree, here is the proposed new change:
OLD TEXT:
 "
 The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution  relative
 reference (e.g., Narrowband (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard  Definition (SD)
 Resolution Video with lower resolution, Wideband
    (7kHz) Speech and High Definition (HD) Resolution Video with higher
 resolution).  MOS scores reported in the mos metrics block might vary with
 the MoS reference; For example, MOS values for narrowband,
    wideband codecs occupy the same range but SHOULD be reported in
 different value.  For video application, MoS scores for SD resolution, HD
 resolution video also occupy the same ranges and
    SHOULD be reported in different value.
 "
NEW TEXT:
"
   The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution
    relative reference and has three valules 'l','m','h'.(e.g., Narrowband
 (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard
    Definition (SD) or lower Resolution Video have 'l' resolution, Super Wideband
    (>14kHz) Speech or higher and High Definition (HD) or higher Resolution Video have 'h'
    Resolution, Wideband speech(7khz) and Video with resolution between SD
     and HD has 'm' resolution).
     MOS scores reported in the mos metrics block might vary
    with the MoS reference; For example, MOS values for narrowband,
    wideband,super wideband codecs occupy the same range but SHOULD be
 reported in
    different value.  For video application, MoS scores for SD
    resolution, HD resolution video also occupy the same ranges and
    SHOULD be reported in different value.
"

> "
> 
> 2.  section 4.1 defines mapentry =  "calg:" 1*5 DIGIT ["/" direction].
From
> section 4.2 I got the impression that the range [4096-4351] is not to be
used
> as valid value. I think it should be clarified in section 4.1 what are the
valid
> range.
> 
> [Qin]:Good point, we can add some annotation to mapentry syntax in the
> section 4.1 as follows:
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> mapentry =  "calg:" 1*5 DIGIT ["/" direction] "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
> mapentry =  "calg:" 1*5 DIGIT ["/" direction];Value 0~4095 are valid "
[Roni Even] What about values higher than 4351, since it is 1-5 digits, are
they valid?

[Qin]: Good point, how about the following change:
"
mapentry =  "calg:" 1*5 DIGIT ["/" direction];Value other than 4095~4351 are valid
"
> 
> Thanks
> Roni
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: 21 August, 2013 4:36 PM
> > To: xrblock@ietf.org
> > Subject: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the second WGLC for the Internet-Draft 'RTP Control Protocol
> (RTCP)
> > Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MoS Metric Reporting' previously known
> > as 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE
> > Metric Reporting'. Please send your comments, questions, and concerns
> > to the WG list before Wednesday 9/4. If you have no comments or
> > questions and you believe that this document is ready for submission
> > to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard, please send a
> message stating this.
> >
> > The latest version of the document can be retrieved from
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10.txt.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xrblock mailing list
> > xrblock@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock