Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B845221F8432 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:03:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.715
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hpv+imIqb3SK for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6208621F85BB for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AOA05606; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:03:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:03:25 +0000
Received: from SZXEML460-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.203) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:03:38 +0000
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml460-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:03:06 +0800
Message-ID: <6D0953D6A5BA41A9B6E0A505976BD719@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA024828@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com><03ed01cdddea$abe24170$03a6c450$@gmail.com><E9065C5941FE44C98930D6DE8A896F48@china.huawei.com><046a01cdde8e$34df8ac0$9e9ea040$@gmail.com><8C09D242D355466AB1C11927D3719EFF@china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA044810@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:03:06 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:03:43 -0000

It depend on whether we need to classify them into different categories. We shouldn't forget they are all Decodability Statistis parameters.
in my thinking, putting these parameters together in the same  block doesn't looks to conflict with the rules provided by 
monitoring architecture.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>om>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02


> (speaking as a contributor)
> 
> Solution (a) seems to me closer to the 'philosophy' we adopted with the modular monitoring architecture. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:29 AM
>> To: Roni Even; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02
>> 
>> Hi, Roni:
>> We have two ways:
>> (a) If we choose to define a second report block later, we also need to
>> change  the current block name from "The MPEG-TS Decodability Metrics
>> Block"
>> to "The MPEG-TS PSI Independent Decodability Metrics Block" to avoid
>> block name confusing.
>> 
>> (b) If we choose to take all PSI related parameters into the current
>> block, we don't need to change block name but block length will grow
>> into 17 from 11.
>> 
>> If people don't think the block size growth is a problem, I perfer the
>> (b).
>> 
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
>> To: "'Qin Wu'" <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'"
>> <dromasca@avaya.com>om>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:44 PM
>> Subject: RE: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02
>> 
>> 
>> > Hi Qin,
>> > Thanks for the explanation. I see no problem with the current
>> parameters. I
>> > assume that we can define  later a second report block that will cover
>> the
>> > other parameters and it will be inline with the concepts of the
>> monitoring
>> > architecture
>> > Roni
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>> > Sent: 20 December, 2012 3:57 AM
>> > To: Roni Even; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; xrblock@ietf.org
>> > Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-
>> 02
>> >
>> > Hi, Roni:
>> > Thank for raising this issue.
>> > In this draft, we are not choosing to report all indications in the
>> first
>> > priority and second priority. Instead, we are choosing to report all
>> the
>> > parameters that can be easily gathered by parsing the TS header. What
>> we
>> > ignore is all the other PSI/SI related parameters in the first
>> priority and
>> > second priority. These parameters usually fixs and repeatly occur in
>> the
>> > received stream and need deep parsing not only TS header but also TS
>> payload
>> > which introduce complexity in the test and measurment instrument.
>> However I
>> > do agree with you these PSI/SI related parameters are still very
>> important
>> > parameters. Any error of these PSI/SI related parameters will lead to
>> very
>> > serious quality problem.
>> >
>> > Regarding the option you proposed, I am not favoring the second
>> approach
>> > since it doesn't solve the problem you raised and we already clarified
>> the
>> > parameter we are taking belong to 1st and 2nd prioirty in the
>> description
>> > before the format. I checked section 5.3.5 of TR 101.290, which
>> provide TS
>> > parameters in transmission system with "reduced SI data". I think if
>> we
>> > really want to take some new parameters, we like to choose to take
>> > additional missing parameters in the 1st and 2nd priority of section
>> 5.3.5,
>> > which belong to "reduced SI data".
>> >
>> > Otherwise we prefer to leave as it is.
>> >
>> > Regards!
>> > -Qin
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
>> > To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>om>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:13 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-
>> 02
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >> Sorry for the late posting.
>> >> I noticed that ETSI TR 101 290 has eight first priority and eight
>> second
>> >> priority indications (section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2) while here we list
>> only
>> > half
>> >> of them claiming that the others do not apply to all MPEG
>> implementations.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I do not have a major problem with keeping the XR block as is but we
>> can
>> >> look at two other options.
>> >>
>> >> 1. Have all 16 indications.
>> >> 2 Add two new parameters " # of First Priority Errors"  and   "# of
>> Second
>> >> Priority Errors  "
>> >>
>> >> Roni Even
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf
>> >> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> >> Sent: 29 November, 2012 2:48 PM
>> >> To: xrblock@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a Working Group Last Call for
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-
>> 02.txt.
>> >>
>> >> Please read and review this document, and send your comments,
>> questions
>> > and
>> >> concerns to the WG list before December 13, 2012. If you have no
>> comments
>> >> and you believe that the document is ready for submission to the IESG
>> as a
>> >> Standards Track document please send a short message as well to help
>> us in
>> >> determining the level of review and consensus.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock