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.
"

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
"

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