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

+1

And the title might be changed in case a new report block will be defined later.

Thanks and Regards,
Claire

From:  Colin Perkins 
Date:  2012-12-20  19:16:20 
To:  Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
Cc:  xrblock@ietf.org 
Subject:  Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02 

We don't seem to have any urgent need for the extra parameters, so option (a) ¨C some minor clarifications with the draft title, and possibly to the text ¨C seems most appropriate.
Colin
On 20 Dec 2012, at 10:27, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I do not think that there is a conflict with the rules any way we proceed. It's just a personal preference and not a strong one, we defined the architecture to be modular, so why not use this? (as intended when you wrote the I-D)
> 
> Let us maybe hear other opinions. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> (speaking as contributor)
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:03 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Roni Even; xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02
>> 
>> 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>; "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>;
>> <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>; "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'"
>>>> <dromasca@avaya.com>; <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>;
>> <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
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/
_______________________________________________
xrblock mailing list
xrblock@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7404 (20120821) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com