Re: [xrblock] Additional PID parameter to PSI dependent Decodabilityreport

"Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn> Sun, 08 September 2013 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
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 4295721F9E94 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 02:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.355
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcxvs7zgrSUD for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 02:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from corp.21cn.com (corp.forptr.21cn.com [121.14.129.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5944D21F908F for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 02:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 10.27.101.10:56363.1034023500
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from BJY-PC (unknown [10.27.101.10]) by corp.21cn.com (HERMES) with ESMTP id 4A3A3484001; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:02:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from BJY-PC ([101.229.131.127]) by 21CN-entas10(MEDUSA 10.27.101.10) with ESMTP id 1378630977.16744 for bill.wu@huawei.com ; Sun Sep 8 17:03:03 2013
0/X-Total-Score: 0:
2/X-Total-Score: -120:
3/X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<838a8d8d4f98966189968298868a4f84908e9993838d90848c618a8695874f909388>, score=<1378630983lmmmmqqqlllllllllllmllN8fVmQ9XpppppDppNpp8pD>
X-REAL-FROM: bijy@sttri.com.cn
X-Receive-IP: 101.229.131.127 bijy@sttri.com.cn
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 17:02:57 +0800
From: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <201309081702569748606@sttri.com.cn>
X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 15, 201, 23 [cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon401373672187_====="
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Additional PID parameter to PSI dependent Decodabilityreport
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: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:03:10 -0000

Hi Qin,

According to what you clarified below, “PID_error_count is used to report any error when any PID doesn’t refer to an actual data stream.” while "A Unreferenced PID is a packet with a PID that is not listed in the PMT",  it looks like unreferenced PID count and PID error count just have similar function. 
I think it's not necessary to  report this parameter.


Thanks and Regards,
Claire




> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Qin Wu 
> Date:  2013-08-19  11:40:42 
> To:  xrblock@ietf.org 
> Cc:  
> Subject:  [xrblock] Additional PID parameter to PSI dependent Decodabilityreport 
 
  
Hi, All:
During Berlin meeting, one comment raised to PSI dependent Decodability draft 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bi-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-dep-decodability-01) in 
the XRBLOCK Session by Alan was suggesting the addition of the PID to the report.
In the current draft, we have already add PID_error_count under priority two to the report.
PID_error_count is used to report any error when any PID doesn’t refer to an actual data stream.
 
After doing a  little investigation to ETSI TR 101.290 specification, we believe it is 
useful to add “unreferenced PID count” to the report.
“Unreferenced PID” is under priority three and is a packet with a PID that is not 
listed in the PMT. This parameter is not critical, but it
indicates that packets are being disassociated from the PMT, possibly through
remultiplexing.
 
Therefore I propose to add “Unreferenced_PID_Count” as one addition to report as follows:
NEW TEXT:
“
Unreferenced_PID_count: 32 bits
 
A count of the number of Unrerenced_PIDs that occurred in the above
sequence number interval.  A Unreferenced PID is a packet with a PID
that is not listed in the PMT,as defined in the section 5.2.3 of 
[ETSI]. It indicates that packets are being disassociated from the 
PMT, possibly through remultiplexing.
”
 
Regards!
-Qin
 


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8231 (20130415) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com