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
> >>
> >