IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec

"Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn> Tue, 16 October 2012 04:17 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 A63731F0CA4 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.409
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, SARE_RECV_IP_218078=1.666]
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 0u8WqsXzdr0h for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from corp.21cn.com (corp.forptr.21cn.com [121.14.129.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20ECD1F0CA2 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip?218.80.215.132? (entas2.inner-hermes.com [10.27.101.2]) by corp.21cn.com (HERMES) with ESMTP id 30BE5194012; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:17:36 +0800 (CST)
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_IP: wmail.10.27.101.2.1320836262
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: WEBMAIL
Received: from ip<218.80.215.132> ([218.80.215.132]) by 21CN-entas2(MEDUSA 10.27.101.2) with ESMTP id 1350361056.9184 for bill.wu@huawei.com ; Tue Oct 16 12:17:41 2012
0/X-Total-Score: 0:
2/X-Total-Score: 3:
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<838a8d8d4f98966189968298868a4f84908e9993838d90848c618a8695874f909388>, score=<1350361061pJppzppUpp/pjYJzU/P9Dp1ll9llEllLlqM19ELORIll>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:17:36 +0800
From: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1433318271.1001350361056459.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web6>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_92_1608199130.1350361056153"
HMM_WEBCLN_IP: 10.27.10.88
X-HERMES-SENDMODE: normal
X-HERMES-SET: KoH0oguRsun5ALVzckz3EqaqqOumqw==
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:17:46 -0000

Hi Qin,
 
Thanks for the reply. Please see my reply inline below.
 
Claire
 
------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------

发件人：Qin Wu "bill.wu@huawei.com"
时　间：2012/10/16 10:47:31 星期二
收件人："Claire Bi(jiayu)" "bijy@sttri.com.cn", xrblock "xrblock@ietf.org"
抄送人：
主　题：Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec


Hi,Claire:
Thank for your comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec.
Here is my reply inline below.
 
Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message -----
From: bijy@sttri.com.cn" href="mailto:bijy@sttri.com.cn" rel="nofollow">Claire Bi(jiayu)
To: xrblock@ietf.org" href="mailto:xrblock@ietf.org" rel="nofollow">xrblock
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:02 PM
Subject: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec

Hi，

Several quick comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-concsec:

1. Section 1.4
Editor Notes needed to be cleared.
 
[Qin]: To clear the Editor Note, we need firstly reach agreement that
this draft should also need to support packet loss concealment for video application.
 
[Claire]:OK. I have another question. Once this agreement is reached, is this metric still primarily for audio applications of RTP? If not, the abstract, section 1.1 and other related sections should also be upgraded. Maybe this also needs to be discussed in Atlanta.
2. Section 2.1 Report Block Structure
s/Loss Concealment metrics block/Concealed Seconds metrics block
 
[Qin]: Good catch, thanks.
 
3. Section 2.1 figure 1
s/BT =NLC/ BT =NCS
 
[Qin]: Okay.
4. Section 2.2 Unimpaired Seconds
There's no definition of VAD. I proposed we should add it in the text.
OLD TEXT：
"
...if VAD is used, shall be counted as unimpaired seconds.
"
NEW TEXT:
"
...if Voice Activity Detection (VAD) is used, shall be counted as unimpaired seconds.
"
[Qin]: How about not expand VAD, instead put a external reference to VAD which
explain what VAD is?
[Claire]:OK.
5. Section 2.2
"Packet Loss Concealment Method (plc): 2 bits"
If video loss concealment techniques are suppoted, 2 bit packet loss conealment method is not
sufficient.
 
[Qin]: Agree,probably we need to support addtional 4 or more video loss concealment method.
In that case, at least 4 bits is required.
[Claire]:Good sugestion. It makes sense to me.
 
Claire
 
 

 

 

_______________________________________________
xrblock mailing list
xrblock@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status