Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 17 June 2013 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 B698621F8F7B for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PtvZdNE+cjQf for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.131.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1164421F8D90 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=37457 helo=[192.168.0.11]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1Uohcy-0008BT-Eu; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:10:21 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B40E5F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:10:19 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <962CF375-9496-45BA-8FD1-CAF3CEB20065@csperkins.org>
References: <4FFE5264-C78F-4B45-BE8B-4EB649FD91EE@ntt-at.com> <578DC4BF-7282-4BBB-BA92-CCC7B29F0D7C@csperkins.org> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B40E5F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: xrblock-chairs <xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:10:43 -0000

Qin,

The length of time represented by an audio payload tends to be an integer number of milliseconds for frame-based codecs, but can have an arbitrary length for sample-based codecs. Using RTP timestamp units might allow you to precisely match up the timings, if that matters. Plus, don't you have RTP timestamp units, but would need to convert to milliseconds?

Colin



On 13 Jun 2013, at 06:34, Qin Wu wrote:
> Colin,
> Yes, you are right.
> The length of time represented by audio playload in the RTP packet is usually measured using ms.
> Another rationale is concealment metrics are just terminal related end system metrics and its calculation does not need to rely on RTP timestamp in the RTP packet.
> 
> Regards!
> -Qin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Colin Perkins
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:02 AM
> To: Shida Schubert
> Cc: xrblock-chairs; xrblock
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05
> 
> Shida,
> 
> I've read the draft, and believe it's in reasonable shape to progress. I would be interested in hearing the authors' rationale for choosing ms as the measurement unit rather than RTP timestamp units, however. It would seem that there might be an argument for using RTP timestamp units, so the reports can exactly line-up with the audio data in the RTP packets.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 May 2013, at 17:53, Shida Schubert wrote:
>> This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on 
>> "Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporting on Audio Applications" 
>> prior to requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard. 
>> 
>> As per discussion at the last meeting, we are running a second 
>> WGLC on this draft.
>> 
>> Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the
>> 
>> 12th of June
>> 
>> If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please
>> express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the
>> list as well. 
>> 
>> The latest version can be found here:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Shida as co-chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/