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

["Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm also okay with option (a). But It seems PCR_accuracy_error in second priority is not a PSI parameter. So I think it's better to add it.

Best Regards!
Rachel


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:07 PM
To: 'Colin Perkins'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-02

Hi,
This is also my view.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 20 December, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Qin Wu; Roni Even; [e-mail]
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) - some minor clarifications with the draft title, and possibly to the
text - 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:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:03 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Roni Even; [e-mail]
>> 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)" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>; "Roni Even" 
>> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:29 AM
>>>> To: Roni Even; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
>>>> 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" <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "'Qin Wu'" <[e-mail]>; "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'"
>>>> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: 20 December, 2012 3:57 AM
>>>>> To: Roni Even; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; [e-mail]
>>>>> 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" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <[e-mail]>;
>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> On
>>>> Behalf
>>>>>> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>>>>>> Sent: 29 November, 2012 2:48 PM
>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xrblock mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xrblock mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock



--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/




_______________________________________________
xrblock mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock