From nobody Tue Feb 2 02:47:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91051AD0BE for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 02:47:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3o6Aqle-S3p for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 02:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30E741AD0BC for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 02:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDV30519; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:47:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:47:00 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA508-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.64]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:46:46 +0800 From: Filippov Alexey To: "Andrew.Krupiczka@espn.com" , "james@mobcrush.com" , "gmcoppa@cbs.com" Thread-Topic: Re: Re: [video-codec] Call for review comments: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements Thread-Index: AdFdpwEE6d/hOHGSSGK6ZgpkZpCtWA== Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:46:45 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.198.51.238] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A95DB243D3936149BBFA3B43ED710745705D53ECszxema508mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.56B08926.0057, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.8.64, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1a7265074ecee3f43a0ec6e4181a491a Archived-At: Cc: Adam Roach , "video-codec@ietf.org" , Jose Alvarez , Zhoujiantong Subject: Re: [video-codec] Call for review comments: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:47:08 -0000 --_000_A95DB243D3936149BBFA3B43ED710745705D53ECszxema508mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Andrew, dear Greg, Thank you so much for your comments and recommendations! I agree with you that these frame-rates (presented in Table 2 in BT.2020-2)= should be included into Table 1 of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements. However,= I'd like to emphasize that all the tables presented in section 2 of draft-= ietf-netvc-requirements provide just the most frequent use-cases and do not= cover every use-case. So, I agree with James that variable frame-rate shou= ld be supported. Another question to be discussed is where it should be sup= ported (in the NETVC codec or in a container). Evidently, Andrew is absolutely right that the highest frame-rate should be= limited in Table 6. In my opinion, the maximum frame-rate should depend on= resolution to meet the complexity requirement. -- Best regards, Alexey Filippov --_000_A95DB243D3936149BBFA3B43ED710745705D53ECszxema508mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Andrew, dear Greg,

 

Thank you so much for your comments and recommendati= ons!

 

I agree with you that these frame-rates (presented i= n Table 2 in BT.2020-2) should be included into Table 1 of draft-ietf-netvc= -requirements. However, I’d like to emphasize that all the tables pre= sented in section 2 of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements provide just the most frequent use-cases and do not cover every use-case. = So, I agree with James that variable frame-rate should be supported. Anothe= r question to be discussed is where it should be supported (in the NETVC co= dec or in a container).

 

Evidently, Andrew is absolutely right that the highe= st frame-rate should be limited in Table 6. In my opinion, the maximum fram= e-rate should depend on resolution to meet the complexity requirement.=

 

--

Best regards,

Alexey Filippov

 

--_000_A95DB243D3936149BBFA3B43ED710745705D53ECszxema508mbschi_-- From nobody Mon Feb 29 12:24:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA091B3B87 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0IaEC62O7MDj for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 524E01B3B8B for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l6so729754pfl.3 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MTC9VnIqed/XFXrHmTQn9pbZjQSZ10q+30G/pSCOnuw=; b=tJoNs4AaYay9V8uILgz0x+wDJvkZNV4TMkYhv9rpEXtADpBM9+RnH7nezbuMCSJKJV HKgKsr5QdEWN9J1DKjy7mswLMHh5P9gvC27q3Qu5UE64yeMPxctRA6ynmfE6eSmBL/pT 1jvCpfAXzw+eIOSustjsAvy3mwUhBNCPKklkre5hJ+Jt9qKdQjNo9buO4wIgOYMdgGLE fb+cfCXEouEhJJtCmfWCNK0a82XJdyi6LcEdveceIfl78TyGXVNq/6YwgWhQUA23MGI/ SfhsZ8Ocqwwn2Fm+jHX7LzWgcip8yz1+yZjBGcmlkgkvHd0qYTgV8JXeivf7/EeqA78/ 5MOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MTC9VnIqed/XFXrHmTQn9pbZjQSZ10q+30G/pSCOnuw=; b=WrxcNSzuO/Pq1CXZKHRTmtEP+aEzcfFlYqRuvTH4HSxsXgMUikvKkqS1ftZRhm4l7m sXmlhJlPgRcd2Jy9ptEjhkxi9On6IHACpeA6cVmQvcT/ehxBBFRi6ssz40dQn9hck1/4 IVLThNSbwXAPsdgAErr3+RwJvmlFD1hiIrozLCg8hFDfKktFvV9r9CMWmizd4K3ppdmc wm6dUvovFOmn/u3uDL/F1lzJt6jfkldap4xg9zKHV9toTFwUBVF7M3T5nFzza5+dnFIk kyNbD4TqkBi4x+v4QNTtDxh9aSnztSPNgPclxwCKVlHCA+kRxhLEy52Iv2emgNhcVvLq Ospw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKYcDiktgNGEWhmMLrt1QjdRMx4t3rVqRZ+LduO4TaP+BIqgiKjSPM8Q0+7lSspECWJ X-Received: by 10.98.89.200 with SMTP id k69mr23954186pfj.56.1456777485820; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126? ([2620:101:80fc:224:7e7a:91ff:fe9e:8126]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l62sm40102583pfj.7.2016.02.29.12.24.44 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:44 -0800 (PST) To: video-codec@ietf.org References: From: Thomas Daede X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56D4A90A.10704@mozilla.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:24:42 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Call for review comments: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:24:50 -0000 I think the information in each section might be presented better as a simpler table. In most of the cases, all of the entries under framerate are the same, and also all of the entries under PAM are the same. For example, for Video Sharing, you could do something like this: +--------------+---------------------+ | Resolution | 64x360 - 3840x2160 | +--------------+---------------------+ | Frame Rate | 24-60fps | +--------------+---------------------+ | Pixel Format | YUV 4:2:0 | +--------------+---------------------+ | PAM | RA | +--------------+---------------------+ Or put it in the bulleted list, or move all of the bulleted list parameters into the table. On 02/02/2016 02:46 AM, Filippov Alexey wrote: > Dear Andrew, dear Greg, > > > > Thank you so much for your comments and recommendations! > > > > I agree with you that these frame-rates (presented in Table 2 in > BT.2020-2) should be included into Table 1 of > draft-ietf-netvc-requirements. However, I’d like to emphasize that all > the tables presented in section 2 of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements > provide just the most frequent use-cases and do not cover every > use-case. So, I agree with James that variable frame-rate should be > supported. Another question to be discussed is where it should be > supported (in the NETVC codec or in a container). > > > > Evidently, Andrew is absolutely right that the highest frame-rate should > be limited in Table 6. In my opinion, the maximum frame-rate should > depend on resolution to meet the complexity requirement. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Alexey Filippov > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > From nobody Mon Feb 29 18:38:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietf.org Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3601A8AE2; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:38:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160301023814.1728.87355.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:38:14 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netvc-testing-01.txt X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 02:38:14 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Video Codec of the IETF. Title : Video Codec Testing and Quality Measurement Authors : Thomas Daede Andrey Norkin Filename : draft-ietf-netvc-testing-01.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2016-02-29 Abstract: This document describes guidelines and procedures for evaluating a video codec specified at the IETF. This covers subjective and objective tests, test conditions, and materials used for the test. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netvc-testing/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netvc-testing-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netvc-testing-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/