From nobody Mon May 20 18:33:09 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15EC120045; Mon, 20 May 2019 18:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com 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 ePsp7WPBDu7L; Mon, 20 May 2019 18:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 3D9A7120021; Mon, 20 May 2019 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4L1WwH4083309 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 20 May 2019 20:33:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1558402380; bh=FdQPlvkc4i+Vyx7c/HUlrPFHbyaTLOip1kQreOQlbo4=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=U1TBiEIo8WCFJgIfQu7qZ5lAbU85frMCvDmPjcyhhUuQbGpZnKbgp/KTDaDYo1MOS 3sAcPxNYNSGsKfQP+C80on1GldUN4nVUC7Dr3UGq89HyNEH0s22yLKkxhHm0KQvoT0 IPYVHKI60UiF4uxmeiHzonSMKXjm1ahDysDxSbS0= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at To: "draft-ietf-netvc-requirements@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-netvc-testing@ietf.org, video-codec@ietf.org From: Adam Roach Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 20:32:53 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: [video-codec] AD Review: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09 & draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08 X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 01:33:09 -0000 This is my AD review for both draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09 and draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08. Neither document contains any issues that need addressing prior to IETF last call, which I plan to request shortly. Please treat the comments below the same as you would any other IETF last call comments. Thanks to the authors of and contributors to both of these documents. =========================================================================== draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09 =========================================================================== Please either move the table in Appendix A to the beginning of Section 1, or add a forward citation to it from the introduction. Also, consider adding "SIMD" to the table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.1: >  o  Middle QP values are normally used in streaming, this is also the >     range where compression efficiency is important for this >     scenario. Nit: "...in streaming. This is also..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.6: >  There are many >  companies such as Twitch, YY in China enable game broadcasting Nit: this sentence is missing a preposition. I suggest fixing it as: "...such as Twitch and the China-focused YY that enable game broadcasting." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.1.4: >  3.1.4. A bitstream should have a model that allows easy parsing and >  identification of the sample components (such as ISO/IEC14496-10, >  Annex B or ISO/IEC 14496-15). Please add references (in the "Informative References" section) to these ISO/IEC documents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.2.2: >  o  Resolution and quality (SNR) scalability that provide low >     compression efficiency penalty (up to 5% of BD-rate [12] increase >     per layer with reasonable increase of both computational and >     hardware complexity) can be supported in the main profile of the >     codec being developed by the NETVC WG. Because working groups are generally not visible to consumers of RFCs, we don't typically include information like this in final versions of our documents. Consider removing everything after "codec". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.1: >  Initially, for the codec selected as a reference one (e.g., HEVC or >  VP9), a set of 10 QP (quantization parameter) values should be >  specified (in a separate document on Internet video codec testing) ... >  A list of video sequences that should be >  used for testing as well as the 10 QP values for the reference codec >  are defined in a separate document Please cite draft-ietf-netvc-testing rather than indicating a "separate document." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.1: >  According to the coding efficiency requirement described in Section >  3.1.1, BD-rate savings calculated for each color plane and averaged >  for all the video sequences used to test the NETVC codec "...to test the candidate codec..." >  In addition to the objective quality measures defined above, >  subjective evaluation must also be performed for the final NETVC >  codec adoption "...for the final codec adoption..." >  For >  perception-oriented tools that primarily impact subjective quality, >  additional tests may also be individually assigned even for >  intermediate evaluation, subject to a decision of the NETVC WG. Omit the final clause (i.e., end the sentence after "evaluation"). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.2: >  Reference software provided to the NETVC WG for candidate codecs >  should comprise a fully operational encoder supporting necessary Omit "provided to the NETVC WG". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider removing section 6; conclusions sections are not common in RFCs. =========================================================================== draft-ietf-netvc-testing-08 =========================================================================== As a general question -- the requirements document calls out a couple of chroma subsampling schemes that aren't mentioned in the testing document (notably, YCbCr  4:2:2 and monochrome). If this omission is intentional, can we add a sentence or two to the testing document that explains why running tests with these schemes isn't necessary? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.2: >  The still image pair comparison method can be modified to also >  compare vidoes. Nit: "videos" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.1: >  PSNR is a traditional signal quality metric, measured in decibels. >  It is directly drived Nit: "derived" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.3: >  The PSNR-HVS metric performs a DCT transform of 8x8 blocks of the Please expand "DCT"; e.g: "...performs a DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) of..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §4.3: >  For individual feature changes in libaom or libvpx, the overlap BD- Would it be possible to add citations for libaom and libvpx? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §5.3: >  Four operating modes are defined.  High latency is intended for on >  demand... Nit: "...on-demand..." >  Both of >  these modes come in CQP and unconstrained variants Please expand "CQP". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §5.3: Where possible, please indicate where the tools being discussed can be located:  - av1  - daala  - vp9  - x264 From nobody Tue May 21 06:17:47 2019 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 C6A7612006A; Tue, 21 May 2019 06:17:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: CC: adam@nostrum.com, netvc-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netvc-requirements@ietf.org, mzanaty@cisco.com, Mo Zanaty , video-codec@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <155844466474.2421.5101413727761141100.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 06:17:44 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [video-codec] Last Call: (