Subject: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind +1-678-7955235

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:27:01 +0200

Hi,

The next conference call: February 19, at 7:00 AM PST, 17:00
Israel/Finland, 16:00 Germany, 15:00 UK

The conference bridge number is +1-678-7955235

Regards

Roni.  

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:18:11 -0000

I've had a quick scan of the e-mails on the list since I sent some
comments on the draft on 8th February. Of those comments, the following
five perhaps need some discussion.

1. Introduction and Scope - should some of the text in the Scope be
moved to the introduction?

6. Timestamps across sessions. These should have different offsets, but
should they be sampled from the same clock?

11. Various bits in PACSI, such as the A bit. Can these bits be defined
in a meaningful way without specifying constraints on the contents of
other aggregation packets than the one in which the actual PACSI is
present?

15. Repeated SEI messages in PASCI and the other NAL units in an
aggregation packet. These should be discouraged, but there appears to be
no restriction in H.264/AVC/SVC on repeated SEI messages.

25. In which stream should repeated SEI messages be present (and other
non-VCL NAL units). This is also open issue 9 in the draft.

Also, Alex raised the issue of whether the S and E bits and TL0PICIDX
should use the same flag rather than the X and Y flags; and Jonathan and
Colin mentioned the possibility of defining a generic RTP extension for
cross-session decoding.

Best regards

Mike

Mike Nilsson 
Multimedia Analysis and Coding
BT Group Chief Technology Office
___________________________ 

Sirius House (B54-MH), Room 92 
Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, IP5 3RE, UK 
Tel:    +44 1473 645413 
Mobile: +44 7917 025433 
Fax:    +44 1908 862365 
Email:  [email-masked] <BLOCKED::mailto:[email-masked]> 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Even, Roni
Sent: 19 February 2008 08:27
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind +1-678-7955235

Hi,

 

Regards

Roni.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:58:36 +0200

It would be great if we can make some progress in the biggest issue,
i.e. cross-layer decoding order recovery, which has made the progress of
the draft very slow, because other parts, in particular the signaling
part, which need major work, are heavily dependent on this. 
 
I therefore would like the issue to be discussed with the following
context: 1) my long email sent on Feb. 7th summarizing the pros and cons
of the two approaches existing in the draft, as well as the discussion
initiated by Mike's proposal sent out on Feb. 8th, 2) Mike's earlier
proposal and the recent discussions between Jonathan, Colin and myself
for generic approaches for cross-layer decoding order recovery. 
 
BR, YK

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:18 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind
+1-678-7955235

	I've had a quick scan of the e-mails on the list since I sent
some comments on the draft on 8th February. Of those comments, the
following five perhaps need some discussion.

	1. Introduction and Scope - should some of the text in the Scope
be moved to the introduction?

	6. Timestamps across sessions. These should have different
offsets, but should they be sampled from the same clock?

	11. Various bits in PACSI, such as the A bit. Can these bits be
defined in a meaningful way without specifying constraints on the
contents of other aggregation packets than the one in which the actual
PACSI is present?

	25. In which stream should repeated SEI messages be present (and
other non-VCL NAL units). This is also open issue 9 in the draft.

	Also, Alex raised the issue of whether the S and E bits and
TL0PICIDX should use the same flag rather than the X and Y flags; and
Jonathan and Colin mentioned the possibility of defining a generic RTP
extension for cross-session decoding.

	Best regards

	Mike

	Mike Nilsson 

	Sirius House (B54-MH), Room 92 
	Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, IP5 3RE, UK 
	Tel:    +44 1473 645413 
	Mobile: +44 7917 025433 
	Fax:    +44 1908 862365 
	Email:  [email-masked]
<BLOCKED::mailto:[email-masked]> 

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Even, Roni
	Sent: 19 February 2008 08:27
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind
+1-678-7955235

	Hi,

	 

	Regards

	Roni.

---

From: "Thomas Schierl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:57:59 +0100

Ye-Kui,

You were missing an important point in your email sent on 02/07/2008:
CL-DON does not support fragmentation units of the non-interleaved mode. We
can have a long discussion whether fragmentation is useful or not, but if
using FEC or retransmission for pre-encoded content you want to benefit from
having application layer fragmentation instead of IP fragmentation. Further
you want to allow this without the burden of supporting the interleaved mode
for the (RFC3984 backward compatible) base layer session.

And there is still the following point sent by myself as reply on Colin’s
email from 02/10/2008:

Actually 8.1.1. describes the usage of session multiplexing for a layered
video codec with RFC3550. Besides the requirement of using the SDP
dependency signaling instead of standard SDP RFC4566, 8.1.1. does only rely
on mechanisms defined in RFC3550. Thus, I still believe that this mode
should be always allowed, whatever the exact gain using any other method may
be.

And another point we haven’t discussed:
Isn’t CL-DON relaxing the differentiation between non-interleaved mode and
interleaved mode packetization modes as defined in RFC3984? I mean CL-DON
would also allow for interleaving within one session with the definitions
present in the current draft. Thus, I think we should connect the CL-DON to
at least using interleaved mode in one of  the other sessions.

Thomas Schierl
-------------------
Fraunhofer HHI

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:59 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind +1-678-7955235

It would be great if we can make some progress in the biggest issue, i.e.
cross-layer decoding order recovery, which has made the progress of the
draft very slow, because other parts, in particular the signaling part,
which need major work, are heavily dependent on this.
 
I therefore would like the issue to be discussed with the following context:
1) my long email sent on Feb. 7th summarizing the pros and cons of the two
approaches existing in the draft, as well as the discussion initiated by
Mike's proposal sent out on Feb. 8th, 2) Mike's earlier proposal and the
recent discussions between Jonathan, Colin and myself for generic approaches
for cross-layer decoding order recovery.
 
BR, YK

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AVT] SVC ad-hoc meeting , February 19 remind +1-678-7955235
I’ve had a quick scan of the e-mails on the list since I sent some comments
on the draft on 8th February. Of those comments, the following five perhaps
need some discussion.

1. Introduction and Scope – should some of the text in the Scope be moved to
the introduction?

11. Various bits in PACSI, such as the A bit. Can these bits be defined in a
meaningful way without specifying constraints on the contents of other
aggregation packets than the one in which the actual PACSI is present?

15. Repeated SEI messages in PASCI and the other NAL units in an aggregation
packet. These should be discouraged, but there appears to be no restriction
in H.264/AVC/SVC on repeated SEI messages.

Also, Alex raised the issue of whether the S and E bits and TL0PICIDX should
use the same flag rather than the X and Y flags; and Jonathan and Colin
mentioned the possibility of defining a generic RTP extension for
cross-session decoding.

Best regards

Mike

Mike Nilsson
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Even,
Roni

Hi,

The next conference call: February 19, at 7:00 AM PST, 17:00 Israel/Finland,
16:00 Germany, 15:00 UK

Regards
Roni.  

----
Visit us at

GSMA Mobile World Congress / Barcelona, Spain / 11 - 14 February 2008 / Broadcast Mobile Convergence Forum / Booth 2B82
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/homepage.htm

OFC 2008 / San Diego, California, USA / 26 - 28 February 2008 / Booth 411/415
http://www.ofcnfoec.org
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt