Subject: [AVT] SVC design team - March 25th meeting summary

From: "Even, Roni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:16:53 +0300

The SVC design team had a conference call on March 25th.

The first objective of the design team is to get consensus on the decoding order recovery solution. Roni mentioned that if there will be no agreement the WG chairs will draft a proposal and send it to the AVT list trying to see if there if consensus can be agreed on the list and if no consensus we may need to sue RFC 3929 procedures.

Roni Noted that there are three IPR statements concerning this draft from LMI (Vidyo), Nokia and BT

The meeting started with a presentation on the "decoding order recovery" prepared by Ye-kui (thanks).  The presentation describes the two optional solutions: "Classical" RTP and CL-DON.

The presentation suggested two options to combine the two methods:

*          Combination of the two existing solutions for the non-interleaved packetization mode

-         Comb#1: Receivers are required to support the 1st solution even PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information are present, meaning that insertion of video NAL units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit stream is always needed, though that is not needed by the 2nd solution. 

-         Comb#2: An alternative is to mandate both inclusion of PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information and insertion of video NAL units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit stream, such that the receiver can freely choose which solution to use. 

Stephan Wenger announced that Nokia may be willing to change the IPR statement adding non-assert clause if CL-DON will be mandatory. (Making Comb#2 as the compromised solution)

Stephan also pointed out that such non-assert terms will be less restrictive then the LMI one. 

Thomas Wiegand said that this is a good direction and asked for time to get feedback.

Alex mentioned that Vidyo will review their statement.

The group mentioned that there is still the BT IPR declaration that does not have the non-assert term and asked if BT can reconsider its IPR statement based on the good faith shown by the other parties. (There was no BT member in the meeting)

The summary is that the parties will look at a possibility to adopt Comb#2 based on Stephan's statement and will try to give the response to the next meeting of the design team

The editors of the draft should continue with the text addressing the other open issues in order to expedite the work.

There is also a need to expand the text explaining the decoding order procedures.

The next meeting is on April 8th

Time: 7:00 PST (San Francisco), 17:00 Israel

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=4&day=8&year=2008&hour=7&min=0&sec=0&p1=224

Dial in number: +1-678-7955235

Regards

Roni Even

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

---

From: Thomas Wiegand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:43:54 +0100

Roni,

as I mentioned to the design team and as it was extensively discussed:

The statement:

"The summary is that the parties will look at a possibility to adopt  
Comb#2 based on Stephan's statement and will try to give the response  
to the next meeting of the design team"

is not correct in my view. I asked to remove it.

I don't understand why you as a coordinator of this activity put that  
in without a consensus.

Thomas

On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Even, Roni wrote:

> The first objective of the design team is to get consensus on the  
> decoding order recovery solution. Roni mentioned that if there will  
> be no agreement the WG chairs will draft a proposal and send it to  
> the AVT list trying to see if there if consensus can be agreed on  
> the list and if no consensus we may need to sue RFC 3929 procedures.
> The meeting started with a presentation on the "decoding order  
> recovery" prepared by Ye-kui (thanks).  The presentation describes  
> the two optional solutions: "Classical" RTP and CL-DON.
> •          Combination of the two existing solutions for the non- 
> interleaved packetization mode
> –         Comb#1: Receivers are required to support the 1st solution  
> even PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information are present,  
> meaning that insertion of video NAL units to avoid type I non-AU- 
> aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit stream is always needed, though  
> that is not needed by the 2nd solution.
> –         Comb#2: An alternative is to mandate both inclusion of  
> PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information and insertion of video  
> NAL units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit  
> stream, such that the receiver can freely choose which solution to  
> use.
>
> Stephan Wenger announced that Nokia may be willing to change the IPR  
> statement adding non-assert clause if CL-DON will be mandatory.  
> (Making Comb#2 as the compromised solution)
> The group mentioned that there is still the BT IPR declaration that  
> does not have the non-assert term and asked if BT can reconsider its  
> IPR statement based on the good faith shown by the other parties.  
> (There was no BT member in the meeting)
>
> The summary is that the parties will look at a possibility to adopt  
> Comb#2 based on Stephan's statement and will try to give the  
> response to the next meeting of the design team
>
> The editors of the draft should continue with the text addressing  
> the other open issues in order to expedite the work.

----
Visit us at

MMC 2008 / Berlin, Germany / 2 - 3 April 2008 / Hoersaal E009
http://mmc.hhi.de/

Photonics Europe / Strasbourg, France / 7-11 April 2008 / Booth 321
http://spie.org/photonics-europe.xml
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:09:02 +0000

Thomas,

Roni's minutes accurately match my recollection of the call.

Colin

On 28 Mar 2008, at 08:43, Thomas Wiegand wrote:
> "The summary is that the parties will look at a possibility to  
> adopt Comb#2 based on Stephan's statement and will try to give the  
> response to the next meeting of the design team"
>
> I don't understand why you as a coordinator of this activity put  
> that in without a consensus.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>> decoding order recovery solution. Roni mentioned that if there  
>> will be no agreement the WG chairs will draft a proposal and send  
>> it to the AVT list trying to see if there if consensus can be  
>> agreed on the list and if no consensus we may need to sue RFC 3929  
>> procedures.
>> –         Comb#1: Receivers are required to support the 1st  
>> solution even PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information are  
>> present, meaning that insertion of video NAL units to avoid type I  
>> non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit stream is always needed,  
>> though that is not needed by the 2nd solution.
>> NAL units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL  
>> unit stream, such that the receiver can freely choose which  
>> solution to use.
>>
>> Stephan Wenger announced that Nokia may be willing to change the  
>> IPR statement adding non-assert clause if CL-DON will be  
>> mandatory. (Making Comb#2 as the compromised solution)
>> The group mentioned that there is still the BT IPR declaration  
>> that does not have the non-assert term and asked if BT can  
>> reconsider its IPR statement based on the good faith shown by the  
>> other parties. (There was no BT member in the meeting)
>>
>> The summary is that the parties will look at a possibility to  
>> adopt Comb#2 based on Stephan's statement and will try to give the  
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html? 
>> month=4&day=8&year=2008&hour=7&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:29:36 +0300

Here is the slide deck
(http://research.nokia.com/files/SVC_cross_layer_decoder_order_recovery.
ppt). The slide deck tries to explain the entire issue comprehensively
using concrete examples in figures. 
 
Three places were updated compared to the one used in the discussion:
 
- Sub bullet item 1 in slide 17 - added the example referring to slide
10 to make the error resilience problem easier to understand. 
- In slide 24, added the last possible way to go -  Take both existing
solutions and let the use be negotiated
- Removed the acknowledge slide and the item from the outline
 
BR, YK

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Even, Roni
	Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:17 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [AVT] SVC design team - March 25th meeting summary

	The first objective of the design team is to get consensus on
the decoding order recovery solution. Roni mentioned that if there will
be no agreement the WG chairs will draft a proposal and send it to the
AVT list trying to see if there if consensus can be agreed on the list
and if no consensus we may need to sue RFC 3929 procedures.

	Roni Noted that there are three IPR statements concerning this
draft from LMI (Vidyo), Nokia and BT

	The meeting started with a presentation on the "decoding order
recovery" prepared by Ye-kui (thanks).  The presentation describes the
two optional solutions: "Classical" RTP and CL-DON.

	The presentation suggested two options to combine the two
methods:

	*          Combination of the two existing solutions for the
non-interleaved packetization mode

	-         Comb#1: Receivers are required to support the 1st
solution even PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information are present,
meaning that insertion of video NAL units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned
NAL units in sent NAL unit stream is always needed, though that is not
needed by the 2nd solution. 

	-         Comb#2: An alternative is to mandate both inclusion of
PACSI NAL units carrying CS-DON information and insertion of video NAL
units to avoid type I non-AU-aligned NAL units in sent NAL unit stream,
such that the receiver can freely choose which solution to use. 

	Stephan Wenger announced that Nokia may be willing to change the
IPR statement adding non-assert clause if CL-DON will be mandatory.
(Making Comb#2 as the compromised solution)

	Stephan also pointed out that such non-assert terms will be less
restrictive then the LMI one. 

	Thomas Wiegand said that this is a good direction and asked for
time to get feedback.

	The group mentioned that there is still the BT IPR declaration
that does not have the non-assert term and asked if BT can reconsider
its IPR statement based on the good faith shown by the other parties.
(There was no BT member in the meeting)

	The editors of the draft should continue with the text
addressing the other open issues in order to expedite the work.

	There is also a need to expand the text explaining the decoding
order procedures.

	
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=4&day=8&year=
2008&hour=7&min=0&sec=0&p1=224

	Regards

	Roni Even