Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05

It’s not a special meaning — this would mean a request to break the dependency 
chain for the base temporal and spatial layer, while allowing higher layers to 
continue using reference pictures across this break.  Figure 2 is a rough 
approximation of what’s desired, if you imagine it for temporal and spatial 
simultaneously.


> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Roni Even <roni(_dot_)even(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
> Just another clarification for both TTID=0 and TLID=0 , I understand that 
> there is one base layer, but does this case have any special meaning?
> Roni
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Roni 
> > Even
> > Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 08:16
> > To: Jonathan Lennox; Roni Even
> > Cc: avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-avtext-
> > lrr(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> > I did not see the text you added yet as a response to my first question So to
> > better clarify my question . If the FCI has TTID=0 and TLID=2 . does it mean
> > that it is a request to update both?
> > This was also the reason for the question about both TTID=0 and TLID=0,
> > which layer need update or is it both?
> > Can you say that you want just to update temporal or spatial?
> >
> > Roni
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of 
> > > Jonathan
> > > Lennox
> > > Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 00:30
> > > To: Roni Even
> > > Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General Area 
> > > Review Team;
> > > avtext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
> > > draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05
> > >
> > > Hi, Roni — thanks for your review.  Responses inline.
> > >
> > > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Roni Even 
> > > > <ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > > > Review result: Ready with Issues
> > > >
> > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> > > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
> > > > the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like
> > > > any other last call comments.
> > > >
> > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> > > >
> > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > > >
> > > > Document: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-??
> > > > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > > > Review Date: 2017-05-31
> > > > IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-08
> > > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> > > >
> > > > Summary:
> > > > The document is ready with issues for a standard track RFC Major
> > > > issues:
> > > >
> > > > Minor issues:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Can you specify both TTID and TLID in the same FCI.
> > > Syntactically, they must both occur.
> > >
> > > If you mean can you request an upgrade in both at once, yes; I’ve
> > > added text to clarify this.
> > >
> > > > 2. What is the meaning of value 0 for TTID and TLID - TID or LID =0
> > > > in frame marking draft means base layer if there is scalability.
> > > >    This relates to the previous question.
> > > I’m not sure I understand this question.
> > >
> > > I’ve added text that if C=1, at least one of <TTID, TLID> MUST be
> > > greater than <CTID, CLID>, and both MUST be greater than or equal to
> > > their counterpart, so the LRR is actually requesting a layer upgrade.
> > > Is that what you were asking about?
> > >
> > > > 3.  What would an FCI with both TTID and TLID equal 0 mean.
> > > It means you want a refresh of the base temporal/spatial layer, only.
> > >
> > > > Nits/editorial comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Section 3 "an Real-Time Transport Control Protocol" should be "a
> > > > Real…".
> > > Colin pointed out that it should say “an RTP Control Protocol” anyway.
> > >
> > > > 2. In section 3 " [RFC5104](Section 3.5.1)" there is a link to
> > > > section
> > > > 3.5.1 but it does not work.
> > > xml2rfc doesn’t have any way to link to sections of other documents,
> > > so the “(Section 3.5.1)” part is just a comment.
> > >
> > > I think the internet-draft tooling may have thought I was trying to
> > > link to a non-existent section 3.5.1 of this document, but that’s outside my
> > control.
> > > > 3. In section 3.2 "(see section Section 2.1)" section appears twice.
> > > Fixed.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gen-art mailing list
> > > Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art