Hi Jonathan, This will be good but maybe explain the upgrade means also refresh. Because my poor understanding in English is that upgrade is adding a new layer that was not available to the media receiver while refresh is to restore existing layer (e.g. decoder synchronization loss). Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Lennox [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:03 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: Roni Even; draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@xxxxxxxx; General Area Review Team; > avtext@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05 > > Hi, Roni — > > You seem to be assuming that a refresh and an upgrade are two different > actions. That’s not the intention — a refresh is a characteristic of a stream that > allows a decoder to upgrade. > > I’ll try to draft some text that makes it clear that it’s possible either to > independently upgrade temporal or spatial, or else upgrade both at once. > > > On Jun 11, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Roni Even <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > I assume the new text you propose is > > > > "When C is 1, TTID MUST NOT be less than CTID, and TLID MUST NOT be > > less than CLID; at least one of TTID or TLID MUST be greater than > > CTID or CLID respectively. That is to say, the target layer index > > <TTID, TLID> MUST be a layer upgrade from the current layer index > > <CTID, CLID>. A sender MAY request an upgrade in both temporal and > > spatial/quality layers simultaneously." > > > > I think that this text still only implies the behavior, also the > > current text talks about upgrade but I assume it is also for a refresh > > not only to upgrade > > > > Maybe " A sender MAY request an upgrade or refresh in both temporal and > > spatial/quality layers simultaneously by either having C =1 or by having both > CLID and CTID with lower values then TTID and TLID. If the sender want to > upgrade or refresh only one layer then C MUST be equal to 1 and only the CTID > or the CLID of the layer to be upgraded or refreshed should be lower than the > TTID or TLID respectively " > > > > > > Roni > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jonathan Lennox [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 18:30 > >> To: Roni Even > >> Cc: Roni Even; draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@xxxxxxxx; General Area > >> Review Team; avtext@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-05 > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:15 AM, Roni Even <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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? > >> > >> Yes, if the FCI has TTID=0 and TLID=2, it’s a request to update both > >> layers — or more specifically, to make sure that you can start > >> decoding the substream with TTID=0 and TLID=2. (For most scalability > >> structures this would mean updating both, but exotic structures are > >> possible.) > >> > >> If you want to just update one part of the stream, that’s what CTID > >> and CLID are for. If you sent TTID=0 and TLID=2, accompanied by > >> CTID=0 and CLID=0, that means that you already have TID 0, and you > >> just want to increase the LID. > >> > >> The current text is at > >> https://github.com/juberti/draughts/tree/master/lrr , if you want to > >> take a look at the latest revisions, or suggest text that you think would make > it cleaner. > >> > >> > >>> Roni > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >>>> Jonathan Lennox > >>>> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 00:30 > >>>> To: Roni Even > >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-lrr.all@xxxxxxxx; General Area Review Team; > >>>> avtext@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>>> 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.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> > 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@xxxxxxxx > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > >