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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roni Even
>> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 08:16
>> To: Jonathan Lennox; Roni Even
>> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-avtext-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan
>>> Lennox
>>> Sent: יום ד 07 יוני 2017 00:30
>>> To: Roni Even
>>> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team;
>>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to