APC Number Request

Sakae OKUBO okubo at GITI.WASEDA.AC.JP
Fri Oct 20 01:59:12 EDT 2000


Dear experts and Mr. Gero,

Here are a few suggestions on the testing condition.

(1) Video codec

In Q15, there are two mobile configurations defined. They should be in
the test conditions.

Profile 3 - H.263v2 Interactive and Streaming Wireless Profile
Profile 4 - H.263v3 Interactive and Streaming Wireless Profile

The "simple scalable profile with Annex O" mentioned in the test
condition is not one of the profiles defined in H.263. In addition,
Annex O is not a commonly used effective option, especially in
wireless application on a handset. It is suggested that this should be
removed from test conditions.

(2) Lower layer testing condition

H.323 is a protocol over packet switched networks above the transport
layers. It seems that for a simulation on the packet lose scenario to
actually implement all the protocol stacks way down to channel coding
of the data is unnecessary.

A reasonable assumption that the packetization is using RTP over an IP
bearer with its characteristic error patterns should be sufficient.
Indeed in your test condition documents, after all your analysis, you
come to the conclusion that :

"Excessive link layer simulations with respect to the UMTS air
interface have shown that a frame loss rate p in the range between
0.01 and 0.1 seems to be a reasonable assumption for current
implementations of the chosen bearer service!"

This is exactly the impact that the H.323 will feel from all the lower
layers. It is not necessary to regenerate this frame loss rate p by
actually implementing all the protocol stacks.

Hope it helps.

Adam


----------
Adam H. Li, Ph.D.
Image Communication Lab                     (310) 825-5178 (Lab)
University of California, Los Angeles       (310) 825-7928 (Fax)





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
> [mailto:ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com]On Behalf Of Baese Gero
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:54 AM
> To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Subject: AW: test conditions provided
>
>
> Dear experts, Mr. Li,
>
> we want to proceed with a technical and objective discussion.
>
> Everybody is solicited to suggest further improvements for
> the provided
> test conditions to become as realistic as possible. Any constructive
> criticism is welcome as well.
>
> Concerning your point Mr. Li, if you read the test conditions
> carefully you will see it is one item out of a list where you
> have the choice to take what you think is suitable. You will
> find the H.263 Wireless Profile also.
>
> Furthermore we want to discuss the main points of the test
> conditions (bearer service, ...). What is your opinion
> about the UMTS scenario ?
>
> We are still convinced, the provided test conditions are fair
> and reasonable.
>
> Best Wishes
> Gero Baese
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Adam Li [mailto:adamli at icsl.ucla.edu]
> > Gesendet am: Montag, 16. Oktober 2000 07:00
> > An: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
> > Cc: Baese Gero; Yung Lyul Lee; Jeong-Hoon Park; John D. Villasenor
> > Betreff: RE: test conditions provided
> >
> > Dear experts and Mr. Gero,
> >
> > It seems that the conditions described in the document
> can hardly be
> > called "reasonable and fair conditions".
> >
> > For example, for Media codecs, it specifies H.263 with
> Annex O. As we
> > all know, Annex O (with spatial, temporal and SNR
> scalability) is NOT
> > in the Wireless Profiles of H.263. Indeed, it is not in ANY of the
> > profiles defined in H.263.
> >
> > The whole Annex O is such a very complex algorithm, that it is NOT
> > even in the most complex profiles where complexity is not
> that much a
> > concern. It is really unimaginable that any mobile
> applications will
> > use Annex O.
> >
> > If the Siemens proposal needed such a un-realistic
> scenario to provide
> > any possible gain, the wireless connection oriented Annex
> I seems is
> > not the right place for it.
> >
> > Since Mr. Gero have just proposed the condition now, he may have
> > enough resource to test it before the document submission
> date. Maybe
> > you can test it also without Annex O, Mr. Gero?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Adam Li
> >
> > ----------
> > Adam H. Li, Ph.D.
> > Image Communication Lab                     (310) 825-5178 (Lab)
> > University of California, Los Angeles       (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T
> Study Group 16
> > > [mailto:ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com]On Behalf Of Baese Gero
> > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:38 AM
> > > To: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > Subject: test conditions provided
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear experts,
> > >
> > > the long lasting diskussion about the superiority of one
> > > of the proposals concerning error resilient transmission
> > > of progressive multimedia streams(H.323 Annex I) needs
> > > to be decided on an objective basis soon.
> > >
> > > Therefor we are providing reasonable and fair test conditions.
> > >
> > > The test conditions are focused on a common UMTS scenario with
> > > video input and PSNR as an objective quality measurement.
> > > Furthermore
> > > every step in between is well defined and a graphic
> visualization of
> > > the outcome is the ideal and easy basis, with not much room for
> > > interpretation, for the decision process.
> > >
> > >
> > > Comments, questions and supplements are welcome.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > > Gero Baese
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list