okubo at GITI.WASEDA.AC.JP
Sun Feb 25 09:26:09 EST 2001
Dear Mr. Baese, experts,
After much discussion here on the reflector, I thought Mr. Baese had agreed
on the following two points:
(1) The simulation will be performed using H.263 Profile 3 and Profile 4.
(2) For the benchmark case (without proposed protection) that both of the
proposal are compared to, the Annex K/V in Profile 3/4 of H.263 will be used
so that the packets fits in the MTU of the channel.
However, neither of these are incorporated in APC-1993r2 Mr. Baese just
resent. Those conditions are in the document I sent earlier (which combines
APC-1906 and APC-1993), and I haven't heard from Mr. Baese any technical
objection on the detail of that document. So our document may be a better
base for the combined testing condition document.
On the second document for feature comparison, at this time, both sides
should submit *individual* documents detail the views with technical
analysis. From the way that the discussion on the testing condition goes,
realistically there is little chance that an agreed feature comparison
document can be completed within 3 days to meet the deadline. So submitting
two individual documents would be a practical solution at this time.
On the finger pointing in discussion, I have no interest to participate.
Have a good day.
Adam H. Li
Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab)
University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Baese Gero [mailto:Gero.X.Baese at mchp.siemens.de]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 5:05 AM
> To: 'Adam Li'; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
> Subject: AW: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
> Dear Mr. Li, experts,
> we provided you with the draft of the technical comparison
> document. A lot of time elapsed and now you don't consider
> it realistic anymore to do this joint work. We regret your
> resistance. The consequence would be wasting the time of the
> group at the meeting with what we were supposed to do in advance.
> Please reconsider your answer and the time delay caused
> by you with it.
> The document attached to your last email by mistake I guess
> was an old collection of values. The more comprehensive test
> scenario document is APC-1993r2, attached to this email.
> It will be provided as document AVD-2059 at the next meeting.
> Best Wishes
> Gero Baese
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Adam Li [mailto:adamli at icsl.ucla.edu]
> > Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2001 11:55
> > An: Baese Gero; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
> > Cc: Tao Tian; Jay Fahlen; John D. Villasenor; Barry Aronson; Paul E.
> > Jones; Jeong-Hoon Park; So Youg Kim; Yung Lyul Lee
> > Betreff: RE: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
> > Mr. Baese, experts,
> > For the testing condition document, I believe we have settled
> > on most of the
> > issues. So here is the testing document, and please take a
> > look and let me
> > know if there is anything else that we need to discuss.
> > About the feature comparison document, I suggest that we both draft
> > documents for the point to point comparisons with the
> > technical reasoning.
> > From the current schedule situation, it seems that it is more
> > realistic for
> > us to submit two independent documents. We can go over them
> > at the meeting,
> > and combine them then if necessary.
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> > ----------
> > Adam H. Li
> > Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab)
> > University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
More information about the sg16-avd