Subject: [AVT] RE: [jvt-gop] UVLC for header

From: "AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:02:20 +0100

Hi Stephan,
---
Think of the problems supporting uneven protection by application layer
QoS enhancement (packet based FEC, whatever), or the need for an H.26L
decoder to be flexmux-aware, meaning MPEG-SL aware, meaning expensive.
---
Can you point out what in SL is expensive ?

cu,

O .

PS : You made a comment on IPR related to MPEG-4 Systems SL. I challenge you
to bring evidence on this statement. I hope we can keep the discussion
technical in the future.

---

From: "Adam Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:02:28 -0800

Hey,

From English grammar point of view, I think the original comments from
Stephan should read as following:

"Think of (...) the need for an H.26L decoder to be (...) expensive".

You quoted the complete sentense in your email below. The word "expensive"
is refering to H.26L, not MPEG-SL. By the way, my understanding is that the
word "expensive" is also refering to complexity of the protocol design and
implementation, but not in other financial or political sense. Please do
correct me if I am wrong.

Please do not be too defensive. :-) I totally agree with you that the we
should keep the discussion technical here.

Adam

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of AVARO
Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM
  Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 4:02 AM
  To: 'Stephan Wenger'
  Cc: 'Thomas Stockhammer'; 'CJ Tsai'; 'Teruhiko Suzuki';
[email-masked]; 'Miska Hannuksela'; 'Thomas Wiegand';
[email-masked]
  Subject: [AVT] RE: [jvt-gop] UVLC for header

  Hi Stephan,
  ---

  cu,

  O .

  PS : You made a comment on IPR related to MPEG-4 Systems SL. I challenge
you to bring evidence on this statement. I hope we can keep the discussion
technical in the future.

---

From: "AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:07:09 +0100

Dear Adam,
  ---
  By the way, my understanding is that the word "expensive" is also refering
to complexity of the protocol design and implementation, but not in other
financial or political sense. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
  ---

  This is the way I understood it as well, even though my mail also
mentionned IPR issue raised by Stephan.
  Let's keep this lattest issue aside for the time being and go back to the
complexity issue.

  Let's also focus it as well as on the implementation complexity as opposed
to specification complexity. The lattest issue is mostly a matter of taste
and of what meetings one has enjoyed in the last month/years.

  Let me therefore reiterate my question. What is the source of complexity
in SL ?

  cu,
  O.