Abstract

This contribution provides comments on the latest working document DOC-0154 “Performance monitoring for IPTV” with some proposed resolutions.

1. Introduction

The source companies jointly reviewed the latest working document DOC-0154 “Performance monitoring for IPTV” to brush up and finalize it as an Output Document of FG-IPTV. The following section provides comments with some proposed resolutions.

The reviewing activities have been motivated by IPTV Working Group, TTC (the Telecommunication Technology Committee) in Japan and the source companies have voluntarily participated in this effort.

2. Comments with some Resolutions

The followings are comments raised though the review activities on DOC-0154. Proposed modifications are detailed in the attached document.

(1) Clause 6, Figure 6-2

In general, performance monitoring management platforms are not always centralized systems. They manage individual or some domains and collect parameters from monitoring points, perform performance analysis, and generate reports. Therefore, it is proposed to change the name of the management platform in Figure 6-2, and modify the description of the figure accordingly.

Original: Centralized Monitoring, Management and Performance Analysis Platform

Proposed change: Monitoring, Management and Performance Analysis PlatformsContact: Yoshihiro Miyamoto

NEC CorporationJapan

Tel: +81 44 431 7596Fax: +81 44 431 7590Email yh-miyamoto@ax.jp.nec.com

Contact: Masami UedaSumitomo Electric Japan

Tel: +81-6-6466-5607Fax: +81-6-6462-4586Email mr-masami-ueda@sei.co.jp

Contact: Isami NakajimaNTTJapan

Tel: +81 422 59 3472Fax: +81 422 59 7429Email: isami.nakajima@lab.ntt.co.jp

Attention: This is a document submitted to the work of ITU-T and is intended for use by the participants to the activities of ITU-T's Focus Group on IPTV, and their respective staff and collaborators in their ITU-related work.  It is made publicly available for information purposes but shall not be redistributed without the prior written consent of ITU.  Copyright on this document is owned by the author, unless otherwise mentioned.  This document is not an ITU-T Recommendation, an ITU publication, or part thereof.

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION FOCUS GROUP ON IPTVTELECOMMUNICATIONSTANDARDIZATION SECTORSTUDY PERIOD 2005-2008

FG IPTV-C-1052

English only

WG(s): 2 7th FG IPTV meeting: Qawra, St Paul’s Bay, Malta, 11 – 18 December 2007

CONTRIBUTION

Source: NEC Corporation, NTT Corporation, Sumitomo Electric

Title: Comments on DOC-0154 “ Performance monitoring for IPTV”

- 2 -FG IPTV–C–1052

(2) Clause 7, Monitoring parameters in Table 7-1

Every parameter in Table 7-1 should be described in Clause 7.1 – 7.7. Every parameter already defined in Clause 7.1 – 7.7 should be arranged in Table 7-1. Buffering and Decoding delay parameters should be removed from Table 7-1 because their descriptions were removed from Clause 7.4 in the 6th FG meeting.

(3) Clause 7.2

To clarify the relation between the IP Layer parameters in Table 7-1 and the descriptions in Clause 7.2, the parameters should be categorized into IP Layer Bandwidth parameters or Packet Loss parameters.

(4) Clause 7.4, Figure 7-2

Figure 7-2 is too simple and unsatisfactory to explain the Service Line-Up parameters, because it doesn’t say about channel line-up parameters, ancillary channel attributes and some parameters in Clause 7.4. If it is difficult to revise Figure 7-2 for improvement, the figure should be removed.

(5) Clause 7.5.x

To clarify the meaning of the three parameters, “Blackout”, “Frame Freeze” and “Audio Loss/Presence” in Table 7-1, it is proposed to add the following sub-clause.

Proposed sentences:

7.5.4 Presence and status of Audio/Video output

The presence and status of the audio/video output can be detected. Presence indicates whether any audio/video content is produced. Status indicates whether the video has freeze frames or is in the blackout condition.

3. Editorial Comments

(1) General

The notation for, “metadata”, “meta-data” and “meta data”, should be consistent and aligned with “metadata”.

(2) Clause 7.5

Proposed change:

As described in Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2, each channel has …..

(3) Clause 8.5.2

Proposed change:

Reduced reference (RRRF) –

- 3 -FG IPTV–C–1052

No reference (NRNF) –

(4) Clause 8.5.2.1, the 4th paragraph

Proposed change:

….. needs to send the information to a streaming server (Error: Reference source not found Figure 7).

4. Summary

It is proposed to consider and resolve the comments presented in Section 2 and Section 3 of this contribution.

_____________