In I.7.3.8.5.2 Coding unit extension syntax, depth_dc_sign_flag is signaled when depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] is greater than 0 as follows:

dcNumSeg = DmmFlag[ x0 + k ][ y0 + j ] ? 2 : 1 if( depth_dc_flag[ x0 + k ][ y0 + j ] )

for( i = 0; i < dcNumSeg; i ++ ) {

depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] if(depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] >0)

depth_dc_sign_flag[x0+k][y0+j][i]

}

On the other hand,in HTM-12.0, it is signaled when the absolute value of DcOffset is greater than 0 as follows:

Void TDecSbac::xParseDimDeltaDC( Pel& rValDeltaDC, UInt uiNumSeg ) {

UInt absValDeltaDC = 0; xReadExGolombLevel( absValDeltaDC, m_cDdcDataSCModel.get(0, 0, 0) ); rValDeltaDC = (Pel)absValDeltaDC + ( uiNumSeg > 1 ? 0 : 1 ); ... if( rValDeltaDC != 0 ) {

UInt uiSign; m_pcTDecBinIf->decodeBinEP( uiSign );

} ...

}

Signaling condition for depth_dc_sign_flag in WD should be aligned with HTM-12.0 as follows:

for example

dcNumSeg = DmmFlag[ x0 + k ][ y0 + j ] ? 2 : 1 if( depth_dc_flag[ x0 + k ][ y0 + j ] )

for( i = 0; i < dcNumSeg; i ++ ) {

depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] if((depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] - dcNumseg + 2) >0) or if((depth_dc_abs[x0+k][y0+j][i] + (dcNumseg > 1 ? 0 : 1 ) >0)

depth_dc_sign_flag[x0+k][y0+j][i]

}

In the current WD text, I only found the following limitation for the prediction direction of DBBP. I.7.4.9.6 It is a requirement of bitstream conformance that, when dbbp_flag[ x0 ][ y0 ] is equal to 1, inter_pred_idc[ x0 ][ y0 ] shall not be equal to PRED_BI. However, the HTM has forced any inherited bi-prediction MV in DBBP to be forward prediction. I think, a bug-fix should be added on I.8.5.3.2.1, point 14 as following

14. When predFlagL0 is equal to 1 and predFlagL1 is equal to 1, and ( nOrigPbW + nOrigPbH ) is equal to 12 or dbbp_flag is equal to 1, the following applies:

refIdxL1 = −1 predFlagL1 = 0

The current 3D-HEVC text specifies following post filtering conditions for DBBP if( ( lFlag | | cFlag | | rFlag ) && ( !lFlag | | !cFlag | | !rFlag ) )

filt = ( p[ Max( 0, x − 1 ) ][ y ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ Min( x + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ][ y ] ) >> 2

if( ( tFlag | | cFlag | | bFlag ) && ( !tFlag | | !cFlag | | !bFlag ) )

filt = ( p[ x ][ Max( 0, y − 1 ) ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ x ][ Min( y + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ] ) >> 2

However, the condition in "if" is opposite to the HTM11.0. It should be changed to if( !(( lFlag | | cFlag | | rFlag ) && ( !lFlag | | !cFlag | | !rFlag ) ) )

filt = ( p[ Max( 0, x − 1 ) ][ y ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ Min( x + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ][ y ] ) >> 2

if( !(( tFlag | | cFlag | | bFlag ) && ( !tFlag | | !cFlag | | !bFlag) ) )

filt = ( p[ x ][ Max( 0, y − 1 ) ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ x ][ Min( y + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ] ) >> 2

In further, because the condition in "if" can be simplified, I suggest it is changed to

if( lFlag != cFlag | | cFlag != rFlag )

filt = ( p[ Max( 0, x − 1 ) ][ y ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ Min( x + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ][ y ] ) >> 2

if( tFlag != cFlag | | cFlag != bFlag )

filt = ( p[ x ][ Max( 0, y − 1 ) ] + ( filt << 1 ) + p[ x ][ Min( y + 1, nCbSX − 1 ) ] ) >> 2