In WD, cb_cbf and cr_cbf syntax elements are signaled differently for intra and inter CU. In SW, they are signaled in the same way for intra and inter CU. Based on the adoption of F606, WD should be modified to match SW.

I have noticed what looks like a discrepancy between the draft spec and HM-5.1. It is regarding the context increment derivation of coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag. The spec says the following:

• If n is equal to 15 or all previous syntax elements coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag[pos] with pos greater than n are derived to be equal to 0 instead of being explicitly parsed, the following applies.
  • ....
  • When the subset i is not the first one to be processed in this subclause, the following applies.
    • The variable numGreater1 is set equal to the variable numGreater1 that has been derived during the last invocation of subclause 9.3.3.1.1.6 for the syntax element coeff_abs_level_greater2_flag for the subset i + 1.
    • When (numGreater1 >> 1) is greater than 0, ctxSet is incremented by one as follows. ctxSet = ctxSet + 1

In HM-5.1, the comparison above is done before the downshift (TDecSbac.cpp, line 1937):

UInt uiCtxSet = (iSubSet > 0 && eTType==TEXT_LUMA) ? 3 : 0; if( uiNumOne > 0 ) {

uiCtxSet++; if(eTType==TEXT_LUMA && uiNumOne > 3) {

uiCtxSet++;

}

}

uiNumOne >>= 1;

I think this can be fixed in the working draft by simply removing the downshift in the comparison

Section 8.6.2.1.1 Table 8-58 -- Specification of hPos[2] and vPos[2] according to the type of sample adaptive offset process

When sao_type_idx=4, the sampling positions are (1,-1) and (-1,1). hPos and vPos should be:

hPos[0] = 1 hPos[1] = -1 vPos[0] = -1 vPos[1] = 1