Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt

[Glen Zorn <[e-mail]>]

On 09/21/2012 05:22 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

...

>
 >
 > The objective of this document is to describe an extensible RTP
 > monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality
 > of Service (QoS) / QoE metrics which facilitate reduced
 > implementation costs and help maximize inter-operability. The
 > "Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968]
 > has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the
 > preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611]
 > block. This memo assumes that all the guidelines from RFC 5968 must
 > apply on top of the guidelines in this document. Guidelines for
 > developing new performance metrics are specified in [RFC6390]. New
 > RTCP XR report block definitions should not define new performance
 > metrics, but should rather refer to metrics defined elsewhere. It is
 > expected that the referenced metrics will conform to [RFC6390].
 >>
 >> I think that that is all fine, except the last sentence. To give
 >> one example from a draft currently under discussion,
 >> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv uses metrics developed by ITU-T.
 >> Can we reasonably expect that ITU-T metrics will conform to RFC
 >> 6390?
 >
 >
 > Good point - I guess we could add "...if developed in the IETF", or
 > we could just remove the last sentence.
 >

Deleting is easy :-).