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

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
Cc: <avt@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt

> 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 :-).

[Qin]:Okay, looks good to me.

> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt