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

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

On 21 Sep 2012, at 11:12, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 04:38 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> ...
>> I'm a little confused by the  changes to this draft. The last
> > paragraph of the Introduction now has a strong focus on definition of
> > new metrics, and explicitly refers to the RFC 6390 guidelines for
> > defining new metrics. However, we've been pretty consistent that new
> > RTCP XR report blocks don't define new metrics, but rather explicitly
> > convey metrics that have been defined elsewhere.
> >
> > I'd suggest changing:
> >
> > In the Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390], guidelines for
> > Considering New Performance Metric Development are provided. 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. In the Performance
> > Metrics Framework [RFC6390], guidelines for Considering New
> > Performance Metric Development are provided. When new performance
> > metrics are specified, they must follow the RFC 6390 rules:
> > specifically, the performance metric definition template (see
> > section 5.4.4, RFC 6390) must be used.
> >
> > to:
> >
> > 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.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/