[pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 10 April 2013 13:45 UTC

Message-ID: <51656CAD.104@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:44:13 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
References: <20130410133058.10246.10836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130410133058.10246.10836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020708070100030905060808"
Subject: [pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Dear perf metric reviewers,

I filed a DISCUSS on the draft draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss.
The reason is that the RFC6390 template is not used.
See my previous message on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat/>

    I spent quite some time with Qin and Dan on the RFC 6390 template
    section for this document. See the result is in the appendix A.
    We, as the perf metric directorate, should start to shoot for
    consistency between all drafts now.

    Note: for this draft, we compromised on having the RFC 6390 template
    in the appendix, as opposed to the body of the document. The reason
    is that there is no clear boundary for this set of perf metrics:
    these are new metrics, but defined based on existing ones.
    For any new metric definition, this should be in the draft body.


Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Benoit Claise's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Date: 	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:30:58 -0700
From: 	Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: 	The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: 	xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss@tools.ietf.org



Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Qin,

Me again ;-)
During the last IETF, we work together (with Dan Romascanu) on using the
RFC6390 template in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11#appendix-A
You should apply the same rule with this draft.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

  RTCP XR views a call as being divided into bursts, which are periods
    during which the loss rate is high enough to cause noticeable call
    quality degradation (generally over 5 percent loss rate), and gaps,
    which are periods during which lost packets are infrequent and hence
    call quality is generally acceptable.

I always heard of max 1 percent of packet loss to avoid audible errors

[pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ie… Benoit Claise