Re: [pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-13: (with DISCUSS)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,

That works for me.

As a new PM-DIR member and someone deeply involved in XRBLOCK, do I 
guess correctly that you have checked for naming collisions, and also 
some sort of naming consistency in the XRBLOCK metrics?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-ippm-perf-metric-registry-01#section-4 
might help as an inventory as of Oct 2013

Regards, Benoit.
>
> Hi, Benoit and Al:
>
> Yes, I confirmed to make change to Appendix A of 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe. I am not supposed to change 
> calculation algorithm name in this draft.
>
> Here is my proposed change to Appendix( See attached) which I have 
> sent to my authors for confirmation.
>
> Hope this clarify.
>
> Regards!
>
> -Qin
>
> *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:57 PM
> *To:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [e-mail]; Qin Wu
> *Subject:* Re: [pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-13: (with DISCUSS)
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I meant the different "metric name" entries in Appendix A of the draft.
> Qin Wu, in cc, agreed to improve those.
> We should avoid collisions with the exist XR block defined metrics.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>     Hi Benoit,
>
>     it's not clear what registry you are asking about:
>
>     The IANA section of this draft references and existing registry for
>
>     RTCP-XR metrics (defined in RFC 3611), which has attribute names
>
>     and long-form attribute names for the "MOS Metrics block".
>
>     Also, there's a new registry of calculation algorithms defined in
>
>     the IANA section:
>
>        o  Initial assignments are as follows:
>
>     Name Name Description                  Reference    Type
>
>     ========= ===================================   ==========    ====
>
>     P564 ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm        [P.564] Voice
>
>     G107 ITU-T G.107                            [G.107] Voice
>
>     TS101_329  ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E              [ETSI]         Voice
>
>     JJ201_1    TTC JJ201.1                            [TTC]          Voice
>
>     G107_1 ITU-T G.107.1                          [G.107.1] Voice
>
>     P862 ITU-T P.862                            [P.862] Voice
>
>     P862_2 ITU-T P.862.2                          [P.862.2] Voice
>
>     P863 ITU-T P.863                            [P.863] Voice
>
>     P1201_1 ITU-T P.1201.1                     [P.1201.1] Multimedia
>
>     P1201_2 ITU-T P.1201.2                     [P.1201.2] Multimedia
>
>     P1202_1 ITU-T P.1202.1                     [P.1202.1] Video
>
>     P1202_2 ITU-T P.1202.2                     [P.1202.2] Video
>
>     Which one of these, or other naming convention are you talking about?
>
>     Al
>
>     *From:*pm-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Benoit Claise
>     *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:09 AM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* [pm-dir] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
>     draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-13: (with DISCUSS)
>
>     PM-Dir,
>
>     I believe that we need a little bit of consistency regarding the
>     naming convention for the perf. metrics.
>     Specifically because those xrblock perf. metrics should be the
>     basis for an IETF registry.
>     Feedback?
>
>     Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>
>     *Subject: *
>
>     	
>
>     Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-13:
>     (with DISCUSS)
>
>     *Date: *
>
>     	
>
>     Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:20:33 -0800
>
>     *From: *
>
>     	
>
>     Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     *To: *
>
>     	
>
>     The IESG <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     *CC: *
>
>     	
>
>     <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>
>     draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-13: 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 tohttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe/
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     DISCUSS:
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>       
>
>     The metric names in the registry are not specific enough: payload type,
>
>     calculation identifier metric, segment type, and potentially MOS. I guess
>
>     they should say something about RTP. Let me file this DISCUSS while I
>
>     double-check with the performance metric directorate.
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>     .
>
>       
>