[rmcat] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 03 March 2020 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8EB3A0CA3; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:00:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org, rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, rmcat@ietf.org, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, varun.singh@iki.fi, csp@csperkins.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.119.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <158325845349.7888.12449671497053211192@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:00:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/z41X4dJpl3-wUrWj0zV52Btj-uI>
Subject: [rmcat] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 18:00:54 -0000
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: No Objection 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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this document. I understand that section 3.1 is not serving the main purpose of this document, but I don't think it is implementable as written. In particular: 3.1. RTP Log Format Having a common log format simplifies running analyses across and comparing different measurements. The log file should be tab or comma separated containing the following details: Send or receive timestamp (unix) RTP payload type SSRC RTP sequence no RTP timestamp marker bit payload size Is this sufficient inambiguous to be useful for interoperability? I.e. does each field has a single textual format? How is "marker bit" encoded? Is each line CRLF or LF terminated?
- [rmcat] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-i… Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker