Re: [rtcweb] [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Sat, 29 September 2012 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F15521F8639 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iHtYFEtqdvJl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD91421F861D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKD05001; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:49:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:46:01 +0100
Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:46:59 +0100
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:46:56 +0800
Message-ID: <5C3B831BB96542CB8C9488663D7CE373@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04081AB2D9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><3C8D9E30D9654AD0A3E1F21668D1CBFB@china.huawei.com><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04081AB4AD@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><20E112E82D30472AA48E653041BC0A78@china.huawei.com>, <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04081AB5BE@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96218CFC7599@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><50658AA6.5090200@alvestrand.no> <5F7BCCF5541B7444830A2288ABBEBC96218CF78F67@FRMRSSXCHMBSD2.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:46:55 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:49:44 -0000

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>; <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt


> Harald,
> 
> just to double check:
> 
>> (For reference, the WebRTC codebase seems to decode block type 7 and no 
> other block type....)
> 
> BT=7 would be the "VoIP Metrics Report Block" (RFC 3611).

[Qin]: If you look for metrics only for audio stream, you may look at BT =7,
However if you look for metrics not only for audio stream but also for video stream,
you may look at burst gap loss metrics, burst gap discard metrics, Delay metrics,
QoS metrics, Jitter Buffer metrics developed in XRBLOCK WG which are 
decomposed from VOIP metrics Report block but more generic metrics that can be 
applied to both audio and video stream.

> Whereas BT=6 would be the "Statistics Summary Report Block", related also to some improved SR/BR metric.
> 
> Regards,
> Albrecht
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Freitag, 28. September 2012 13:32
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
> 
> On 09/27/2012 01:20 AM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
>>> I am happy to see my comments being forwarded to rtcweb@ietf.org if
>> they
>>> are interested and want to more input from XRBLOCK WG. However I am
>> not
>>> sure how much of their work is related to XRBLOCK work? Do they only
>>> look for some basic metrics obtained from SR/RR. But I agree with you
>>> consistency between the metrics used by RTCP XR and RTCWEB is a good
>>> thing.
>> The work on "rtcweb-stats" is related to XRBLOCK in my opinon.
>> At least the "basic metrics from SR/RR" with respect to packet loss are controversial and could be misleading, and should be replaced by correspondent XR performance metric types.
>> The deficiency of some of these basic metrics was one reason to start work on extension reports (XR, and former HR).
> Indeed. The reason I started the document with packet counts and packet 
> loss from SR/RR was that I thought these would be uncontroversial and 
> unambiguous; I'm seeking guidance from XR people on what other metrics 
> are well known enough - and implemented widely enough - that it makes 
> sense to include them.
> 
> (For reference, the WebRTC codebase seems to decode block type 7 and no 
> other block type....)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb