[rtcweb] PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3F011E81C6; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5HkRvYzBmzTD; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5026C11E817E; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:30 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAGACdDilLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABZgmYhgQu/NoEcFm0HgicBAQMSKD8SARUVFEImAQQODRqHXwGlZpx9jzgxgyeBEQOedosngyiCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,724,1378872000"; d="scan'208";a="37280283"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2013 11:45:29 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2013 11:39:13 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:45:28 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10
Thread-Index: Ac7kfZXgBPXNkVKoRnSjO64aLIqIrw==
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:45:28 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1293FC7D@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:48:49 -0000

This is the PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10. I am the assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. 

This Internet-Draft defines the media transport aspects and provides the details of the RTP usage in WebRTC - specifically the requirements for which RTP features, profiles and extensions need to be supported in WebRTC. 

The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a 6390 review does not apply. 

The I-D includes a short section (section 8) dedicated to 'WebRTC Use of RTP: Performance Monitoring'. I am fine with the content of this section with two comments: 

>  It is not yet clear
   what extended metrics are appropriate for use in the WebRTC context,
   so implementations are not expected to generate any RTCP XR packets.

I believe that it would be more appropriate to replace ' implementations are not expected ' by ' implementations are not required '

>  A large number of additional performance metrics are supported by the
   RTCP Extended Reports (XR) framework [RFC3611].  

I think that mentioning 3611 only is limiting nowadays and that RFC 6792 should be mentioned as well.