Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06.txt

[Glen Zorn <[e-mail]>]

On 09/22/2012 09:17 AM, Qin Wu wrote:

...

>> COMMENT The last phrase is  confusing, because it seems that what
 >> causes MAPDV2 to be reported is that really the fact that the value
 >> of the pdvtype field is 0; the rest of the values seem irrelevant
 >> (or at least esoteric).
 >
 > [Qin]:It looks esoteric but required since it is up to measurement
 > method defined in G.1020 or Y.1540. You can see SDP also signals
 > that.
 >
 >>
 >> Section 4 COMMENT Is "<as defined in Section 3.4 of [RFC5234]>"
 >> valid ABNF?
 >>
 >> COMMENT When SDP is used in offer-answer, a system sending SDP may
 >> request a specific type of PDV measurement. In addition, they may
 >> state a specific percentile or threshold value, and expect to
 >> receive the corresponding threshold or percentile metric,
 >> respectively. The system receiving the SDP SHOULD send the PDV
 >> metrics requested, but if the metric is not available, the system
 >> receiving the SDP MUST send the metric block with the flag value
 >> indicating that the metric is unavailable. I don't see any flag
 >> value in this block that indicates that the metric is unavailable.
 >
 > [Qin]: The flag value is in the mean PDV field, Positive PDV
 > Threshold/Peak field,Positive PDV Percentile,etc. e.g., we use 0xFFFF
 > to indicate metric is unavailable.

I see, thanks!

>
 >>
 >> Section 5.4 COMMENT o Initial assignments are as follows:
 >>
 >> * 0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020],
 >>
 >> * 1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of [Y.1540]
 >>
 >> Are the rest of the values reserved?
 >
 > [Qin]: Yes. Here we just give initial assignments.

OK, but the initial assignments include the reservation of unassigned 
values, right?  I'm pretty sure that IANA will ask this question later , 
so why not save time now?

>
 >>
 >> Section 6 OLD The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and
 >> contributions made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob
 >> Biskner, Kevin Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim
 >> Frauenthal, Albert Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones,
 >> Rajesh Kumar, Keith Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin
 >> Perkins, Mike Ramalho, Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor,
 >> and Hideaki Yamada,Jing Zhao,Kevin Gross, Colin Perkins, Charles
 >> Eckel, Glen Zorn,Shida Schubert, Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel, Pete
 >> Resnick. NEW The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and
 >> contributions made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob
 >> Biskner, Kevin Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim
 >> Frauenthal, Albert Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones,
 >> Rajesh Kumar, Keith Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin
 >> Perkins, Mike Ramalho, Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor,
 >> Hideaki Yamada, Jing Zhao, Kevin Gross, Colin Perkins, Charles
 >> Eckel, Glen Zorn, Shida Schubert, Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel and
 >> Pete Resnick.
 >
 > [Qin]: Okay.
 >
 >> COMMENT The first sentence says "The authors gratefully acknowledge
 >> the comments and contributions" but there is a "Contributors"
 >> section. If some of these people actually contributed to the
 >> document (i.e., text), shouldn't they at a minimum be in that
 >> section, if not added as authors?
 >
 > [Qin]: I can't remember who is contributor and who is not in the
 > history. Sorry about that.

OK, so maybe change "comments and contributions made by" to "reviews and 
feedback provided by".  The reasons are that

 1. "contributor" is a technical term, denoting a person who has done
    more than just review a draft and thus deserves more credit and
 2. some people are very sensitive about getting the credit them

>
 >> _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing
 >> list [e-mail]
 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock