Re: [xrblock] Review of draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat-06

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Thu, 19 July 2012 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F14221F86B9 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A0w3nHxm4cyL for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3247B21F8609 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AHW82482; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:19:28 -0700
Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:19:26 -0700
Received: from SZXEML539-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.214]) by szxeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:19:18 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Review of draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat-06
Thread-Index: AQHNZXyHhUq/2hfpMECFO1EwT6tsp5cwU/aw
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:19:17 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB3AF5FC69@szxeml539-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <1212936072.41421342681199601.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web4>
In-Reply-To: <1212936072.41421342681199601.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web4>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.163]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB3AF5FC69szxeml539mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Review of draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat-06
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:22:11 -0000

Hi Claire,

Confirmed. Thanks.

Best regards,
Rachel

From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Claire Bi(jiayu)
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:00 PM
To: xrblock
Subject: [xrblock] Review of draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat-06

I have reviewed draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat-06 and find some typos in the section 3.2.2:

"
   Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits
      This field is used to indicate whether the metrics block is an
      Interval or a Cumulative report,

   Reserved: 6 bits
      This field is used to indicate whether the Burst/Gap Discard
      Summary Statistics metrics are Sampled, Interval or Cumulative
      metrics, that is, whether the reported values applies to the most
      recent measurement interval duration between successive metrics
      reports (I=10) (the Interval Duration) or to the accumulation
      period characteristic of cumulative measurements (I=11) (the
      Cumulative Duration) or is a sampled instantaneous value (I=01)
      (Sampled Value).
"
I think this should be fixed as follows:
"
   Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits
      This field is used to indicate whether the Burst/Gap Discard
      Summary Statistics metrics are Sampled, Interval or Cumulative
      metrics, that is, whether the reported values applies to the most
      recent measurement interval duration between successive metrics
      reports (I=10) (the Interval Duration) or to the accumulation
      period characteristic of cumulative measurements (I=11) (the
      Cumulative Duration) or is a sampled instantaneous value (I=01)
      (Sampled Value).

 Reserved: 6 bits
      This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
      such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
      MUST be ignored by the receiver.
"

Beside this, I believe this draft has already been in good shape.


Regards

Claire Bi