Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-06.txt

Thank you, we will fix these in the update.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-06.txt

> Hi,
> 
> The document is in good shape. I have however a number of comments and questions, please address them.
> 
> 1. In Section 1.1, the second sentence in the second paragraph has a broken syntax. I suggest: 
> 
> s/ Burst/Gap metrics are typically used in Cumulative reports however MAY be used in Interval reports./ Burst/Gap metrics are typically used in Cumulative reports, however they also MAY be used in Interval reports./
> 
> 2. It would be good to provide an example or a reference to the 'stream repair means' mentioned in section 1.4.
> 
> 3. In Section 3.1 at the Interval Metric flag definition - I guess that the last phrase means 'Sampled Value (I=01) MUST not be used.' 
> 
> One more thing is missing here - what is the behavior of the receiver when receiving I=01 or I=00 which is undefined? I believe these need to be specified. 
> 
> 4. The behavior of the receiver if a report with block length different than 5 is received is not defined. Please define. 
> 
> 5. In the definitions of Sum of Burst Durations, Packets lost in bursts, and Total packets expected in bursts, we have:
> 
>      If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFE SHOULD
>      be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the
>      measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFF SHOULD be reported.  
> 
> What is the reasons that these are SHOULD? If there are exceptions, please specify these, if not s/SHOULD/MUST/
> 
> 6. In the definitions of Number of bursts, we have:
> 
>      If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFD, the value 0xFFFE SHOULD
>      be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the
>      measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFF SHOULD be reported.  
> 
> What is the reasons that these are SHOULD? If there are exceptions, please specify these, if not s/SHOULD/MUST/
> 
> 7. In the definitions of Sum of Squares of Burst Durations, we have:
> 
>      If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFFFE SHOULD
>      be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the
>      measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFFFF SHOULD be reported.  
> 
> What is the reasons that these are SHOULD? If there are exceptions, please specify these, if not s/SHOULD/MUST/
> 
> 8. In Section 3.3: 
> 
> s/These metrics provides information/These metrics provide information/
> 
> 9. In Section 4 please expand PCM.
> 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:20 PM
>> To: xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-
>> 06.txt
>> 
>> This is a (second) Working Group Last Call for http://www.ietf.org/id/
>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-06.txt.
>> 
>> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions
>> and concerns to the WG list before December 20, 2012. If you read the
>> document, have no comments and you believe that the document is ready
>> for submission to the IESG as a Standards Track document please send a
>> short message as well to help us in determining the level of review and
>> consensus.
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock