[xrblock] ippm metrics registry for xrblock metrics

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Tue, 09 January 2018 02:51 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 91AFE126C89 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:51:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id haCJjY4gorXl for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 845991200B9 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 95D0184261C2F for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 02:51:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 02:51:49 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.231]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:51:43 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
CC: "acmorton@att.com" <acmorton@att.com>
Thread-Topic: ippm metrics registry for xrblock metrics
Thread-Index: AdOI9MsxSVjLXGxIRRi+9VvWBmCmog==
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 02:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C684C77@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.153.152]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C684C77nkgeml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/1krEYqJU6q5-o2CTeagc8X300ys>
Subject: [xrblock] ippm metrics registry for xrblock metrics
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:51:55 -0000

Hi,

IPPM has the work that defines the Entries for the Performance Metrics Registry (draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-13).  The motivation is to have a single point of reference for performance metrics defined in different working groups, and also achieved interoperability. The initial entries for the performance metrics registry (draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-05) has a section 12 to show an example that RTCP XR metrics could also be registered into it, but the authors didn't put too energy in this and expect some RTCP XR people could be do this if they think it's useful.

I'm following this work. From my point of view, it's useful as it is allowed for some reporting protocols other than RTCP SR/RR/XR to report these RTP related metrics. But we don't need to registry all the existing XR metrics. Some of them like Loss, Discard, Delay, Burst metrics, defined in RFC3611, 6843, 6958, 7003 may be quite useful and widely used in the industry.

I'm sending this email to ask for WG's opinions. Do you think it is a valuable work, and if it is, do these metrics make sense to you?

BR,
Rachel