Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Thu, 13 December 2012 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 F1A7521F8A6B for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqLd3mpMLt0Q for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D61821F8A69 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z20so651819dae.31 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XhsMO3+REuxdPiw0b0gMEuMy0SjBH/n13WIFtvOZHk4=; b=y1oO6CqN/+4grIhKWs/xhB8ZF9/DnVQ8HR/Hjy12A0H9hECLY+uvq47Ch4jqTinIww nnoCyP+4XgKgV5nOeeknIStvNVBhyKeXg4Q+pDbHtxP+8y7P/z8E/zRoAJjRL+ePzTm6 jGSEwFBsISbjkelTtqoa5HP6EiLVlo8X2HyKzXT2kvcmQH+b8Xy/9buMhwGjlJI/etvX 8m14Ee+mT35V03ClCw2SI7ATkfBN5uRZg+1EoIQVlyB/LhCgd6pBQuqy+4Bh8NBySA7+ QND6Hp+SkhnqAr4rzV3KSSDCPCmwH1q4BHtGwc/Gchf3XRDqlgMbJHj5kvAzxVbatbad QuAQ==
Received: by 10.68.135.42 with SMTP id pp10mr3181094pbb.157.1355388592259; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-110-168-70-2.revip5.asianet.co.th. [110.168.70.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pu5sm663501pbb.73.2012.12.13.00.49.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50C996AB.7070006@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:49:47 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA024844@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6DC0D5A8-E781-4584-BA7A-38EC6F9134AA@csperkins.org> <F97E5A20FEA344ABAA0997D0421AD03A@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F97E5A20FEA344ABAA0997D0421AD03A@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
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, 13 Dec 2012 08:49:53 -0000

On 12/12/2012 02:51 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
> Hi,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Cc: <xrblock@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
>
>
>> On 29 Nov 2012, at 13:51, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>> This is a Working Group Last Call for http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt.
>>>
>>> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions and concerns to the WG list before December 13, 2012. If you 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.
>>
>> This looks to be in good shape. One minor comment: why is SHOULD used for the value to report if over-range or unknown values are received, rather than MUST?
> [Qin]: I believe you are right, we should use MUST instead.

Yes.

>
>> Also, one question: there are many reserved values for the jb cfg. Do we need to define how new values are to be registered in an IANA Registry,

I think so, yes.

>> or is the assumption that this draft is revised if new values are needed?

A very poor idea, IMHO.

> [Qin]:I am a little doubt about this. Do you have other values in mind besides the values for fixed jitter buffer method and adaptive jitter buffer method?
> Also these values looks to me are just configuration parameters. They usually fixed upon they are set.

If the meaning of values not defined in this draft is unknown what use 
are they?

...