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

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06.txt

> 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?

[Qin]: Okay, how about add one statement at the end of initial assignment part to say.
value 2-15 are valid and reserved for future use. 

>>
> >>
> >> 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

[Qin]: Okay, looks reasonable to me, thanks.
>>
> >> _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing
> >> list xrblock@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 
>