Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discardandxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics

Hi,

Quickly responding to the comments here.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Claire Bi(jiayu) <bijy@sttri.com.cn> wrote:
> I have three minor comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard:
> a. Section 1.1, last paragraph:
> Remove "(work in progress)"
> b Section 3.2, Definitionof "Discard Type".
> Change the order of four Discard type allocated as follows:
> NEW TEXT:
> "
>          00: packets are discarded due to too early arrival.
>          01: packets are discarded due to too late arrival.
>          10: packets are discarded due to both early arrival and late
>          arrival.
>           11: packets are discarded due to other reasons than late
>          arrival, early arrival, or both (e.g., duplicate, redundant
>          packets).
> "

The burst gap discard draft requires reporting total discarded packets
in the discard packet and it cites that the discard draft carries this
information. So this needs to be fixed or the dependency on the
discard draft should be removed.

> c. Section 3.2, Definition of "number of packets discarded", last paragraph:
> Change "Measurement Identity block" into "Measurement Information block"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have three comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics
> a. Section 1, Paragraph 2:
> It is better to have a short name for extension Report.
> b.Section 1, Paragraph 4:
> This draft is referencing non-publication document
> (i.e.,[I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard]) as a normative
> reference.
> It seems such referencing is only possible when referenced document has
> already passed through LC and reach approval stage.

It was an error on my part, these references are not normative because
neither Discard RLE nor Discarded bytes rely on the technical aspects
of those two drafts. They should be informative because it would be
good for the implementer to read those two drafts to decide on which
XR block to implement.

> c.Section 4:
> It looks that Bytes Discarded Report Block is more related
> to Discard Report Block defined [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard].
> Currently Discard draft support four use case. So the question is
> should any use case applied to Discard Report block be also applied
> to Bytes Discard report block?
>

I sent an email on 31 May with regards to it, comments on that are
appreciated. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00538.html for
my clarification on why just 1 E bit should be sufficient.

Regards,
Varun

>
> Many Thanks & Regards
>
> Claire Bi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>

-- 
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/