Re: [xrblock] Rearranging the fields in the loss concealment report.
"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Fri, 06 November 2015 01:37 UTC
Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127BA1A1A1E for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:37:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 uuRZ-C4QsK7h for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B861A016B for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CDS64384; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:37:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 01:37:18 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.75]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:37:12 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Rearranging the fields in the loss concealment report.
Thread-Index: AQHRGDGGttWTjON8oUmw45WpWcY5GJ6OMxUg
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:37:12 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86451D06@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAEbPqrxhKKf1FZ0oQ2ikW_cULG55ChTdjAQVcwL4FR8-s_Ke+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEbPqrxhKKf1FZ0oQ2ikW_cULG55ChTdjAQVcwL4FR8-s_Ke+A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.194.187.177]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.563C0450.000F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.75, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 635673211b275527e055e886d439ecce
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/3qA1qpTECgpM8JPAn1C9aUV2tjc>
Cc: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Rearranging the fields in the loss concealment report.
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:37:24 -0000
Hi Varun, I don't have strong opinion on this. The change does not affect the meaning or terminology of the block at all except for parsing purpose. But do we need to change it before submitting to IESG if the proposal is agreed in the WG? I think we were already agreed to submit 05 to IESG in yesterday's meeting. BR, Rachel -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Varun Singh [mailto:vsingh.ietf@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2015年11月6日 9:22 收件人: Huangyihong (Rachel) 抄送: xrblock@ietf.org 主题: Rearranging the fields in the loss concealment report. Hi Rachel, On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > For making the parser easier, could the optional part of the packet be > at the end? I should have explained this in more detail in my email. my proposal was to change the report block from: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BT=VLC | I | V | RSV | block length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Impaired Duration | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Concealed Duration | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mean Frame Freeze Duration (optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MIFP | MCFP | FFSC | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ to the following: In this case the optional 32-bits are set at the bottom of the packet. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BT=VLC | I | V | RSV | block length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Impaired Duration | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Concealed Duration | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MIFP | MCFP | FFSC | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mean Frame Freeze Duration (optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Regards, Varun
- [xrblock] Rearranging the fields in the loss conc… Varun Singh
- Re: [xrblock] Rearranging the fields in the loss … Huangyihong (Rachel)