Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sun, 12 May 2013 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@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 BA30D21F8C40 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 057cU6CXYHP0 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB6121F87B7 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q55so5087473wes.26 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=LNV56HnC9uJY/s4i3nEgYhBqOo7lk9g75aZwZILMy80=; b=G03UFYjDO5PEE+YE2PlRe5ZTX3BgSw6/TALSwhkzuUvNKPgWw9QhSy5LxWoWp5xWQ7 dYuObwjCh4TQAoeYub01/YXQsHnepgzOVha4ipKdTStmsOPbb2vZpCDQ1WMXJyLKK86R X0GWNbxw1zZvrlX37Abyyimp7DcOBfUMZQOq8Z7RHUXasDKFBSR7yycloSRwQOvUx4N5 JNhL7S6722UeWqr/vpXmvxs7HavmlkxHqT3tsfkb4aC7jmRWiRFCWq/tfBAIT1bDY1Mt speLdT7z7glbzp13SGAkXydK/bWwrgdlaXiibMxf1AQwInwiPl+Z4fXRF8KkxFU1+WXF kQMg==
X-Received: by 10.180.183.76 with SMTP id ek12mr11753440wic.30.1368340122885; Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-181-177-28.red.bezeqint.net. [79.181.177.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a4sm8226752wic.5.2013.05.11.23.28.39 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 May 2013 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Qin Wu'" <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "'Shida Schubert'" <shida@ntt-at.com>, "'xrblock'" <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <BA5D79A3-15E9-4038-851F-C4A37A638D25@ntt-at.com> <01cc01ce4cbf$8aa27450$9fe75cf0$@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43A5187C@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43A5187C@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 09:27:52 +0300
Message-ID: <001801ce4ed9$d6b37d00$841a7700$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01CE4EF2.FC023BA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJaaNKMUfnTOsgq3JBpXxYuv9fH/QK3JhaSAhNqxIuXwo1JEA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs' <xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization
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: Sun, 12 May 2013 06:28:45 -0000

Hi Qin,

My only reason for option 2 is to keep the header the same. There is no
other reason

Roni

 

From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com] 
Sent: 10 May, 2013 4:05 AM
To: Roni Even; 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: RE: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

 

Hi,Roni:

Thank for your comment, if I understand correctly, Initial Synchronization
Delay metric

Only needs to be reported once, i.e., at the beginning of the session since

the value of Initial Synchronization Delay metric usually is fixed and will

Not change at each report interval.

So I think your 1st option is more straightforward.

 

Regards!

-Qin

From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Roni Even
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:15 PM
To: 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

 

Hi,

I reviewed the latest version. It looks OK.

I have one comment

The "reserved" field in section 3.2 should be 8 bits since the "I" field was
removed.

Another option is to keep the "I" field and say that it should be ignored

Roni Even

 

From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Shida Schubert
Sent: 08 May, 2013 4:56 AM
To: xrblock
Cc: xrblock-chairs
Subject: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

 

 This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on 
"Report Block for Synchronization Delay and Offset Metrics Reporting" 
priort o requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard. 

 

 As per discussion at the last meeting, we are running a second 

WGLC on this draft.


Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the

22nd of May

If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please
express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the
list as well. 

The latest version can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-04.txt

Regards

Shida as co-chair