Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> Thu, 17 January 2013 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <kevin.gross@avanw.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 160DE11E809A for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 a26i+RegCrwq for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9205921F8653 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 6961 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jan 2013 00:58:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host291.hostmonster.com) (74.220.215.91) by oproxy13.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2013 00:58:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=avanw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=x6HsB+jFQRP93QtnVQAooYdLhs4+845gUO8/n8Y3UDQ=; b=lz+kHTZnP7TyNnRyhZhH0MSBwpL+wx13NnLR5ohZmFc7BdQiDZ0dhG4fQGFV2vH8wZ9D1b81FYjlVQPeMEiKIb+mz/b4GM/d0joP9qf92veeqpB885CsFh3nBxJd52Tq;
Received: from [209.85.223.179] (port=62049 helo=mail-ie0-f179.google.com) by host291.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kevin.gross@avanw.com>) id 1TvdoB-0006lM-3O for xrblock@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:58:19 -0700
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k14so3792843iea.38 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.187.197 with SMTP id fu5mr2251350igc.95.1358384298284; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.151.135 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:58:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA061BBB@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <FAB2D6A6BD794F67B5EF665FB7966291@china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA021171@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <-5577438416726931362@unknownmsgid> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA02129A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <56FF1AB29F4046F0BDCDF6F7B21FC0EC@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1UfwNR+7jNx=r+P3rMR35NRdby_S+Xh1GADivvx3_r6w@mail.gmail.com> <686F7A581585402D82BDCA8F213EB5E7@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1FqHh0SVBKudc-cJoJxw9hPUeBUwdgrf54xLwSFDfO6g@mail.gmail.com> <6C47A394F32143709E3B1E7CB411A08E@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q0E867g+Rae84dwisaPWQh=vQ-cN5iMPexqSW6n+Gn+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <0326892069B04DA88E01A3365C022667@china.huawei.com> <34B82B74BBCB422FA3685F9D224A10B2@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1oxFZyYwJQY-Tq-1sD+Bg+22xh-QW9ZRaTB7iSLw4L_A@mail.gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA061BBB@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:58:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CALw1_Q0CeQEJktWR2XG3mRhk1QZQ2u5vxSb4GejZ6OJ7bVMgiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340a9591588904d3717d12
X-Identified-User: {1416:host291.hostmonster.com:avanwcom:avanw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.223.179 authed with kevin.gross@avanw.com}
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: 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, 17 Jan 2013 00:58:49 -0000

Qin and I talked last night (his morning) and we got to a place where I can
propose some changes. It looks like there's been more discussion on this
today. I'll also review that before proposing anything.

Kevin Gross
+1-303-447-0517
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com>wrote;wrote:

>  Kevin, Qin,****
>
> ** **
>
> Do you want to discuss this one2one, or should we organize a short
> conference call? Do other think that they can contribute to clarify the
> issues, or want to participate? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Dan****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Kevin Gross
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:08 PM
>
> *To:* Qin Wu
> *Cc:* xrblock
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt****
>
>  ** **
>
> I think we need to have a phone call to discuss this whole thing.****
>
>
> ****
>
> Kevin Gross****
>
> +1-303-447-0517****
>
> Media Network Consultant****
>
> AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:****
>
> Hi,Kevin:****
>
> I like to make some additioal clarification to your question.****
>
> I think the packet arrives exactly on time, is also referred to the packet
> that has nominal delay.****
>
> So we have two ways to address this. ****
>
> a. It is more like implementation specific issue,e.g., rely on timing
> information in the headers of previous ****
>
> packet and current packet or rely on time window to determine this. So we
> can leave this to the specific****
>
>  implemenations. ****
>
>  ****
>
> b. we can explain the packet that arrives exactly on time as the packet
> that has nominal delay.****
>
> The nominal delay can either be choosen as the jitter buffer delay for the
> packet with minimal delay(i.e., ****
>
> the reference packet is choosen as the packet with minmal delay) or
> average delay for all the packets that arrives****
>
> within the implementation specific time window during the measurement
> interval.****
>
> I am not sure we should details to talk about this, but If we take (b),
> we prefer to add the following sentence in the draft to say:****
>
> "Note that the reference packet is generally selected as the packet
>  with minimum delay based on the most common criterion (see Sections 1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6798#section-1> and
> 5.1 of [RFC5481 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481>]).****
>
> "****
>
> Let me know what you think about this.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards!****
>
> -Qin****
>
>   ----- Original Message ----- ****
>
> *From:* Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> ****
>
> *To:* Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> ****
>
> *Cc:* xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org> ****
>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2013 8:46 AM****
>
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt****
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin:****
>
> As I clarified to you in the previous email, "implemention specific time
> window" described in Burst Gap drafts will be used to identify a "packet
> that arrives exactly on time".****
>
> That is to say, if the receiving packet falls within  implemention
> specific time window and can be sucessfully playout, such packet will be
> regarded as packet that arrives exactly on time.****
>
> Hope this clarifies.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards!****
>
> -Qin****
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- ****
>
> *From:* Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> ****
>
> *To:* Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> ****
>
> *Cc:* xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org> ****
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:04 AM****
>
> *Subject:* Re: offlist//Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt****
>
> ** **
>
> Qin, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Of the jitter buffer delay metric, the draft currently says "It is
> calculated based on the difference between the receipt time and the playout
> time for the packet that arrives exactly on time."****
>
> ** **
>
> My issue is that I don't know how to identify a "packet that arrives
> exactly on time".****
>
>
> ****
>
> Kevin Gross****
>
> +1-303-447-0517****
>
> Media Network Consultant****
>
> AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com, www.X192.org****
>
> ** **
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock****
>
>  ** **
>