IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 4288E21F8235 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 F-6Q-oxlqSzr for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9412421F9F23 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkEJAJvXFVLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABagmQhNVGrU5Q0gR0WdIIkAQEBAQMBAQEPKDQXBAIBCA0EBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAQEEARIIARmHbgELmXqUfBeQNTgGgxV7A542iwqDH4Ir
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,933,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="20857829"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 05:23:27 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 05:19:16 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:23:25 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock]RE: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
Thread-Index: Ac6ec09GHHfi6gZPQpu/64wywp7WoQAiCAdAAAcs6/A=
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:23:25 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B569A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B4B0F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45889FDE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45889FDE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
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, 22 Aug 2013 09:23:35 -0000

I think that what is meant here is that until a future usage of this field is defined the transmitter and receiver must have the behavior indicated in section 4.2 of RFC 6709 for reserved fields. 

Maybe it would be more clear: 

OLD: 

Reserved: 6 bits
 
      This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
      such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
      ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2).

NEW: 

Reserved: 6 bits
 
      This field is reserved for future use.  Until future use is 
      defined, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero at 
      transmission and ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2).

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huangyihong (Rachel) [mailto:rachel.huang@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:07 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: [xrblock]RE: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have read this draft and believe it's in good shape. I have only one
> minor comment:
> 
> In the section 3.2
> "
> Reserved: 6 bits
> 
>       This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
>       such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
>       ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2).
> 
> "
> 
> In What kind of case such a definition will be absent?
> 
> Best regards,
> Rachel
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:36 PM
> To: xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the second WGLC for the Internet-Draft 'RTP Control Protocol
> (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MoS Metric Reporting' previously
> known as 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for
> QoE Metric Reporting'. Please send your comments, questions, and
> concerns to the WG list before Wednesday 9/4. If you have no comments or
> questions and you believe that this document is ready for submission to
> the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard, please send a message
> stating this.
> 
> The latest version of the document can be retrieved from
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10.txt.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email