Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt

Colin Perkins <> Tue, 11 December 2012 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161D021E805A for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:09:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pyt60+ou68FO for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B17B11E80A6 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1TiY1K-0006h0-QE; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:09:47 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:09:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -15
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:09:58 -0000

On 6 Dec 2012, at 13:14, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> This is a (second) Working Group Last Call for  
> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions and concerns to the WG list before December 20, 2012. If you read the document, have no comments and you believe that the document is ready for submission to the IESG as a Standards Track document please send a short message as well to help us in determining the level of review and consensus. 

This looks to be in good shape. Some minor points I noticed:

- The last paragraph of the definition of the Interval Metric Flag in Section 3.2 might be clearer written “Burst/Gap Discard Metrics can only be measured over definite intervals, and cannot be sampled. Accordingly, the value I=01, indicating a sampled value, MUST NOT be used.”

- For Packets discarded in bursts and Total packets expected in bursts, why are the values 0xFFFFFE and 0xFFFFFF listed as SHOULD? If there is a case where the condition is satisfied by the listed value isn’t reported, then this needs to be documented; otherwise the draft ought to say MUST instead.

- Section 3.3 reads as-if some new metrics are going to be defined, but all it actually does is reference another draft. I wonder if those summary metrics shouldn’t be defined in this draft, and if the split of related metrics into a separate draft is worthwhile in this case?

Colin Perkins