Re: [xrblock] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-06

Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> Thu, 02 November 2017 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 694E813F6C9; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bxF7h154ZtV5; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
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 A472113F6F9; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DRW94786; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:25:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:25:23 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.18]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:25:11 +0800
From: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>
CC: "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-06
Thread-Index: AQHTO8VfsJtQ+zH+8kexJpju540EL6LZcCcAgAbaxgCAIHyYkIAAWu2A
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:25:11 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD82AA98@DGGEMM506-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <99303AB6-D5EE-44EC-B515-DCB7966DADA6@nostrum.com> <CACHXSv7E+NhU_dvd63k57RfrVOAPoSFuOK8+-bRwsJTAcZ_ixQ@mail.gmail.com> <17BE8BAC-64E3-4A11-B3F0-C54E3D05244E@nostrum.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C5F8DEE@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C5F8DEE@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.65]
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=0001.0A090204.59FB00A5.003E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.18, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ba5d2dbe7f36d8d59096a54f2120d936
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/8Lb8ohMkw360i18FIGXru5AlDdo>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-06
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:25:31 -0000

Hi 
Just to clarify, the individual draft started as an Informational draft and just before becoming a WG draft it was changed to standard track. We see no WG decision for this and as Rachel said, Informational is OK
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huangyihong
> (Rachel)
> Sent: יום ה 02 נובמבר 2017 12:01
> To: Ben Campbell; Varun Singh
> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org; xrblock
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-
> metrics-06
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> After discussion among the co-authors, we reached the consensus to make it
> informational. W3C stats API still refers to it, but in an informational way.
> We'll submit a new version to address your comments.
> 
> BR,
> Rachel
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:52 AM
> > To: Varun Singh
> > Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org; xrblock
> > Subject: Re: [xrblock] AD Evaluation of
> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-06
> >
> > >
> > > On Oct 8, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ben,
> > >
> > > See inline.
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This is my AD Evaluation of
> > >> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-06. I
> > would like to resolve at least the substantive comments prior to IETF LC.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> Ben.
> > >> —————————
> > >>
> > >> Substantive:
> > >>
> > >> - General: If I understand correctly, this document lists and
> > >> describes XR
> > metrics that a WebRTC application might choose to negotiate and expose
> > via the WebRTC API. It does not define any new XR metrics. That brings
> > up two
> > questions:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Why is this specific to WebRTC? For the most parts, all the
> > >> arguments
> > here would apply to any sort of RTP endpoint.
> > >>
> > >
> > > This draft was created initially as an input to RTCWEB and later as
> > > an input to WebRTC Statistics API. Hence the use of WebRTC in the
> > > title and the introduction. We could add to the introduction: "In
> > > general, the metrics listed in this document can be exposed by any
> > > real-time communications endpoint." Or something along those lines
> > >
> > >
> > >> 2) Why is this standards track? This sort of material is typically
> > >> informational,
> > or occasionally a BCP. There are a small number of 2119 keywords, but
> > I’m not sure they are needed or appropriate. (Specifics below.) My
> > initial instinct is that this should be informational.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The reason until recently (perhaps still exist) is that this was an
> > > input from the IETF to W3C, I am not sure if there was an official
> > > liaison statements sent to them? nonetheless, the W3C Statistics API
> > > document needed a specification needed (a specification in any
> > > standards body would suffice) for metrics to be accepted into the
> > > W3C document.
> >
> > To make sure I understand:That API document will reference this one?
> > Do they require that specification to be standards track?
> >
> > Was there discussion in xrblock about standards track verses BCP?
> >
> > >
> > > In practice, it helped that I was the co-author of both the IETF and
> > > W3C document and hence was able to make the case for the metrics in
> > > W3C.
> >
> > Is that case already made? That is, does the need for a published RFC
> > still exist?
> >
> > >
> > >> - General: This needs an IANA considerations section, even if it
> > >> just contains
> > the statement to the effect of “This document makes no requests for
> IANA”.
> > >>
> > >> - 1, last paragraph: “ The document also creates a registry
> > >> containing
> > identifiers from the metrics reported in the RTCP Sender, Receiver,
> > and Extended Reports.”
> > >
> > > This should be removed. Thanks for pointing this out.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> It doesn’t actually do that. I understand from the shepherd’s
> > >> report that
> > this was intentionally removed.
> > >>
> > >> — “All identifiers proposed in this document are RECOMMENDED to be
> > >> implemented by an endpoint.  An endpoint MAY choose not to expose
> > >> an identifier if it does not implement the corresponding RTCP
> > >> Report. “
> > >>
> > >> Does the “RECOMMENDED” apply to all endpoints or just WebRTC
> > >> endpoints? If the latter, doesn’t that requirement belong (or need
> > >> to
> > >> update) some requirement from an RTCWEB (maybe rtp-usage)
> document,
> > >> or even the API itself? (I suspect that this draft does not have
> > >> standing to state this normatively.) What is meant by “MAY choose
> > >> not to expose”. Is that talking about via the WebRTC API? If so,
> > >> isn’t that up to the API definition? (That is, it shouldn’t be
> > >> normative
> > >> here.)
> > >>
> > >
> > > It should be applicable to any endpoint, although it is pertinent or
> > > timely for the WebRTC endpoint to expose these.
> > > The purpose of the statement was to highlight that if the
> > > middlebox/endpoint sends RTCP XRs then it should expose the data
> > > available via the API.
> > >
> > > I am open to changing to a non-normative lower case guidance if that
> > > would be more suitable, although if this document is making
> > > recommendations to the W3C document -- wouldn't we keep the
> uppercase?
> >
> > In general, 2119 keywords are better used when we are talking about
> > interoperability issues in a protocol. I suggest switching to lower
> > case unless there’s some reason to believe the W3C won’t pay attention
> > unless it’s in all-caps. (I don’t think that’s usually the case.)
> >
> > >
> > > co-authors, what do you think?
> > >
> > >> -2: If this document keeps the normative keywords, please use the
> > >> updated boilerplate from RFC 8174. (I note that there are at least
> > >> some uncapitalized “may”s that do not seem normative.)
> > >>
> > >
> > > depending on the above, we should fix these to uppercase.
> > >
> > >> - 5.2.2, last paragraph: “The following metrics can also be considered…”
> > >> Be considered by whom? Implementors? API designers?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Both.
> > >
> > >> - 6, first paragraph: “In practice the application MUST be able to
> > >> query the
> > statistic identifiers on both an incoming (remote) and outgoing
> > (local) media stream.”
> > >> What does the MUST requirement apply to? The WebRTC API? This
> seems
> > more like a statement of fact that “ the application needs to be able…”
> > >>
> > >
> > > correct, "needs to" is better.
> > >
> > >> -8: "Therefore encryption procedures, such as the ones suggested
> > >> for a
> > Secure RTCP (SRTCP), need to be used.”
> > >> The text should describe the reasons encryption is needed. Also, is
> > >> this a
> > new normative requirement, or a restatement of an existing requirement?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I believe it is restatement alluding to the guidance in the
> > > corresponding RTCP XRs.
> > >
> > >> Editorial:
> > >>
> > >> -1, paragraph 1:" If sufficient information (metrics or statistics)
> > >> are provided to the applications, it can attempt to improve the
> > >> media quality. “
> > >>
> > >> s / “are provided” / “is provided”
> > >> s / applications / application
> > >>
> > >> -3, 2nd paragraph: It would help to clarify that the references to
> > >> section 5
> > and 6 are to this document, not RFC 3611.
> > >>
> > >> — 3rd paragraph: "At the moment…”
> > >> Please clarify that is at the time of writing (not reading)
> > >>
> > >> -5, 2nd paragraph: “ Application impact metrics mainly collect the
> > >> information in the viewpoint of application … “ s / in / from Also,
> > >> please expand “FEC” on first mention.
> > >>
> > >> - 5.1.1, first paragraph: “ Duplicate packets may be a result of
> > >> network
> > delays, which causes the sender to retransmit the original packets.”
> > >> s/ :delays, which” / “delays that”
> > >>
> > >> — last paragraph: "For those RTCWEB services with jitter buffer…”
> > >> s/buffer/buffers
> > >>
> > >> - 5.1.2, first paragraph:
> > >> First sentence is a comma splice.
> > >> — “some transitory nature of the impairments”
> > >> Should this say “the transitory nature of some impairments”?
> > >> — “ Distributed burst provides a higher subjective quality”
> > >> “Burst distribution …”?
> > >> — Last paragraph: “ Hence, if WebRTC application”
> > >> Missing article (or should application be plural?)
> > >>
> > >> - 5.2.1, title: Should “Discard” be “Discarded”?
> > >>
> > >> -7: Please clarify that this is at the time of this writing.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback and suggestions, we will fix these.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Varun
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Founder, CEO, callstats.io
> > > http://www.callstats.io
> > >
> > > Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
> > > We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock