Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-07
Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Wed, 04 July 2012 04:47 UTC
Return-Path: <glenzorn@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 56F2121F86B6 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 FVYs7HzPqDkC for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED6F21F86B1 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so6685984ghb.31 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=EtbdZd4vO68cSo5uQTVjlNR1dJ2rA04DxCnQQxXCPLo=; b=cwxwWgh9awKEMuktrBEfa1HXJEn3EWNA6NTjTTagAztMuEn6Z8pnG93HIqB7i0VH/T C2Kve3ORe7+bkXTQDRoerMFw1PEuE0D8tpnUeggcnNEuDhIyUA7W5WkK6iR6WyqmA1Qs 5bONh0GsZuLOl1QtHbJM36k8KsssIPo6lp4BIt19eGEV9OKllk25/sS86pGgeSBUo9jx tqK8M8Ot5dR+U7jNLb9Y4SLQBcPeK28nwDgjfNqdEtwaYs829kd+UvR09mPx6G30jxRm nylENCZ5kxiatxf+R5axLFMcFQ4rVO/624PWzZrMciOggj79onUAe5YAMzMLpWUJ9P3K 0NQw==
Received: by 10.68.193.226 with SMTP id hr2mr14247484pbc.155.1341377265803; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (ppp-124-120-184-163.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.120.184.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id np8sm16907236pbc.71.2012.07.03.21.47.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: xrblock@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <79C3968C3AA34C17AD6B961221011102@china.huawei.com>
References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828026EA0@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> <79C3968C3AA34C17AD6B961221011102@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-DjfIRt6XBT9+kdBCg+Vh"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:47:41 +0700
Message-ID: <1341377261.26716.13.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Subject: Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-07
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 04:47:38 -0000
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 10:19 +0800, Qin Wu wrote: ... > > > Second, the cumulative duration is defined in section 4.1 as follows: > > > > Measurement Duration (Cumulative) : 32 bits > > The duration, expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds, of the > > reporting interval applicable to Cumulative reports which use this > > Measurement Information block. The value of this field can be > > calculated by the receiver of the RTP media stream, for example, > > based on received RTP media packets or using RTCP method described > > in [RFC3550]. > > > > The units for the measurement was changed from millisecond to 1/65536 based on working group input. A side effect of this however, is that the maximum cumulative duration that can be expressed is 18.2 hours. This does not seem sufficient, as the cumulative duration may be up to the length of the RTP session.The proposal is to increase the field from 32 bits to 64 bits. > > [Qin]: Agree, we should not limit the cumulative duration to less than 18.2 hours. The proposal looks good to me. > Here is my input to fix this issue: > OLD TEXT: > " > Measurement Duration (Cumulative) : 32 bits > The duration, expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds, of the > reporting interval applicable to Cumulative reports which use this > Measurement Information block. The value of this field can be > calculated by the receiver of the RTP media stream, for example, > based on received RTP media packets or using RTCP method described > in [RFC3550]. > > " > NEW TEXT: > " > Measurement Duration (Cumulative) : 64 bits > The duration of the reporting interval applicable to Cumulative reports which use this > Measurement Information block. The value of this field is represented using a 64-bit > NTP-format timestamp as defined in [RFC5905], which is 64-bit unsigned fixed-point > number with the integer part in the first 32 bits and the fractional part in the last 32 bits. > It can be calculated by the receiver of the RTP media stream, for example, based on > received RTP media packets or using RTCP method described in [RFC3550]. > > " > A fine idea, but the question in my mind is why we don't simply standardize on NTP format for all time values... ...
- [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-ietf… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… Glen Zorn
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… Qin Wu
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… Colin Perkins
- Re: [xrblock] IESG evaluation comments for draft-… Qin Wu