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

Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> Tue, 15 January 2013 21:08 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 6B5EF1F0C5F for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 4WPEIfOi8joZ for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 39A1721F84FC for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10291 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jan 2013 21:08:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host291.hostmonster.com) (74.220.215.91) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2013 21:08:17 -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=SMW45A15a5rQcM2QbznQOs53TeK4EDWM7bzERF4Qado=; b=eFhzoUSZBpy4HW05gCbHDDeR5Bed5HqUdRKp+sA3vjQljJcdo93rTUH7KEMw/9JpAu6PZlBEHVkLNznWLSFYQVtR1FR9pRBUeLJfrKPJ6usAWEvEEc/u6UnXJOvTghKB;
Received: from [209.85.223.178] (port=52507 helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com) by host291.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kevin.gross@avanw.com>) id 1TvDk1-0004if-Fz for xrblock@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:08:17 -0700
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c12so1140884ieb.9 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.152.194 with SMTP id va2mr3017757igb.25.1358284096481; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.151.135 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <34B82B74BBCB422FA3685F9D224A10B2@china.huawei.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>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:08:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CALw1_Q1oxFZyYwJQY-Tq-1sD+Bg+22xh-QW9ZRaTB7iSLw4L_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3b9de913277904d35a295f
X-Identified-User: {1416:host291.hostmonster.com:avanwcom:avanw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.223.178 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: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:08:53 -0000

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
>
>