Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-06

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Rachel, if you can incorporate Qin’s suggestions and generally think about whether adding a descriptive sentence or two to each field in the appendix would help, that will work for me.

Thanks,
Alissa

On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Huangyihong (Rachel) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Qin,
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions. It's really helpful to improve the appendix.
> 
> BR,
> Rachel
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Qin Wu 
> 发送时间: 2014年12月11日 10:53
> 收件人: Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Huangyihong (Rachel); Alissa Cooper
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: RE: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-06
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2014年12月10日 21:17
> 收件人: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Huangyihong (Rachel); Alissa Cooper
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Qin Wu
> 主题: Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-06
> 
> On 10/12/2014 12:56, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>>> Huangyihong
>>> (Rachel)
>>> 
>>>> = Appendix A =
>>>> Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of the 6390 template to fill 
>>>> out a
>>> template with a bunch of links back to the definitions of the fields 
>>> in other parts of the document, rather than putting those definitions 
>>> directly in the template? I mean, isn't the point of the template to 
>>> have all of the information concisely reported in one place?
>>> 
>>>> [Rachel]: I referenced previous RFCs, like [RFC7243] [RFC7294]. But 
>>>> it's okay
>>> for me to have those definitions directly copied in the template if you want.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, I guess I did not ask about this for those RFCs, but I would 
>>> like to understand better what the point of the template is if all 
>>> the templates end up linking the reader back to various sections of the document.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Rachel]: I didn't well involved in the 6390 template usage 
>>> discussion. So others please correct me if I'm wrong. But as far as I 
>>> remember, it is raised by the OPS AD who thinks we are defining new 
>>> metrics while without following the 6390 template. But the drafts of 
>>> xrblock are more focus on the RTCP XR report block definition. So 
>>> Compromise is made that we use the 6390 template at the appendix for 
>>> the metrics. Since most of the definitions in the template have been 
>>> specified in the draft, we just simply reference them in the template.
>>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Rachel's recollection is correct. This discussion happened when the first XRBLOCK documents hit the IESG table after RFC 6390 was published. Qin  was the main editor, Benoit was the OPS AD, Gonzalo was the RAI AD, and I was the document shepherd. Benoit asked to re-use the 6390 template, so that the metrics defined by XRBLOCK are formatted in a similar manner with metrics defined by other WGs in the IETF. The WG wanted that the RFC text keeps compatibility with previous XRBLOCK / RTCP-XR definitions. So we arrived at the solution to include the RFC 6390 style of definition in Annexes, using references in order to avoid duplication.
> Correct.
> The primary reason was that the RFC 6390 template definitions in the XRBLOCK documents could be reused when populating the performance metric registry (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry)
> 
> [Qin]: Agree with What both Dan and Benoit said here.
> I think it might be helpful to optimize some places for the metrics represented using RFC6390 in the annex, and also it is no harm to add some clarification text in the annex.
> e.g., for Units of Measurement, instead of referencing metric definition in some section, you can say something like:
> "
> This metric is expressed as a 16-bit unsigned integer value.
> "
> Also for measurement timing, besides referencing to specific section, you can also add some text to say:
> "
> This metric relies on the sequence number interval to determine measurement timing.
> "
> For measurement method of " Unrepaired RTP Packet Loss Count Metric ", you can replace the original text with the following text:
> 
> "
> * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3, Unrepaired RTP Packet Loss Count Metric definition. It is directly measured and must be measured for  the primary source RTP packets with no further chance of repair.
> "
> For measurement point, you can say something like:
> "
> It is measured at the receiving end of the RTP stream.
> "
> Instead.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> .
>> 
>