Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE

Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> Tue, 31 January 2012 05:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shida@ntt-at.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 1774621F8514 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:34:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.942
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pMNcd9pLZKPH for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (gator465.hostgator.com [69.56.174.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BE121F8537 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [125.198.20.177] (port=54243 helo=[192.168.1.24]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <shida@ntt-at.com>) id 1Rs6MN-0005gH-80 for xrblock@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:34:27 -0600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <31A44220-52DD-44AF-B931-5C50D888E26E@ntt-at.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:34:25 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C6926E01-77F1-4622-B636-6A2F3A5A9D35@ntt-at.com>
References: <340EB250-499C-45C1-871E-936A2D0783A3@ntt-at.com> <E1CBF4C7095A3D4CAAAEAD09FBB8E08C06283BBB@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com> <31A44220-52DD-44AF-B931-5C50D888E26E@ntt-at.com>
To: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: fl1-125-198-20-177.tky.mesh.ad.jp ([192.168.1.24]) [125.198.20.177]:54243
X-Source-Auth: shida@agnada.com
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: c3NoaWRhO3NzaGlkYTtnYXRvcjQ2NS5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE
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, 31 Jan 2012 05:34:30 -0000

All;

 I need to see what WG thinks on the matter below for 
us to progress the QoE milestone. 

 If you have no opinions on the matter, please indicate 
it as well. 

 Many Thanks
  Shida

On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Shida Schubert wrote:

> 
> All;
> 
> Although a poll for draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring ended in
> favor of adopting the draft, the comments provided by Colin are worth
> noting as we move forward.
> 
> I do have some questions which I think will help us clarify 
> the way forward. 
> 
> A. There are three segment types defined (1. each media 
>   sent in separate RTP stream, 2. Layered video session, 
>   3. Multi-channel audio) in the draft,  do we see a need for 
>   all three right now or in near  future (say next 12 months) ? 
> 
> B. OR are we happy with only covering one for now (Likely 
>   the 1. as I understand people are most interested in the 1.) 
>   and create a draft when there is a real need for 2. and 3.?
> 
> C. If answer is yes to question A., do we want to see the 
>   draft split into three as Colin proposed or have them all 
>   defined in single draft as it currently is. 
> 
> I asked the AD if we can split the drafts into 3 drafts under 
> single milestone but I want to make sure we do that after 
> we agree as a WG that we need all three segment types 
> RIGHT NOW before we do so. 
> 
> We have a lot of new items that people are interested in 
> working on that are not covered in our milestones, so I 
> want to make sure we focus on items that are "MUST 
> have" rather than "MAY need it in future" or "NICE to have". 
> 
> Regards
> Shida
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock