Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

Interesting -00 draft. 
Have a quick look at this draft, I have the folowing comments:
1. Jitter should also refers to PDV draft since PDV draft provide another two measurement methods with different measurement precision which
are different from "inter-arrival jitter" described in RFC3550.
In the early version of PDV draft, we also accomodate "inter-arrival jitter" and support reporting inter-arrival jitter. However we remove
 inter-arrival jitter from this draft based on WG review since inter-arrival jitter use different measurement unit and has wider range.
2.ReceivedPacketCount
Loss RLE report block can be used to report the packet received. It is more staightfoward to calculate ReceivedPacket Count based on
 Loss RLE report block defined in RFC3611 rather than based on MIB information defined in RFC2959. Also in some case, WebClient 
may not support SNMP. So I suggest to refer to section 4.1, RFC3611.
3. RecevedOctetCount
Same as RecevedPacketCount. I think Loss RLE report block also can be used to calculate RecevedOctetCount.
It is better to refer to section 4.1, RFC3611.
4. Section 4.2 Transport variable
It is not clear how Transport variable is relate to Variables from basic RTCP SR/RR defined in section 4.1, how transport vaiable is calculated,
e.g., what's the relationship between ReceivedPackets and ReceivedPacketcount? Are they the same variable? 
Is 4 transport variable defined in section 4.2 sufficient to measure the performance of media stream? Why not refer to some
variable defined in XRBLOCK WG?

Regards!
-Qin

 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:48 PM
Subject: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

>I believe that this I-D (individual submission targeting the RTCWEB WG)
> is of interest for some of the folks who participate in XRBLOCK.
> Reaching consistency between the metrics used by RTCP XR and RTCWEB
> (when relevant) seems to be desirable. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:17 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> 
> 
> Title           : A Registry for WebRTC statistics identifiers
> Author(s)       : Harald T. Alvestrand
> Filename        : draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
> Pages           : 8
> Date            : 2012-09-24
> 
> Abstract:
>   This memo describes a registration procedure for statistics
>   identifiers used in the WebRTC Javascript API to access statistical
>   information about a PeerConnection.
> 
>   It also gives some identifiers that will, when approved, form the
>   initial content of this registry.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock