Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics

Colin Perkins <> Mon, 25 January 2016 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677281A9069 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 04:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id On5NpkdbXaUO for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 04:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85DE31A9068 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 04:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (port=56332 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1aNgcC-0005jM-Je; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:51:30 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E890FA1A-EE51-4324-8E07-12E49FC65954"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:51:23 +0000
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Shida Schubert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: <>
Cc: xrblock <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:51:34 -0000

> On 20 Jan 2016, at 04:31, Shida Schubert <> wrote:
> This message starts a Working Group Last Call for the draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-02.txt. 
> <>
> Even if you have no questions, comments or concern, if you have read the draft and agree that it’s ready for submission to IESG as a Standard Track, please send a message to the list indicating this. 
> Obviously if you have any issues or questions please submit it to the list, if you are highlighting issues suggestions to fix the issues is always helpful.

I have two comments:

1) The draft uses RFC 2119 terms in lower case in a number of places. I think it would be clearer if these were changed to upper case where the intent is to use normative language, and rephrased to use alternative terms otherwise. 

2) The draft has a reasonable list of candidate metrics, but does not make a clear recommendation which metrics ought to be implemented. Is the intent that a WebRTC end-point implementor picks an arbitrary subset of these, or that all the metrics are implemented? If a subset is to be implemented, which subset? What are the most important to implement? Adding some further normative language would probably help clarify.

That said, I have no objection to sending this draft to the IESG for publication. It suggests a reasonable set of metrics, and is well enough written. 

Colin Perkins