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

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Mon, 21 March 2016 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 3CDF012DAAB for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5gUb0TwpAZq for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E773112DA5C for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=40264 helo=[192.168.0.86]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1ai56a-0002ZQ-Dk; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:03:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAEbPqrzVkL0a0NH3gPfTY+5b0S-TkovnBdgqucTnJ+W5tvpa1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:03:03 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32F32B7F-B139-4956-92F9-BA05B0233378@csperkins.org>
References: <C13E5AD5-87FE-4E59-BC2A-CD3C4404BB48@ntt-at.com> <36FCAFB0-AEB8-4230-BA95-2BCB0338D3B6@csperkins.org> <CAEbPqrzVkL0a0NH3gPfTY+5b0S-TkovnBdgqucTnJ+W5tvpa1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/ECcmaA56CW0lUH3HR3hd6oVVOv0>
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:04:37 -0000

Fine with me.
Colin


> On 21 Mar 2016, at 17:57, Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> Apologies for the delay, my proposal is the following:
> 
> 
>   In this document, we provide rationale for choosing additional RTP
>   metrics for the WebRTC getStats() API [W3C.WD-webrtc-20150210].  The
>   document also creates a registry containing identifiers from the
>   metrics reported in the RTCP Sender, Receiver, and Extended Reports.
>   All identifiers proposed in this document are RECOMMENDED to be
>   implemented by an endpoint.  An endpoint MAY choose not to expose an
>   identifier if it does not implement the corresponding RTCP Report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> wrote:
>> On 20 Jan 2016, at 04:31, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> wrote:
>> 
>> This message starts a Working Group Last Call for the
>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-02.txt.
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/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
>> https://csperkins.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.callstats.io



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/