Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 12 December 2012 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 465F521F887A for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rg5udT1GOp2k for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F95C21F88F7 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMK30816; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:51:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:50:42 +0000
Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:51:32 +0000
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:51:24 +0800
Message-ID: <F97E5A20FEA344ABAA0997D0421AD03A@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA024844@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <6DC0D5A8-E781-4584-BA7A-38EC6F9134AA@csperkins.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:51:24 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:51:42 -0000

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Cc: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt


> On 29 Nov 2012, at 13:51, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> This is a Working Group Last Call for http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt.  
>> 
>> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions and concerns to the WG list before December 13, 2012. If you have no comments and you believe that the document is ready for submission to the IESG as a Standards Track document please send a short message as well to help us in determining the level of review and consensus. 
> 
> 
> This looks to be in good shape. One minor comment: why is SHOULD used for the value to report if over-range or unknown values are received, rather than MUST?

[Qin]: I believe you are right, we should use MUST instead.

> Also, one question: there are many reserved values for the jb cfg. Do we need to define how new values are to be registered in an IANA Registry, or is the assumption that this draft is revised if new values are needed?

[Qin]:I am a little doubt about this. Do you have other values in mind besides the values for fixed jitter buffer method and adaptive jitter buffer method?
Also these values looks to me are just configuration parameters. They usually fixed upon they are set.
> 
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock