[xrblock] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5011A8771; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 01:14:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEvtazRRZlj3; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 01:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D821A00D4; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 01:14:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150216091455.22596.26011.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 01:14:55 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/FgmoDnhMoWAJdSw0824lF3rcTpo>
Cc: xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count.all@ietf.org
Subject: [xrblock] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:14:58 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


The following MUST versus RECOMMENDED is still an issue

  post-repair loss count: 16 bits

      Total number of packets finally lost after applying one or more
      loss-repair methods, e.g., FEC and/or retransmission, during the
      actual sequence number range indicated by begin_seq and end_seq.
      This metric MUST NOT count the lost packets for which repair might
      still be possible. 

This goes against

2. Interval report

   Some implementations may align the begin_seq and end_seq number with
   the highest sequence numbers of consecutive RTCP RRs (RTCP interval).
   This is NOT RECOMMENDED as packets that are not yet repaired in this
   current RTCP interval and may repaired in the future will not be
   reported in subsequent reports.

I understand the explanations you provided in the past. The only logical
solution is to change the "MUST NOT" with "NOT RECOMMENDED"


Thanks, the draft improved.
However, There are still sentences that I had to read multiple times, to
"get" them. I believe that I have spent enough time on this draft by now.
So will not comment on those.


   in 6 still to be repaired lost packet = cumulative number of packets
   lost - cumulative post-repair loss count -  cumulative repaired loss

"in 6"?

- Why doesn't this section 3 mention "repaired loss count"?