Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

"Roni Even" <> Wed, 16 January 2013 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BD221F863B for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMzu9lKPNptG for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1A921F8A3E for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d4so664509eek.22 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=JjcZGwhUrst5HnWcHOKonoR2A9kjnNuMyqUQnUWsWPc=; b=zL4fXMgnrih0Se4F/EvrISG4BBgO6WDh3eCsEDsP2tZBFN+GDWvkqUqsPjUFruvupr mRnUkXCMl3oXSbqxo14BR9PiTsC0aebrERsBlas59cs4LZWTKUmG1VW+ipzOMdJ3ItKm 2rItZh+ASTjJhOqDGLzndmocM7kjy0Dgk5TRKcZovqLBZf6NEwGVzgh5Ymj+vjECBLAx rwLT9sf691hxO2+TqJMQr3b0rP19JKVcEq12ZcBhIMd/Pe+B9LzBIbXQn9M73E0B2kHl XpEBQ2rgky5R4A9ul9Q5BcR3D1Ir6nqNcUzPmujL/Ph0I0ZAK8NJ9j6YpiH8/8UxMueG T9rQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id j47mr3460720eeo.26.1358348654185; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniE ([]) by with ESMTPS id 46sm29813945eeg.4.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:04:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Alan Clark'" <>, "'Dan \(Dan\)'" <>, "'Kevin Gross'" <>, "'Qin Wu'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:01:19 +0200
Message-ID: <03aa01cdf3fa$58f1d630$0ad58290$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03AB_01CDF40B.1C7C2CD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQK+Ebml6GvPlzlE/fVLKWSBf4dMVpZr0DkQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'xrblock' <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:04:19 -0000

Hi Alan,

I am not sure what applies a nominal delay means. Is the first packet
defines the start of the jitter buffer and nominal delay is the size of the
fixed jitter buffer.  

When saying that the jitter buffer may increase or reduce is this for the
adaptive jitter buffer?




From: [] On Behalf
Of Alan Clark
Sent: 16 January, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Dan (Dan); Kevin Gross; Qin Wu
Cc: xrblock
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt


A typical jitter buffer uses the first packet received as its timing
reference, and applies a nominal delay to that before playing out.  During
later operation, the jitter buffer may increase or reduce the nominal delay
or may pick a new reference packet. This nominal delay represents the "late
window" - so if a packet arrives more than "nominal delay ms" after its
expected time then it will be discarded.

"On time" - in this case - refers to the expected arrival time of the packet
when calculated with reference to the first or a later selected reference

Jitter buffer implementations don't necessary do this mathematically however
this is a generalized description that models the behavior of most jitter
buffers used for VoIP and Videoconferencing.

Playout buffers used in video streaming applications operate quite
differently. Basically a received chunk of encoded video is added to the
playout buffer - encoded video is read from the buffer. When the buffer
level drops below a threshold then another chunk of video is requested from
the server. There is an equivalent to "nominal delay" as the buffer will
always try to make sure there is at least a minimal level of video in the
buffer before playing out - however there would not be the equivalent of an
"on time" packet.



On 1/16/13 5:36 AM, "Dan (Dan)" <> wrote:

Kevin, Qin,
Do you want to discuss this one2one, or should we organize a short
conference call? Do other think that they can contribute to clarify the
issues, or want to participate? 

From: [] On Behalf
Of Kevin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:08 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: xrblock
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

I think we need to have a phone call to discuss this whole thing.

Kevin Gross


Media Network Consultant

AVA Networks - <> ,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Qin Wu <> wrote:


I like to make some additioal clarification to your question.

I think the packet arrives exactly on time, is also referred to the packet
that has nominal delay.

So we have two ways to address this. 

a. It is more like implementation specific issue,e.g., rely on timing
information in the headers of previous 

packet and current packet or rely on time window to determine this. So we
can leave this to the specific


b. we can explain the packet that arrives exactly on time as the packet that
has nominal delay.

The nominal delay can either be choosen as the jitter buffer delay for the
packet with minimal delay(i.e., 

the reference packet is choosen as the packet with minmal delay) or average
delay for all the packets that arrives

within the implementation specific time window during the measurement

I am not sure we should details to talk about this, but If we take (b), we
prefer to add the following sentence in the draft to say:

"Note that the reference packet is generally selected as the packet
 with minimum delay based on the most common criterion (see Sections 1
<>  and 5.1 of [RFC5481
<> ]).


Let me know what you think about this.



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Qin Wu <> 

To: Kevin Gross <>  

Cc: xrblock <> 

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:46 AM

Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt


As I clarified to you in the previous email, "implemention specific time
window" described in Burst Gap drafts will be used to identify a "packet
that arrives exactly on time".

That is to say, if the receiving packet falls within  implemention specific
time window and can be sucessfully playout, such packet will be regarded as
packet that arrives exactly on time.

Hope this clarifies.



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Kevin Gross <>  

To: Qin Wu <> 

Cc: xrblock <> 

Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:04 AM

Subject: Re: offlist//Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action:


Of the jitter buffer delay metric, the draft currently says "It is
calculated based on the difference between the receipt time and the playout
time for the packet that arrives exactly on time."

My issue is that I don't know how to identify a "packet that arrives exactly
on time".

Kevin Gross

+1-303-447-0517 <tel:%2B1-303-447-0517> 

Media Network Consultant

AVA Networks - <> ,


xrblock mailing list



xrblock mailing list