Re: [xrblock] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07

["Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the nice Gen-ART review. Please see my replies inline starting with "[Rachel]".

BR,
Rachel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:42 AM
> To: Gen Art; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Dan Romascanu
> Subject: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
> please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07
> Reviewer: Tom Taylor
> Review Date: 2014-12-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-26
> IESG Telechat date: 2015-01-08
> 
> Summary: This document is mostly to publish as a Proposed Standard, with
> minor issues verging on editorial corrections.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1) Second paragraph of Introduction: last sentence introduces the "repaired
> loss count". I found this confusing. Figure 1 shows you really meant "unrepaired
> loss count".

[Rachel]: This report block introduces two metrics : "unrepaired loss count" which is specified as the total number of packets finally lost after applying loss-repair methods. And "repaired loss count" is specified as the total number of packets which are fully repaired after applying loss-repair methods. And in this sentence, I meant "repaired loss count" because this metric is used to help calculating pre-repair loss count (pre-repair loss count = unrepaired loss count + repaired loss count). Maybe the name of "unrepaired loss count" is confusing. Would it better changing to "post-repair loss count"?
> 
> 2) First paragraph of Section 3, third sentence: the ending currently reads:
>     "Some packets will not be repaired in the current
>     RTCP interval."
> I think your point is that some of these could be repaired later, so I suggest the
> text should be extended:
>     "Some packets will not be repaired in the current
>      RTCP interval, but could be repaired later."
> 

[Rachel]: Right. Will fix it in the new version.

> 3) I question whether RFCs 4588 and 5109 are normative for this document,
> but I know this sort of thing is a difficult decision and I'll accept whatever the
> final outcome is.

[Rachel]: I agree with you that these two should be informative. 
> 
> 4) Appendix A: The "Units of Measurement" are packets.

[Rachel]: According to RFC6390, Section 5.4.5, there's an example to show how to define a metric. Here's how it defines the "Units of Measurement":
"
Units of Measurement:  This metric is expressed as a fixed-point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field.  For example, a metric value of 12 means a loss rate of approximately 5%.
"
I consulted it to specify mine. 

> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1) First paragraph of introduction:
>        s/contains/contain/ at end of first line.
> 
> Fourth sentence:
> 
> OLD
> 
>     However, this metric is measured on media stream before
>     any loss repair mechanism, e.g., retransmission [RFC4588] and Forward
>     Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109], is applied.
> 
> NEW
> 
>     However, this metric is measured on the media stream before
>                                         ^^^
>     any loss repair mechanism, e.g., retransmission [RFC4588] or Forward
>                                                               ^^
>     Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109], is applied.

[Rachel]: Okay. All the above nits will be fixed.

> 
> I would break this paragraph into three parts. The first three sentences
> introduce the existing metric. The next two sentences, from "However, ..." to
> "... [RFC3550].", introduce the problem. The following two sentences, from
> "Consequently ..." through "... higher overhead.", give an attempted solution.
> The final sentence, I think, is the motivator for this document and I would
> merge it into the next paragraph.

[Rachel]: Good suggestion.

> 
> 2) First paragrpah of Section 3: again, I suggest it be broken into three parts.
> The second part would begin with "Thus it is RECOMMENDED ...", and the
> third with "The sequence number range ...".

[Rachel]: Okay. So you're suggesting to break the big paragraph into 3 small ones, right?

> 
> 3) The sentence preceding Figure 1 should identify "Figure 1" explicitly (via
> XML2RFC cross-reference if that is what you are using). It should also note that

[Rachel]: Okay. Will do.

> bit positions are given in octal -- the first time I've seen that in a document, but
> it's OK with me.

[Rachel]: This draft is just an RTCP XR extension to augment the report blocks defined in RFC3611. So the format is just in a manner consistent with other RTCP XR packets. All the RFCs produced in XRBLOCK wg specifying new report blocks have the same pattern. That's why I think it doesn't need to be clarified in this draft.

> 
> 5) Section 5, third line: s/confidentially/confidentiality/

[Rachel]: Okay.