[xrblock] WGLC review ofdraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-02 anddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-04

"Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn> Thu, 19 July 2012 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
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 47EE011E8096 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.684
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, SARE_RECV_IP_218078=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ot1d2soHzKol for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from corp.21cn.com (corp.forptr.21cn.com [121.14.129.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D27221F86A0 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip?218.80.215.132? (entas5.inner-hermes.com [10.27.101.5]) by corp.21cn.com (HERMES) with ESMTP id 49C2A194016 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:07:37 +0800 (CST)
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_IP: wmail.10.27.101.5.349043857
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: WEBMAIL
Received: from ip<218.80.215.132> ([218.80.215.132]) by 21CN-entas5(MEDUSA 10.27.101.5) with ESMTP id 1342667257.1726 for xrblock@ietf.org ; Thu Jul 19 11:07:41 2012
2/X-Total-Score: 3:
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<9993838d90848c618a8695874f909388>, score=<13426672615DVXsvvnvvjvv5vvDvcKnjcsW499O99H99g99c9EwOHg>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:07:37 +0800
From: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
To: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <504400315.25851342667257394.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2349_1536071645.1342667257203"
HMM_WEBCLN_IP: 10.27.10.87
X-HERMES-SENDMODE: normal
X-HERMES-SET: KoH0oguRsun5ALVzckz3EqaqqOumqw==
Subject: [xrblock] WGLC review ofdraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-02 anddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-04
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: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:06:56 -0000

Hi,
 
I've reviewed the two drafts and have a couple of comments for both of them.
 
1. section 3.2  Interval Metric flag (I)
Now there are 3 values for Interval Metric flag, which are the Interval Duration(I=10), the Cumulative Duration(I=11) and Sampled Value(I=01).
 
Is it necessary to add a clarification about these two metrics should(or must?) not be chosen as Sampled Metric, just as the Discard Count Metric?
 
2. a nit in Abstract "This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block" maybe say "This document defines a RTCP XR Report Block"
 
3. the reference should be updated, for example, [DISCARD] should be replaced as draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05
 
 
Regards
 
Claire Bi