Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info repetition indraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

Hello Colin, all,

I've in inherited the editorship of ITU-T H.248.48 
(http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2012/1103_Gen/H248_48.zip) 
which defines the use of the RTCP XR monitoring architecture with H.248. 
Currently the only normative reference made to any of the IETF drafts is 
to draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity. So I'm trying to get a handle 
on where this is going.

Could you clarify in more detail what in Section 5.2 of 
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 you think needs to be changed/added?

It seems that part of your concern is that the measurement identity 
block has other information than purely just an "Identity". Do you have 
a problem with the other information in general or just that it is 
contained in a block with the word "identity" as part of the title?

Regards, Christian

On 23/05/2011 9:19 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> Qin,
>
> [bcc to avt, so replies go to the xrblock list only]
>
> The identity information in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02 is 
> derived from that in draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02, true. Both blocks 
> contain too much non-identity information for my taste, however. None 
> of this negates my comment on Section 5.2 of 
> draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01, which I think still focusses on the 
> wrong things.
>
> I'd be interested to hear other opinions though.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2011, at 05:00, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi, Colin:
>> It looks like to me we go back to the history and re-pickup the story 
>> of identity block again although I haven't gotten invloved into the 
>> historical discussion.
>> However I do check with section 4.3 of draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02 and 
>> compare it with measurement identity block specified in 
>> draft-ietf-avt-rtcp
>> -xr-meas-identity.
>> I think identity block has already considered the way on how to 
>> correlate RTP-layer identity information with other identity data. If 
>> you look at the format
>> of identity block, you will see identity block defines the 
>> sub-identifier field to carry an additional identifier which can 
>> be useful in the context of a specific application, e.g.,
>> IMS Charging Identity,SIP Call-ID, all these additional identity can 
>> be included in the identity block. Using this application specific 
>> identity information,
>> you can easily correlate RTP-layer identity information with other 
>> identity data.
>> I think the only problem with measurement identity block is which 
>> kind of information should be included, which kind of information 
>> should not be included.
>> Therefore it will be good to have a template for measurement identity 
>> block or any other new RTCP XR block.
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     *From:*Colin Perkins <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     *To:*Qin Wu <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     *Cc:*AVT WG <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     *Sent:*Monday, May 16, 2011 6:37 PM
>>     *Subject:*Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info
>>     repetition indraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch
>>
>>     Qin,
>>
>>     To my mind, the most important part of the identity block was the
>>     correlation tag used to relate RTCP statistics to non-RTCP
>>     measurements (draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02 had something along these
>>     lines, although more structured than needed). The tools to save
>>     space in RTCP XR packets by removing duplicate identity
>>     information when stacking reports are less compelling. Given
>>     this, I don't see much value in Section 5.2 of
>>     draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch as currently written, and would prefer
>>     to see the draft focus on ways to correlate RTP-layer identify
>>     information with other identify data.
>>
>>     I'd be interested to hear other opinions though.
>>
>>     Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 10 May 2011, at 03:22, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>     Just make correction. My colleague reminds me that the example
>>>     figure 2  does not conflict with report block format defined in
>>>     draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02.
>>>     Since the detailed measurement identity information following
>>>     the field SSRC of stream source in the figure 2 is omitted.
>>>     However as I mentioned, it is not clear how much information is
>>>     included in identity block until identity block is clearly
>>>     defined in XRBlock WG.
>>>     That is why I propose to remove figure 2 and related text from
>>>     this document.
>>>     Regards!
>>>     -Qin
>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>         *From:*Qin Wu <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *To:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Cc:*[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Sent:*Monday, May 09, 2011 4:08 PM
>>>         *Subject:*[AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info repetition
>>>         indraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch
>>>
>>>         In the last IETF meeting, there was discussion on identity
>>>         info repetition or dupplication. However it
>>>          was not clear whether new packet type for identity block is
>>>         needed. Here is some clarification and
>>>         prososal from my point of view.
>>>         In the example figure 2 of section 5.2
>>>         in drat-ietf-avtcore-monarch, it is assumed there is an RTCP
>>>          XR packet containing four metrics blocks, reporting on
>>>         streams from two source.
>>>         each source is associated with two meric block.
>>>         In order to reduce overhead to carry duplicated data for all
>>>         the metric block contained in
>>>         the same RTCP XR packet, it was proposed by
>>>         draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch that measurement
>>>         identity information should be separated from metric block
>>>         and form independent block.
>>>         However this proposal save zero octets in figure 2. So the
>>>         question  is
>>>         whether an identity block is actually needed if identity
>>>         information
>>>         only contain SSRC of stream souce, or if just stacking
>>>         multiple XR Blocks is acceptable.
>>>         However I re-check with RTCP XR Report Block for Measurement
>>>         Identity defined in
>>>         draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02, identity
>>>         information included is more than
>>>         SSRC of stream source. So it should be useful to define new
>>>         packet type for identity block.
>>>         However the example figure 2(i.e., only contain SSRC of
>>>         stream souce) is actually not consistent with report block
>>>         format defined in
>>>         draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02(i.e., contain more
>>>         than SSRC of stream source).
>>>         Also as we know, identity block work has just started from
>>>         XRBlock WG,
>>>         Therefore  I suggest that the example(Figure 2, and the
>>>         related discussion) is removed until the identity block is
>>>         clearly
>>>         defined in XRBLock.
>>>         Any Comments or suggestion?
>>>         Regards!
>>>         -Qin
>>>
>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     xrblock mailing list
>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Colin Perkins
>>     http://csperkins.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>
>
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt