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

Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com> Sat, 12 January 2013 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
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 A71CB21F88E1 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:05:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UtfODWAWKVr0 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B7DB21F888E for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27623 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2013 22:04:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host291.hostmonster.com) (74.220.215.91) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2013 22:04:35 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=avanw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=DmiF3sKukSVLaF3zznt82V6WtpdbVsecs73GU33mEEE=; b=Xx5mpKuwZZN1I19V38/p7Jjwi9HlRS2V7m+gR0hrUYlHwdHslUqNfWTo5bmCZ/JFFg7DhisqcFbalEx/RLddJnT5qkcx7r31SRTp0NIVYB9bhtkIesYDJFMKcx0yX90Y;
Received: from [209.85.210.175] (port=57841 helo=mail-ia0-f175.google.com) by host291.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kevin.gross@avanw.com>) id 1Tu9Br-0004Vw-3j for xrblock@ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:04:35 -0700
Received: by mail-ia0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 21so2602542iay.34 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:04:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.187.197 with SMTP id fu5mr2886745igc.95.1358028274263; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.151.135 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:04:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6C47A394F32143709E3B1E7CB411A08E@china.huawei.com>
References: <FAB2D6A6BD794F67B5EF665FB7966291@china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA021171@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <-5577438416726931362@unknownmsgid> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA02129A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <56FF1AB29F4046F0BDCDF6F7B21FC0EC@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1UfwNR+7jNx=r+P3rMR35NRdby_S+Xh1GADivvx3_r6w@mail.gmail.com> <686F7A581585402D82BDCA8F213EB5E7@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1FqHh0SVBKudc-cJoJxw9hPUeBUwdgrf54xLwSFDfO6g@mail.gmail.com> <6C47A394F32143709E3B1E7CB411A08E@china.huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:04:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CALw1_Q0E867g+Rae84dwisaPWQh=vQ-cN5iMPexqSW6n+Gn+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340a95e1e6c804d31e98f7
X-Identified-User: {1416:host291.hostmonster.com:avanwcom:avanw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.210.175 authed with kevin.gross@avanw.com}
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] offlist//Re: Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
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: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:05:04 -0000

Qin,

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
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>, www.X192.org


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

> **
>
>   [Qin]:What's your suggested change? How about adding the following
>> sentence to say:
>> "
>> It is calculated based on the difference between the receipt time and
>> playout time for the packet that
>> arrives exactly on time.
>>  "
>>
>
> I need more information before making a proposal. Who do we expect will
> use Jitter buffer nominal delay information and for what purpose?
>
>
> [Qin]: Regarding calculation method for "jitter buffer nominal delay" , I
> talked with Colin offline long time ago.
> He was okay with my early proposal, i.e.,
> "
> It is calculated based on the time
>  for packets spent in the jitter buffer.
> "
> But he also suggested that we may  use another proposal to make the
> definition more clear as follows
> "
>  It is calculated based on the difference between the receipt time and
> playout time for the packet that
> arrives exactly on time.
> "
> That's why we propose to have such change.
>
>   Jitter buffer maximum delay
>> Needs to specify reference points for reported delay: From receipt to
>> playout? From RTP timestamp to playout?
>>
>>
>> [Qin]: How about adding the following sentence to say:
>> "
>>  Jitter buffer maximum delay is calculated based on the difference
>> between the receipt time and playout time
>> for the earliest arriving packet"
>>
>
> I can't evaluate this proposal until I understand who we expect will use
> Jitter buffer maximum delay information and for what purpose.
>
>>
>>
>>