Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03

One more comment on this document: 

6. what is the behavior of the receiver if a value other than 3 or 7 respectively is received? 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:52 PM
> To: xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03
> 
> 
> I have a few comments, please see below:
> 
> 1. I believe that [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard], [I-
> D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss], [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
> discard], and [RFC6776] must be Normative references.
> 
> - Burst gap loss metrics defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-
> discard] are used in calculation of fields in Burst/Gap Discard Summary
> Statistics Block.
> - Burst/Gap Loss Block defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-
> loss] is used in the calculation of Burst Duration Mean and Burst
> Duration variance
> - Discard Count Block defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard] is
> used in the calculation of Gap Discard Rate
> - Also in the formula of Gap Discard Rate "extended last sequence
> number" and "extended first sequence number" provided in the Measurement
> Information block from [RFC6776] are used
> 
> In order to understand and the formulas and build the implementations
> for this I-D these references are mandatory reading, and for this
> document to be stable the references also need to be stable - so they
> must be Normative
> 
> 2. Sections 3.1.2 - the definition of Interval Metric Flag is 2 bits,
> three values codified to send. What happens at the receiver if the 4th
> (illegal) value I=00 is received?
> 
> 3. Same question about the Interval Metric Type defined in 3.2.2. And if
> we are here, why is one named Interval Metric Flag (3.1.2) and the other
> Interval Metric Type (3.2.2)? they seem to be the same thing
> 
> 4. The introduction section makes no reference to the definition of the
> associated SDP parameters (which is mentioned in the Abstract but not
> here)
> 
> 5. No need to mention the authors names in the Introduction when
> refering to [RFC3611] and [RFC 6792]
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:55 PM
> > To: xrblock@ietf.org
> > Subject: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03
> >
> >
> > This is a Working Group Last Call for
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
> > xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03.txt.
> >
> > Please read and review this document, and send your comments,
> > questions and concerns to the WG list before December 13, 2012. If you
> > have no comments and you believe that the document is ready for
> > submission to the IESG as a Standards Track document please send a
> > short message as well to help us in determining the level of review
> and consensus.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xrblock mailing list
> > xrblock@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock