Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Tue, 30 October 2012 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.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 58F2421F85EE for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 w+GRgS8ELvIb for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA7F21F85EA for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AME18515; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:09:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:09:27 +0000
Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:09:53 +0800
Received: from SZXEML539-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.26]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.94]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:09:49 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00
Thread-Index: AQHNteJDO3kH4ui2j0OADO6r5WRb8ZfRE3TA
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:09:48 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB443ACC48@szxeml539-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4438F16F@szxeml539-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5D5EF107-BD78-410E-8E81-BC3228B91339@csperkins.org> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB443AB6A8@szxeml539-mbx.china.huawei.com> <12D5C620-EEE0-4FBC-B77C-165748978B97@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <12D5C620-EEE0-4FBC-B77C-165748978B97@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:10:04 -0000

Hi Colin,

Best Regards!
Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:33 PM
To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00

Rachel,

On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:17, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
> Hi Colin,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Best Regards!
> Rachel
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:44 PM
>> To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
>> Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00
>> 
>> On 18 Oct 2012, at 04:30, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> I have 2 comments for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization:
>>> 
>>> 1.       In RTP flows synchronization offset metric block, only one SSRC set to the SSRC of the reference RTP stream has been specified. IMO,  the SSRC of the reporting stream should be also required.
>>> 2.       Synchronization offset is a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point number. No indication shows which stream, the reporting stream or the reference stream,  is lag behind. So I propose to split one bit from "Reserved" field to indicate the offset direction.
>> 
>> It would probably be easier to implement if you made the Synchronisation Offset a signed 64 bit value, rather than an unsigned 64 bit value and a separate sign bit.
>> 
> [Rachel]: The reason I proposed that is because the synchronization offset is represented using the timestamp format of NTP (a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point number), which I think it's better to keep it unchanged.  Are you suggesting to use a nonstandard format instead of the standard NTP format? But you're right that it may be easier for implementations to use a signed value to tell fast or slow from 2 streams.


Thinking about this more, I'm confused why you need a 64 bit NTP format timestamp here. With the addition of a sign bit, this choice allows you to represent synchronisation offsets up to 136 years in either direction with picosecond accuracy. That range seems unnecessary. What is the actual requirement?

[Rachel]: The reason of using 64 bit NTP format timestamp is for accuracy, which has been discussed in the list before ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00504.html ). But I agree with you that an additional sign bit is unnecessary. Your proposal makes sense here.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/