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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 23 July 2012 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@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 4221221F866A for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 KC3BHZOCCV-o for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5559C21F8650 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIG22210; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:52:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:49:37 -0700
Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:49:37 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:49:32 +0800
Message-ID: <A20C02A31C95437A985761580D849BBF@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <504400315.25851342667257394.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web4>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:49:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0523_01CD68C9.3929AC40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:52:35 -0000

Hi,Claire:
Thank for your comments to both drafts. please see my replies inline.

Regards!
-Qin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claire Bi(jiayu) 
  To: xrblock 
  Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:07 AM
  Subject: [xrblock] WGLC review ofdraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-02 anddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-04


  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? 

[Qin]:Looks reasonable and will add the similar statement at the end of definition of Inteval metric flag. 
Also I notice that 2 bit 'inteval metric flag' should be corrected as 2 bits 'interval metric flag'.
   
  2. a nit in Abstract "This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block" maybe say "This document defines a RTCP XR Report Block" 

[Qin]:No, it is not a nit. We should use 'an' rather than 'a' in front of 'RTCP XR Report Block'.
   
  3. the reference should be updated, for example, [DISCARD] should be replaced as draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05 
   
[Qin]:Yes. Also I think the other outdated referenced should be updated as well.
   
  Regards 
   
  Claire Bi 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  xrblock mailing list
  xrblock@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock