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

Colin Perkins <> Tue, 11 December 2012 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A7321F8471 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-r7uBtzrY2C for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CF521E805A for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1TiXh5-0004wY-T8; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:48:52 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:48:44 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -12
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:49:03 -0000

On 29 Nov 2012, at 13:55, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> This is a Working Group Last Call for  
> 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. 

Section 3.2.2 of the draft cites draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard and suggests that the gap discard rate is based on the value of DT=3 packets, but there was some discussion at IETF 85 about removing DT=3, since it’s redundant with the sum of DT=1 and DT=2. Was that discussion resolved?

Otherwise, I just had some minor comments:

- Section 3.2 references draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard, which is not a burst/gap metric draft, in the context of burst/gap metrics. This is confusing, and it would help to separate the discussion of the burst/gap discard metrics from the reference to the non-burst/gap discard draft.

- Section 4.1.2: the term “derivation frame” is unclear. 

- Section 5.2 is insufficient, and needs to be updated in a manner analogous to the other recent RTCP XR blocks.

Colin Perkins