Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Varun Singh <> Thu, 13 December 2012 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E5D21F8ACD for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g11WyTuu-7xO for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A846121F8AC8 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id za17so1754023obc.31 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=72f7YFJSNsAfkejBW/xAbaJ+EW/7TfPog/9H1rNbr4w=; b=JaDE0N7wR5oJGmJ8qTOW9UZkmI8Bd3P0XD98ZQzgMsXhagiy2wHmi5t2HLivNSA9TM eOIPsj4Sarcbtl8y6u+Pr6vr8EInDg9eHk3OCXkGfJ2kBop1XkCKlvsLGyNbeJcdmWPc UCdtdyWyL5sjA56D4L0fXmgxkYwCo0l5f1qAHl0F5ow7P7j7sAHO/9JpPidgyyfVQtlJ W4iqSZFMkysECCWc/hrqaphgnuC+dR7PkNde7XmXfmy9r6VwIQsd1kIhO9dg1yL+F4xt qgxYWDUU4iHioI81a3P+Qp3dpfLLvHARnvy8VXSCgxpvLMU17e3M8gca/NiXWL2Dvo64 fWcQ==
Received: by with SMTP id d3mr955346oei.70.1355392903279; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:01:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Varun Singh <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:01:22 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Qin Wu <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Colin Perkins <>,
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:01:44 -0000

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Qin Wu <> wrote:
>>> Also, one question: there are many reserved values for the jb cfg. Do we need to define how new values are to be registered in an IANA Registry,
>>> or is the assumption that this draft is revised if new values are needed?
>>> [Qin]:I am a little doubt about this. Do you have other values in mind besides the values for fixed jitter buffer method and adaptive jitter buffer method?
>>> Also these values looks to me are just configuration parameters. They usually fixed upon they are set.
>> If the meaning of values not defined in this draft is unknown what use
>> are they?
> [Qin]: I think the problem is we don't know how many new values we need to add. The current two values we defined in the draft
> are used to distinct measurement results that are using different jitter buffer method.
> If we don't have any new value to be defined, we don't need to resort to IANA Registry,
> if we do have many new values that need to be defined, I think IANA Registry is the right approach.

[Varun]: IMO the two values are sufficient. One possible solution is
to reduce the "jb cfg" to 1-bit (0:fixed, 1:adaptive), because the
value in "jb cfg" tells the receiving endpoint that the "jitter buffer
maximum delay" is going to remain constant throughout the session or
will vary.