Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics

Varun Singh <> Mon, 21 March 2016 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F2E12D970 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lf41rV-HbJgF for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 754C112D9CB for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id qe11so76884239lbc.3 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
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-transfer-encoding; bh=SuyISIClXqSoqKYKWh50nppG9XktTiVGeYaQ20wJBs4=; b=TIO8SDPpwxXeUO7BQxFUZ83tdsk1bWqXCUJRgoNhnakS95jLiVNONQIaRU3ZJqFUCj 9BEvUsLLBk+1sEVXcJsfwlm8XNfxfQbW9hUMo7tG7aGlqjYkmRJVs3A7xp4g+WlfSSv5 VtUU7or/13/rhb9W0qLflNhgIHCLU2YZJzbVwKVwb6HHDIl0hUD733ejlyUYMWbXdQ78 WU1HAd5jBhX3Jmq4dsYhar/EES/Lfiw/G8w2N5UZ+dCjhMZbr2r89LQ0LLki46q9Nku/ HjhoIlbMJ/mM8kmDNUui46gFhaV/cLmw5MTgRpj2vyT3wRBs3WftEI7gYiu2TyiV0Jrz vJ+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SuyISIClXqSoqKYKWh50nppG9XktTiVGeYaQ20wJBs4=; b=S7baG9rD0eduEYEFtIH846bqv8YWVrszOhw+mazcI8i3ujaObbQVJ1ocerLaAcvNnQ zCMT+d3hi4mHWTMtvOKhNDKbp+6yhEXqVC/l2vlXng6TcoM/DpxUI+jeCZoNS2/G+9dZ h9q/svEIlnsQXUWCgKlbGzU8CDom6SQ+mJDdB9nXT5mjNQB9kMQ6POUA+kHeQfBxIu3k v1R3ukGc/kH0hKncr2Yq0YTKYRjV2mziiJRkIfAhv7GVinspLencz91fBbiv0k+cGdto +AMzYWzgNMmW11UE92F3Fa2EHl7sDFNYvzHHEY3j9HjMK+FtmWf0bLJHzQn75QBZ9p/l hL2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJNnnOgfpTFMv7VeCgzkR1TY/vfUIjr29AYYqPLCwfgc5y0cpIM3naSmvP6qpyS57ztZpx9nvwD/7P5HA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id tw10mr6117916lbb.21.1458583099541; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Varun Singh <>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:57:59 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Colin Perkins <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: xrblock <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:58:35 -0000

Hi Colin,

Apologies for the delay, my proposal is the following:

   In this document, we provide rationale for choosing additional RTP
   metrics for the WebRTC getStats() API [W3C.WD-webrtc-20150210].  The
   document also creates a registry containing identifiers from the
   metrics reported in the RTCP Sender, Receiver, and Extended Reports.
   All identifiers proposed in this document are RECOMMENDED to be
   implemented by an endpoint.  An endpoint MAY choose not to expose an
   identifier if it does not implement the corresponding RTCP Report.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Colin Perkins <> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 04:31, Shida Schubert <> wrote:
> This message starts a Working Group Last Call for the
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-02.txt.
> Even if you have no questions, comments or concern, if you have read the
> draft and agree that it’s ready for submission to IESG as a Standard Track,
> please send a message to the list indicating this.
> Obviously if you have any issues or questions please submit it to the list,
> if you are highlighting issues suggestions to fix the issues is always
> helpful.
> I have two comments:
> 1) The draft uses RFC 2119 terms in lower case in a number of places. I
> think it would be clearer if these were changed to upper case where the
> intent is to use normative language, and rephrased to use alternative terms
> otherwise.
> 2) The draft has a reasonable list of candidate metrics, but does not make a
> clear recommendation which metrics ought to be implemented. Is the intent
> that a WebRTC end-point implementor picks an arbitrary subset of these, or
> that all the metrics are implemented? If a subset is to be implemented,
> which subset? What are the most important to implement? Adding some further
> normative language would probably help clarify.
> That said, I have no objection to sending this draft to the IESG for
> publication. It suggests a reasonable set of metrics, and is well enough
> written.
> --
> Colin Perkins
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list