Re: [xrblock] PM Dir review of Discard RLE Draft

[Varun Singh <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rachel,

As you suggest, it is quite straightforward to incorporate PM Directorate
reviews into the -07 document,
however, the main argument is the discarded bytes fits better with
discarded packet count instead of
Discard RLE. Hence, the email for input from the WG, this will also be
discussed at the Berlin meeting.

Cheers,
Varun


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Varun,****
>
> ** **
>
> Why not we choosing choice 1 to modify the name of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics.
>  And we also change the current name of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard
> to RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard
> Packet Count metric Reporting. So that no significant changes will be
> made to the discard draft and we can let it move on. I believe this method
> will be no harm to both documents. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Rachel****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Varun Singh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:59 AM
> *To:* Qin Wu
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] PM Dir review of Discard RLE Draft****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Qin,****
>
> ** **
>
> In the media sender section the draft, it allow both forms of reporting:**
> **
>
> ** **
>
>    The sender SHOULD accept the Bytes Discarded Report Block only if it****
>
>    is received in a compound RTCP receiver report or if it is preceded****
>
>    by a measurement identity block [RFC6776 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6776>].  Under all other****
>
>    circumstances it MUST ignore the block.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the block is merged, we could either allow both forms or just allowing RFC6776 ****
>
> measurement identity block. I do not have a strong opinion, but prefer if both ****
>
> forms of reporting are allowed (using RTCP RR or RFC6776).****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Varun****
>
>  ** **
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:****
>
> Regarding the second approach:****
>
> It seems Byte discarded block in
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-06doesn’t need to be sent
> with measurement identity block [RFC6776], it can be sent with RTCP
> Receiver Report (RR).****
>
> While packet discard count block in the
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-15 MUST be sent with measurement
> identity block. If not, packet discard count block****
>
> MUST be discarded.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards!****
>
> -Qin****
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Varun Singh
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:00 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [xrblock] PM Dir review of Discard RLE Draft****
>
>  ****
>
> Discard RLE [1] was recently reviewed by PM Dir [2], some issues were
> raised, which require input from the WG.****
>
>
> PM Dir:****
>
> The main concern is that the draft contains two reporting blocks: ****
>
> Discard RLE and Bytes discarded. First, the current title just mentions **
> **
>
> the Discard RLE and not discarded bytes. Second, the discarded bytes ****
>
> may be a better fit with discarded packets draft. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The question in this case is, which choice does the WG prefer?****
>
> 1. update the title of the discarded RLE draft and add the appropriate ***
> *
>
> RFC6390 templates.****
>
>  ****
>
> 2. Merge the discarded bytes with the discarded packets, however, ****
>
> the discarded packets draft is in RFC editor queue.****
>
>  ****
>
> 3. Make a new draft for discarded bytes?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Varun****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-06
> ****
>
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/current/msg00571.html
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/ ****
>



-- 
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/