[xrblock] 答复: WGLC on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-02.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 12 March 2013 15:32 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 67FC321F8CF9 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.579
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 2-5y14yZw8qt for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0E521F8CEF for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id APH46934; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:32:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:31:32 +0000
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:32:04 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.126]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:31:57 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] WGLC on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHODvKrcs1kQkn3Bk21hCsSdPdRs5iZtP4AgAiLqLA=
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:31:56 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43A2F504@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <00B2102B-B085-40EB-BA98-ACFDC4F2E82C@ntt-at.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0A25C9@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0A25C9@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.154.14]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [xrblock] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdHTEMgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi14cmJsb2Nr?= =?gb2312?b?LXJ0Y3AteHItc3luY2hyb25pemF0aW9uLTAyLnR4dA==?=
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:32:13 -0000

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
发送时间: 2013年3月7日 7:09
收件人: Shida Schubert; xrblock
主题: Re: [xrblock] WGLC on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-02.txt

Hi,

Please find below my comments: 

1. Are the Initial Synchronization Delay and the Synchronization Offset new metrics introduced by this draft? So it seems, as in section 2.1 the mention to the Initial Synchronization Delay has a reference to RFC 6051, but there is no metric definition there, while the explanation about the Synchronization Offset seems to include a self-contained definition. In this case I believe that the guidelines of using the template in RFC 6390 applies, and section 2.1 must be re-written on these lines. 

[Qin]: Not sure we are dedicated to define new metrics in this draft, clarification is section 2.1 of RFC6051 gives a clear definition of initial synchronization delay and indicate how to calculate it. Table 7 of BBF TR-126 gives a good example of synchronization offset, but TR126 uses a different term.