Re: [xrblock] (2nd) WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb

Qin Wu <> Mon, 22 April 2013 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A832A21F884F for <>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.824
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.774, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2oQK36GSa-Vu for <>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F2821F881F for <>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AQR18059; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:13:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:13:08 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:13:31 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:13:24 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>, xrblock <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] (2nd) WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb
Thread-Index: AQHOPwUG5HLDHyZYA02yYDr1vSYueJjhjj2A
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:13:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43A4D6B5nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [xrblock] (2nd) WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb
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: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:13:45 -0000

Thanks Claire for your comment, the similar issue was discussed when burst gap loss was reviewed by IESG, to get
In line with the change to burst gap loss draft, I propose to add a similar sentence to say:
In this document, Jitter Buffer Metrics can only be measured over
definite intervals, and cannot be sampled.  Also, the value I=00
is reserved for future use.  Senders MUST NOT use the values I=00
  or I=01.  If a block is received with I=00 or I=01, the receiver
      MUST discard the block.
I believe this change addresses your comment.

From: [] On Behalf Of Claire Bi(jiayu)
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:57 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock
Subject: Re: [xrblock] (2nd) WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb

Hi Dan,

Sorry for the late reply. I've reviewed this draft and think it is ready for submission to the IESG.

Just one small question.

Section 4.2 Interval Metric flag
It has defined the meaning of I=01,10 and 11. What would the receiver do if I=00?
I suggest to add following text:

The value I=00 is reserved, and MUST NOT be used.  If the
value I=00 is received, the XR block MUST be ignored by the

Thanks and Regards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Date:  2013-04-08  22:06:27
> To:  xrblock
> Cc:
> Subject:  [xrblock] (2nd) WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb

This is the second WGLC for the Internet-Draft 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting'. Please send your comments, questions, and concerns to the WG list before Monday 4/22 COB. If you have no comments or questions and you believe that this document is ready for submission to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard, please send a message stating this.
The latest version of the document can be retrieved from
Thanks and Regards,
xrblock mailing list
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8207 (20130408) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.