Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discardandxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics

"Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn> Fri, 15 June 2012 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
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 D5B1811E80BC for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.459
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 4TTAcmWPERYd for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from corp.21cn.com (corp.forptr.21cn.com [121.14.129.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A126511E8089 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip?10.26.0.4? (entas8.inner-hermes.com [10.27.101.8]) by corp.21cn.com (HERMES) with ESMTP id 83CA81A4856 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:12:55 +0800 (CST)
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_IP: wmail.10.27.101.8.972793193
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: WEBMAIL
Received: from ip<10.26.0.4> ([10.26.0.4]) by 21CN-ent8(Yuwen filter gate 10.27.101.8) with ESMTP id 1339729975.30411 for xrblock@ietf.org ; Fri Jun 15 11:12:59 2012
0/X-Total-Score: 3:
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<9993838d90848c618a8695874f909388>, score=<1339729979KivvAvvsvvHvvxvNyAsHxw399O99H99g99c9DLOHgcsW>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:12:55 +0800
From: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
To: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <27597251.1131339729976158.JavaMail.root@ent10>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_118_9243453.1339729975369"
HMM_WEBCLN_IP: 10.26.0.4
X-HERMES-SENDMODE: normal
X-HERMES-SET: KoH0oguRsun5ALVzckz3EqaqqOumqw==
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discardandxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:13:03 -0000

I have three minor comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard:
a. Section 1.1, last paragraph:
Remove "(work in progress)"
b Section 3.2, Definitionof "Discard Type".
Change the order of four Discard type allocated as follows:
NEW TEXT:
"       
         00: packets are discarded due to too early arrival.
         01: packets are discarded due to too late arrival.
         10: packets are discarded due to both early arrival and late
         arrival.
          11: packets are discarded due to other reasons than late
         arrival, early arrival, or both (e.g., duplicate, redundant
         packets).
"
c. Section 3.2, Definition of "number of packets discarded", last paragraph:
Change "Measurement Identity block" into "Measurement Information block"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have three comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics
a. Section 1, Paragraph 2:
It is better to have a short name for extension Report.
b.Section 1, Paragraph 4:
This draft is referencing non-publication document (i.e.,[I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard]) as a normative reference.
It seems such referencing is only possible when referenced document has already passed through LC and reach approval stage.
c.Section 4:
It looks that Bytes Discarded Report Block is more related
to Discard Report Block defined [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard].
Currently Discard draft support four use case. So the question is
should any use case applied to Discard Report block be also applied
to Bytes Discard report block?
 
 
Many Thanks & Regards
 
Claire Bi