Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE

Dear all,

in my opinion one should start with the draft as it is.
The different report types fit into the monitoring architecture
and it makes sense to have them within one year.
I think the other two media types are complementary to the first one.
Since one do not want to combine them it makes sense to have them in
one standard making this standard more complete.

A split into different drafts is in the end more effort.

Best Regards

Roland Schott

Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH
Fixed Mobile Engineering Germany
Roland Schott
Heinrich-Hertz-Straße 3-7, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
+49 6151 581 2823 (Tel.)
+49 6151 581 3393 (Fax)
+49 170   586 7840 (Mobil)
http://www.telekom.com<http://www.telekom.com/>

Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH
Supervisory Board: Timotheus Höttges (Chairman)
Managing Board: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Chairman), Albert Matheis, Klaus Peren
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190
Registered office: Bonn
VAT ident. no.: DE 814645262

Life is for sharing.

________________________________
Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von zhaojing@sttri.com.cn
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012 02:24
An: Shida Schubert; xrblock
Betreff: Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE

I have no strong opinion on which way to follow.
But I can see the 1st segment type can be widely supported
by various applications and used. The other two are complementary
to the first one. Especially the multi-channel audio segment type,
wouldn't VOIP implementer like to see this be standardized as being
measurement tool for stereo audio application?
Cheers!
JingZhao
------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shida Schubert" <shida@ntt-at.com>
To: "xrblock" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Poll for progressing the QoE
>
> All;
>
> I need to see what WG thinks on the matter below for
> us to progress the QoE milestone.
>
> If you have no opinions on the matter, please indicate
> it as well.
>
> Many Thanks
>  Shida
>
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Shida Schubert wrote:
>
>>
>> All;
>>
>> Although a poll for draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring ended in
>> favor of adopting the draft, the comments provided by Colin are worth
>> noting as we move forward.
>>
>> I do have some questions which I think will help us clarify
>> the way forward.
>>
>> A. There are three segment types defined (1. each media
>>   sent in separate RTP stream, 2. Layered video session,
>>   3. Multi-channel audio) in the draft,  do we see a need for
>>   all three right now or in near  future (say next 12 months) ?
>>
>> B. OR are we happy with only covering one for now (Likely
>>   the 1. as I understand people are most interested in the 1.)
>>   and create a draft when there is a real need for 2. and 3.?
>>
>> C. If answer is yes to question A., do we want to see the
>>   draft split into three as Colin proposed or have them all
>>   defined in single draft as it currently is.
>>
>> I asked the AD if we can split the drafts into 3 drafts under
>> single milestone but I want to make sure we do that after
>> we agree as a WG that we need all three segment types
>> RIGHT NOW before we do so.
>>
>> We have a lot of new items that people are interested in
>> working on that are not covered in our milestones, so I
>> want to make sure we focus on items that are "MUST
>> have" rather than "MAY need it in future" or "NICE to have".
>>
>> Regards
>> Shida
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock