Re: [xrblock] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On May 18, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For the AD: Please note that the intended status in the datatracker is
> "Proposed Standard" while the doc itself says "Informational". After reading
> the doc, I would find informational correct. However, please clarify what the
> intended status is supposed to be!
> 

It is supposed to be informational. That is an oversight on my part. I’m fixing it now.

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the well-written document. A few comments mostly on references:
> 
> - Maybe also provide an (informative) reference to
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-19 on the first occurrence of WebRTC...?
> 
> - Is ReportGroup defined in another RFC? If so, please provide reference in
> ther terminology section.
> 
> - Maybe provide (informative) references for Mean Opinion Score (MoS) and Media
> Delivery Index (MDI), as well as "Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI" maybe.
> 
> - It seems to me that at least [W3C.WD-webrtc-stats-20161214] should be a
> normative reference.
> 
> - I wonder if it would make sense to refer to some of the IPPM RFCs that define
> these or similar metrics?
> 
>