Re: [xrblock] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6958 (4424)

Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE361A874F for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szVHb5m4_p7t for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7295A1A874E for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lafd3 with SMTP id d3so50482298laf.1 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o7U2yF4mLzDk47LVmOKQLIqmVurys8R+g241W1evOg4=; b=PMf/pcpt963U0xjKVf2+0QMKblKUo2bHYE23tBfdnY2ob1aXXLvflM5JJ6IDWJCk6I M1pKnsLVoTCkDZ0akiU6utYuu2qCnEDuq/nLoE03wWPrSPPGwgh65StwTAVvFXpR113A qYzVQ+/1NzlqW2KUJtrbp5zhvnu0X1MJmmHb98mWdLHP+lkLLLU0xwRvshKADOnRJn85 5yB63Dz6J5hw7tgdDM/bJN+Dfb5wjZo6Znf/dNkuwLXkFHgDBMt7Quk5O/ZXGqPw3XNu B0Qa2lWx/M4jkXb2V18i0RXqLzAkFhqRIsz76QHS3Fjfoglccvb7u/tAEvDTuUD2qRLY cQ2w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.163.129 with SMTP id yi1mr30929087lbb.77.1438056136943; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.211.132 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.211.132 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA847D1F1B@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <20150721114549.E36FA180204@rfc-editor.org> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA847D1F1B@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:02:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEbPqrybR2OPVOQcN=GmXWGYKO4SUXJbNdojjb7O4K7qXpWKPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182dae35ad79051be789ac
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/VkRk5sMdHGKpUlCQLH30U8griKk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:07:32 -0700
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, zhangyx@sttri.com.cn, varun.singh@iki.fi, xrblock@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6958 (4424)
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 28 Jul 2015 04:02:22 -0000

Hi Qin,

Just to confirm: was the intention to use 12 bits and not 16 bits?
Additionally, are there any implementations of the block, if so what size
are they using?

Cheers,
Varun.
On Jul 28, 2015 5:33 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

> I confirm the following inconsistency issue pointed out by Varun,
> Instead of changing packet format "Number of bursts", I would suggest to
> Just change definition of "Number of bursts" and define it as 12 bits
> length field as follows:
> Original text:
> "
>   Number of Bursts: 16 bits
>
>     The number of bursts in the period of the report (Interval or
>     Cumulative).
>
>     The measured value is an unsigned value.  If the measured value
>     exceeds 0xFFFD, the value 0xFFFE MUST be reported to indicate
>     an over-range measurement.  If the measurement is unavailable,
>     the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported.
> "
> Corrected Text:
> "
>   Number of Bursts: 12 bits
>
>     The number of bursts in the period of the report (Interval or
>     Cumulative).
>
>     The measured value is an unsigned value.  If the measured value
>     exceeds 0xFFD, the value 0xFFE MUST be reported to indicate
>     an over-range measurement.  If the measurement is unavailable,
>     the value 0xFFF MUST be reported.
> "
> In this case, we don't need to add "Reserve" field at the end for any
> padding.
> Thanks.
>
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
> 发送时间: 2015年7月21日 19:46
> 收件人: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com; zhangyx@sttri.com.cn;
> zhaojing@sttri.com.cn; Qin Wu; ben@nostrum.com; alissa@cooperw.in;
> dromasca@avaya.com; shida@ntt-at.com
> 抄送: varun.singh@iki.fi; xrblock@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> 主题: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6958 (4424)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6958, "RTP Control
> Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Loss Metric
> Reporting".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6958&eid=4424
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Varun Singh <varun.singh@iki.fi>
>
> Section: 3.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |            Packets Lost in Bursts             |    Total...   |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       | ...Packets Expected in Bursts |    Number of Bursts   | Sum of|
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                ...Squares of Burst Durations (ms-squared)     |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |            Packets Lost in Bursts             |    Total...
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>            Packets Expected in Bursts |        Number of Bursts       |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                Sum of Squares of Burst Durations (ms-squared)
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        ...    |                    reserved                           |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Notes
> -----
> The packet format on Section 3.1 shows 12 bits,  however section 3.2
> defines the "Number of bursts" as a 16 bits length field.
>
> Relevant text from Section 3.2 pasted below:
>
>   Number of Bursts: 16 bits
>
>     The number of bursts in the period of the report (Interval or
>     Cumulative).
>
>     The measured value is an unsigned value.  If the measured value
>     exceeds 0xFFFD, the value 0xFFFE MUST be reported to indicate
>     an over-range measurement.  If the measurement is unavailable,
>     the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use
> "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a
> decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the
> status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6958 (draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
> Block for Burst/Gap Loss Metric Reporting
> Publication Date    : May 2013
> Author(s)           : A. Clark, S. Zhang, J. Zhao, Q. Wu, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Metric Blocks for use with RTCPs Extended Report
> Framework RAI
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>