IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 15 June 2012 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 2A6F811E80C4 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 kQf+RZv+-L+C for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E08711E80B6 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AHE76755; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:58:01 -0700
Received: from SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by dfweml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:57:59 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:57:51 +0800
Message-ID: <7B0D17C5F6BD4A4D8391ED5CD4B03BF3@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>, xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <27597251.1131339729976158.JavaMail.root@ent10>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:57:50 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0245_01CD4AEE.16A90560"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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 03:59:39 -0000

Hi,Claire:
Thank for your review and comments to Discard draft. 
please see my replies inline.

Regards!
-Qin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claire Bi(jiayu) 
  To: xrblock 
  Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discardandxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics


  I have three minor comments to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard: 
  a. Section 1.1, last paragraph: 
  Remove "(work in progress)" 

[Qin]: Okay.

  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). 
  " 
[Qin]: Looks good to me since the first 3 events can be detected by time window while the last one not.

  c. Section 3.2, Definition of "number of packets discarded", last paragraph: 
  Change "Measurement Identity block" into "Measurement Information block" 

[Qin]: Good catch, will fix this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status