Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 28 August 2013 01:59 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 01C6421F9C52 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 MZSAvcenTjCa for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53C321F90CC for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AWQ65727; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 01:59:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:59:03 +0100
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 02:59:14 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.96]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:59:09 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
Thread-Index: Ac6ec09GHHfi6gZPQpu/64wywp7WoQD5VZYAABt6V/AAGjEhAAAYrcOg
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 01:59:09 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43BD9259@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B4B0F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <13143CA8-0B70-4F2E-86AD-FE29CDDBB2CB@csperkins.org> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43BD5D99@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <E282BCD2-3853-4FA3-B1DA-673F97EACF12@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <E282BCD2-3853-4FA3-B1DA-673F97EACF12@csperkins.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 01:59:25 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:12 AM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Qin,

Thank you, most of this looks good. I just one comment:

On 27 Aug 2013, at 02:51, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
...
> Section 3.2.1 says "For RTP sessions where multiple payload formats can be negotiated or the payload format changes during the mid-session), the value of this field will be used to indicate what payload format was in use for the reporting interval", but doesn't the payload type indicate this whether or not multiple payload formats are used in the session?
> 
> [Qin]:Yes it indicates multiple payload format can be used in one RTP session or in RTP sessions. 
> So I propose the following change:
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> MoS Metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use.  This
> field identifies the format of the RTP payload.  For RTP session
> where multiple payload formats can be negotiated or the payload
> format changes during the mid-session), the value of this field
> will be used to indicate what payload format was in use for the
> reporting interval.
> "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
> MoS Metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use.  This
> field identifies the format of the RTP payload.  For RTP session(s)
> where multiple payload formats can be negotiated or the payload
> format changes during the mid-session), the value of this field
> will be used to indicate what payload format was in use for the
> reporting interval.
> "
> Let me know if this addresses your comment.


I don't think this is correct. A better new text might be something like:

"MoS Metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use.  This
field identifies the RTP payload type in use during the reporting interval. The binding between RTP payload types and RTP payload formats is configured via a signalling protocol, for example an SDP offer/answer exchange. If the RTP payload type used is changed during an RTP session, separate reports SHOULD be sent for each RTP payload type, with corresponding measurement information blocks indicating the time period to which they relate"

[Qin]: okay, your proposed change looks good to me. Thanks.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/