Re: [xrblock] [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate Feedback fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 05 December 2012 03:29 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 DCC9721F8BE4; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:29:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqA8PqYmGMT9; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB0021F8BCD; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ANM50193; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:27:54 +0000
Received: from SZXEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.60) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:28:21 +0000
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:28:16 +0800
Message-ID: <8C652E86259649529BAA16CA8DAB3C9B@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, mmusic@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss@tools.ietf.org
References: <50BE1B22.90105@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:28:16 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01DD_01CDD2DB.9E785750"
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
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate Feedback fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss
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, 05 Dec 2012 03:29:04 -0000

Hi,Adam:
Thank for your careful review on behalf of SDP Directorate. We will fix these three nits you spot in the next version.
Thanks again.

Regards!
-Qin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Roach 
  To: mmusic@ietf.org ; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss@tools.ietf.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:47 PM
  Subject: [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate Feedback fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss


  I have been asked to perform the SDP Directorate review for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss. I reviewed the -05 version of the document.

  In general, the syntax looks fine -- this document makes use of a defined extension point in RFC 3611. I find no mismatch between the proposed semantics of this document and what appears to be intended by xrblock usage.

  I found a handful of tiny nits in the IANA section:


    1.. The first line of section 6.1 says "NDEL" where it means "NBGL." I would imagine this gets cleaned up during IANA review, but there's no point leaving it confusing.


[Qin]:Good catch, thanks.
    1.. Section 6.2 refers to the "RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry," whereas IANA has titled the registry "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry" (cf. http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters.xml).  It would help readers of this document who wish to locate the registry if the precise IANA name were used.

[Qin]: okay.

    1.. Section 6.1 has a similar mismatch, using "RTCP XR Block Type Registry" rather than "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" 

[Qin]: Okay.
Thanks.

/a



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  mmusic mailing list
  mmusic@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic