Re: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-10.txt

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 18 December 2012 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 872C321F8AA4 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sq+IGWkXa5qa for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.130.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E100321F8AC4 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1Tkz6f-0008LV-0l; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:29:21 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <EBC08DA3437C4CD9A6D1CE3A0F5B2D8F@china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:29:20 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F0E94B1-8415-4C32-8636-3C0FB9163ADF@csperkins.org>
References: <EBC08DA3437C4CD9A6D1CE3A0F5B2D8F@china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -13
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-10.txt
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:29:26 -0000

On 14 Dec 2012, at 10:14, Qin Wu wrote:
> On 14 December , 2012 6:04 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>> Title           : RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count metric Reporting
>> Author(s)       : Alan Clark
>>                         Glen Zorn
>>                         Qin Wu
>> Filename        : draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-10.txt
>> Pages           : 16
>> Date            : 2012-12-14
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>  This document defines an RTP Control Protocol(RTCP) Extended Report
>>  (XR) Block that allows the reporting of a simple discard count metric
>>  for use in a range of RTP applications.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard
> 
> [Qin]: Here is one more update to Discard draft. The main change is to
> remove DT=3 to address the issue raised to Summary Statistics draft by Colin.

Thanks.

> The others are just editorial changes which are used to get in line with the one we made for burst Gap related drafts.

Two other minor comments on this draft:

- In Section 3.2, the text: “An endpoint MAY report only one of the above three discard types blocks in an compound RTCP report in a reporting interval.  It MAY also report a combination of any two discard types in a compound RTCP report.  The endpoint MAY report duplicate packet discard (DT=0) block with the other two discard (DT=1, 2) blocks.” is confusing. Would it not be clearer to say “An endpoint MAY report any combination of discard types in each reporting interval by including several Discard Count Metric Report Blocks in a single RTCP XR packet”. 	

- In Section 3.2, the text “The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one and MUST be set to 2,, in accordance with the definition of this field in [RFC3611]” should probably read “The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one, in accordance with the definition in [RFC3611]. This field MUST be set to 2 to match the fixed length of the report block.”


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