IETF Logo Mail Archive

[xrblock] review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@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 10B981A07E9 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 2f2n7FG4EiDn for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x22c.google.com (mail-ee0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187CC1A07F1 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c13so2842026eek.17 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :thread-index:content-language; bh=ifOli5lpJXBPJadqEq9W7jtAkg4+SOou92e9n3mtpfE=; b=Sby8Q+sjhHYqDmaBFec3E7Hr972wjtsyH4wNfUZa252ALj2SdO0vwjxrPnygUsMJsr w9kMkoqaRdRdlQipSLFlIXKXXGYUJTgPG9aL5vpxMpkL5J5xBA7X514sM/HSBkl/yhWD tO8bbrAuV6mezCOf6hCsfoZMZ8i9smP67drWGvOl74Yzeh5D98duNnhHZVUtp6FjPp/B 78HiFi0zSaLLwU42yeXhdsZKq9/PJv+2qG9KZK9BkOsz491S+7SWyTHkOvx0l29qkQqQ O9kFsFLjtoIDDBad4mvZDlgaDl+3M5zmbKaT+/fUfM+c+p6grY5/Ox4YtP5rkQXVQPPT Zfag==
X-Received: by 10.14.173.200 with SMTP id v48mr83323eel.111.1392029094277; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-177-0-245.red.bezeqint.net. [79.177.0.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm53076831eep.17.2014.02.10.02.44.52 for <xrblock@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:44:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'xrblock' <xrblock@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:44:43 +0200
Message-ID: <07c901cf264d$1e805d60$5b811820$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_07CA_01CF265D.E209A290"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac8mTF5h5WrKU6iPTX602kQgjBUH9w==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [xrblock] review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count
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: <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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:44:57 -0000

Hi,

I reviewed the draft and it looks OK some small comments

 

1.       Section 1 discuss the delay of the reporting to allow for the
repair to take place. There may be a difference in the delay between
conversional services and streaming application. Is the delay related to the
jitter buffer size?

2.       In section 3 "begin_seq", I am not sure why you have two options
and why not use the RFC3611 definition

 

Roni Even

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email