Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <> Mon, 23 November 2015 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992B31A1B87 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:16:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.785
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jCkm7h6kImR for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C6661A1B85 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:16:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CAR41853; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:16:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:16:19 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:16:08 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05
Thread-Index: AQHRI8Cz2Rnxjq6HG069HZassjDldJ6pVzsw
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:16:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB8649ADD6nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.5652D965.0113, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b69bfce43c7d1c62d25e5494f491bde0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:16:27 -0000

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for the comments. Will fix them in the next version.


From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:24 AM
Subject: [xrblock] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC. I believe the document is in good shape and is ready for LC. I’ve noted below some nits that should be fixed together with any LC comments received.


== Sec 1.3 ==

"These metrics are applicable to video applications the video
   component of Audio/Video applications using RTP and applying packet
   loss concealment mechanisms which are incorporated into the receiving
   endpoint to mitigate the impact of network impairments on QoE."

There is a grammar problem with this sentence. Please fix.

s/Set Top Boxes/set top boxes/

== Sec 3 ==

s/as follow/as follows/

s/information.There/information. There/

s/methods slightly different/methods to be slightly different/

s/Thus, In this document/Thus, in this document/

== Sec 5.2 ==

s/unilateral parameter/unilateral parameters/

== Sec 6 ==

   SHOULD consider the guidance in [RFC7202] for using appropriate
   security mechanisms, i.e., where security is a concern, the
   implementation SHOULD apply encryption and authentication to the
   report block.

   should consider the guidance in [RFC7202] for using appropriate
   security mechanisms. Where security is a concern, the
   implementation SHOULD apply encryption and authentication to the
   report block.

(No need for normative directives about how to read other specs.)

== Sec 7.3 ==

RAI Area Directors<>

ART Area Directors<>