Re: [xrblock] consistency of Introductions sections

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 17 December 2012 03:24 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 5870F21F854E for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 EeuslPCr41Uy for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B5F21F8541 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMO04266; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:24:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:23:57 +0000
Received: from SZXEML463-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.206) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:24:00 +0000
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml463-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:23:55 +0800
Message-ID: <1D7E79F6169446D3B670B7FC647F19A9@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <xrblock@ietf.org>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA03F7F0@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:23:55 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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
Subject: Re: [xrblock] consistency of Introductions sections
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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:24:06 -0000

Looks good to me. I have no problem with this.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: [xrblock] consistency of Introductions sections


>I am reviewing now the I-Ds in WGLC. There are three with the deadline of today. 
> 
> Each one has a different structure for the Introduction section. Personally I like the one in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt which I believe contains the necessary information structured as: 
> 
>   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>     1.1.  Jitter Buffer Metrics Block  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>     1.2.  RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>     1.3.  Performance Metrics Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>     1.4.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
> 
> 1.1 of course varies from memo to memo. 1.2 and 1.3 provides useful information that applies to all xrblock I-Ds. 1.4 is again specific information, very useful for the reader to understand why we decided to define the block(s) and what can be done with them. 
> 
> Should we adopt this for all documents? 
> 
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock