Re: [xrblock] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Rachel,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:59 PM Huangyihong (Rachel) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.
>
> BR,
> Rachel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:19 AM
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Shida Schubert;
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on
> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for producing this document.
> >
> > I did have one comment (and I apologize in advance that this is a
> particular
> > hot button for me).
> >
> > I understand that you can do things with these metrics that you can't do
> with
> > previous metrics, but I wish there was a clearer description of "if you
> want to
> > understand X, you should implement this metric" earlier in the document.
> The
> > impression the reader is left with, is "if you're doing RTCWeb, you
> should
> > implement this metric", but I'm guessing that at least some of these
> metrics
> > would be useful for people who weren't doing RTCWeb, but need to measure
> > something that people who are doing RTCWeb also need to measure, and if
> > that's
> > true, a short section that helped them figure that out would be helpful.
> >
>
> [Rachel]: Would it be helpful if we add a new short paragraph in the
> section 1, after the 3rd para and before the last one, as following
>
> "
> Standards such as "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)"
> [RFC3611] as well as other extensions standardized in the XRBLOCK working
> group have been produced for the purpose of collecting and reporting
> performance metrics from RTP endpoint devices that can be used to have a
> end-to-end service visibility and measure the delivering quality in various
> RTP services. These metrics are able to complement those in [RFC3550].
>

This is exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping for.

If you can provide more specifics, that would probably be more helpful for
people who are doing RTP but not as part of RTCWeb, but the text you
suggested is already an improvement.

(I've spent a lot of time since 1996 in conversations about "it's this way
because it's wireless". Actually, "it's this way because of a high error
rate, or highly variable RTTs, or about a million other side effects of
being wireless, that can also happen when you're not using a wireless
connection but still encounter those characteristics". That's why just
pointing to a use case drives me nuts! Thanks for working through that with
me)

Spencer


> "
>
>