Re: [xrblock] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Tue, 01 May 2018 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@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 20095120724; Tue, 1 May 2018 09:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 flLvL04pOJGE; Tue, 1 May 2018 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79ADA1200C1; Tue, 1 May 2018 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 67C959EA64DA3; Tue, 1 May 2018 17:15:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 1 May 2018 17:15:19 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.231]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 2 May 2018 00:15:09 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09
Thread-Index: AdPhZpfyfMOjDOpDSyaAn0Yl6P4mNQ==
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 16:15:08 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB9C6BB7C2@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.210.168.229]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/fdJcGebIV7ybEQAlWoCQAXzbTsk>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 May 2018 16:15:25 -0000

Hi Robert,

I believe I have responded you in February, if you check the mail archive of xrblock.

Follows was my response before. And I uploaded a new version to reflect that since I didn't get your further email. Sorry for assuming that you received my response.

"
    Hi Robert, 

    Thanks for the comment.

     I propose to change the last paragraph of 5.2.2 from

    "
   The following metrics can also be considered for WebRTC's Statistics
   API: number of discarded key frames, number of lost key frames,
   number of discarded derived frames, number of lost derived frames.
   These metrics can be used to calculate Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI.
   Details of the definition of these metrics are described in
   [RFC7003].  Additionally, the metric provides the rendered frame
   rate, an important parameter for quality estimation.
    "

    To

    "
     The metrics in this category includes
    : number of discarded key frames, number of lost key frames,
   number of discarded derived frames, number of lost derived frames.
   These metrics can be used to calculate Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI.
   Details of the definition of these metrics are described in
   [RFC7003].  Additionally, the metric provides the rendered frame
   rate, an important parameter for quality estimation.
    "

    This change is to just talk about the metrics itself, so as to avoid any confusion that readers may have. The fact is that the W3C has already included the metrics, and made an informational reference to this document.

    If the proposal looks good to you, we'll reflect it in the new version.

"

BR,
Rachel

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com] 
发送时间: 2018年5月2日 0:04
收件人: gen-art@ietf.org
抄送: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.org
主题: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-05-01
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-23
IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-24

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with nits to consider before publication

Note that this is identical to my last call review, which I don't think I've seen a response to.

The document argues to include things in the W3C statistics API in the last paragraph of 5.2.2. Section 7 seems to say those have been included already. It would be good to rework both of these mentions to reflect what's true at the time of the publication of the RFC, in a way that the text will make sense when read years from now.