Re: [xrblock] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for the comments. Please see inline.

BR,
Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:22 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; Shida Schubert;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: Discuss
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For the AD: Please note that the intended status in the datatracker is
> "Proposed Standard" while the doc itself says "Informational". After reading
> the doc, I would find informational correct. However, please clarify what the
> intended status is supposed to be!
> 

[Rachel]: It intends to be informational but I don't know what happened in the datatracker. I'll leave Ben or others to respond.

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the well-written document. A few comments mostly on references:
> 
> - Maybe also provide an (informative) reference to
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-19 on the first occurrence of WebRTC...?

[Rachel]: Make sense to me. Will do in the next version.

> 
> - Is ReportGroup defined in another RFC? If so, please provide reference in
> ther terminology section.
> 

[Rachel]: It's only defined here.

> - Maybe provide (informative) references for Mean Opinion Score (MoS) and
> Media
> Delivery Index (MDI), as well as "Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI" maybe.

[Rachel]: Will do in the next version.

> 
> - It seems to me that at least [W3C.WD-webrtc-stats-20161214] should be a
> normative reference.

[Rachel]: Can I know why? We put it in the informative reference was because this work only provides background of what happening in W3C, we didn't refer to the technologies in that work.

> 
> - I wonder if it would make sense to refer to some of the IPPM RFCs that define
> these or similar metrics?
> 

[Rachel]: I don't know. This document is only talking about the metrics in RTP layer. It didn't refer to any metrics in IPPM. So what kind of ippm metrics should be listed here in your mind?