Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03

> 
> I have a few comments, please see below: 
> 
> 1. I believe that [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard], [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss], [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard], and [RFC6776] must be Normative references. 
> 
> - Burst gap loss metrics defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard] are used in calculation of fields in Burst/Gap Discard Summary Statistics Block.
> - Burst/Gap Loss Block defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss] is used in the calculation of Burst Duration Mean and Burst Duration variance
> - Discard Count Block defined in [I-D.ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard] is used in the calculation of Gap Discard Rate
> - Also in the formula of Gap Discard Rate "extended last sequence number" and "extended first sequence number" provided in the Measurement Information block from [RFC6776] are used
> 
> In order to understand and the formulas and build the implementations for this I-D these references are mandatory reading, and for this document to be stable the references also need to be stable - so they must be Normative

[Qin]: Good point. we will take your point in the update.
> 
> 2. Sections 3.1.2 - the definition of Interval Metric Flag is 2 bits, three values codified to send. What happens at the receiver if the 4th (illegal) value I=00 is received? 

[Qin]: We may add a sentence to say, "In this document, the  value I=00 is the reserved value and MUST NOT be used."

> 3. Same question about the Interval Metric Type defined in 3.2.2. And if we are here, why is one named Interval Metric Flag (3.1.2) and the other Interval Metric Type (3.2.2)? they seem to be the same thing

[Qin]: Good catch, to be consistent between two places, we will use "Interval Metric Flag".
> 
> 4. The introduction section makes no reference to the definition of the associated SDP parameters (which is mentioned in the Abstract but not here)

[Qin]: To be consistent between abstract and Introduction, I like to remove SDP part from Abstract.

> 5. No need to mention the authors names in the Introduction when refering to [RFC3611] and [RFC 6792]

[Qin]: Okay.

> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:55 PM
>> To: xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03
>> 
>> 
>> This is a Working Group Last Call for http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
>> xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03.txt.
>> 
>> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions
>> and concerns to the WG list before December 13, 2012. If you have no
>> comments and you believe that the document is ready for submission to
>> the IESG as a Standards Track document please send a short message as
>> well to help us in determining the level of review and consensus.
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> xrblock@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock