Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Varun Singh" <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>> Also, one question: there are many reserved values for the jb cfg. Do we need to define how new values are to be registered in an IANA Registry,
>>>> or is the assumption that this draft is revised if new values are needed?
>>
>>>> [Qin]:I am a little doubt about this. Do you have other values in mind besides the values for fixed jitter buffer method and adaptive jitter buffer method?
>>>> Also these values looks to me are just configuration parameters. They usually fixed upon they are set.
>>>
>>> If the meaning of values not defined in this draft is unknown what use
>>> are they?
>>
>> [Qin]: I think the problem is we don't know how many new values we need to add. The current two values we defined in the draft
>> are used to distinct measurement results that are using different jitter buffer method.
>> If we don't have any new value to be defined, we don't need to resort to IANA Registry,
>> if we do have many new values that need to be defined, I think IANA Registry is the right approach.
> 
> [Varun]: IMO the two values are sufficient. One possible solution is
> to reduce the "jb cfg" to 1-bit (0:fixed, 1:adaptive), because the
> value in "jb cfg" tells the receiving endpoint that the "jitter buffer
> maximum delay" is going to remain constant throughout the session or
> will vary.

[Qin]: Sound good to me, I think Colin also proposed this as the secondary.

> Regards,
> Varun
> 
> -- 
> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock