Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 01:58 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 A3C0821F8464 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2013 18:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4nd41zrIL8p for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 May 2013 18:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E815921F8443 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2013 18:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARH78976; Mon, 13 May 2013 01:58:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:57:55 +0100
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:58:18 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.45]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:58:06 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "'Shida Schubert'" <shida@ntt-at.com>, "'xrblock'" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization
Thread-Index: AQHOT3lpzFKRk4DBe0iOKlnJPog1cpkCWpkA
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 01:58:06 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45802B6D@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <BA5D79A3-15E9-4038-851F-C4A37A638D25@ntt-at.com> <01cc01ce4cbf$8aa27450$9fe75cf0$@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43A5187C@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <001801ce4ed9$d6b37d00$841a7700$@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B18750@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B18750@nkgeml501-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: [10.138.41.104]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45802B6Dnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs' <xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 13 May 2013 01:58:28 -0000

Hi Qin and Roni,

I agree option 1 is more appropriate for this report block. And I'll revise  the "reserved"  field in section 3.2 to 8 bits.
Thanks.

Best Regards!
Rachel

From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 8:57 AM
To: Roni Even; 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

I understand your reason. However in other XRBLOCK drafts using I field, at least one type of Interval metric flag is used.
unlike other XRBLOCK drafts using I field, none of Interval metric flags (from I=00 to I=11) is used in this draft.
So I prefer to keep as it does.

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 2:28 PM
To: Qin Wu; 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: RE: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

Hi Qin,
My only reason for option 2 is to keep the header the same. There is no other reason
Roni

From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
Sent: 10 May, 2013 4:05 AM
To: Roni Even; 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: RE: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

Hi,Roni:
Thank for your comment, if I understand correctly, Initial Synchronization Delay metric
Only needs to be reported once, i.e., at the beginning of the session since
the value of Initial Synchronization Delay metric usually is fixed and will
Not change at each report interval.
So I think your 1st option is more straightforward.

Regards!
-Qin
From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:15 PM
To: 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

Hi,
I reviewed the latest version. It looks OK.
I have one comment
The "reserved" field in section 3.2 should be 8 bits since the "I" field was removed.
Another option is to keep the "I" field and say that it should be ignored
Roni Even

From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shida Schubert
Sent: 08 May, 2013 4:56 AM
To: xrblock
Cc: xrblock-chairs
Subject: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

 This is an announcement of a 2 weeks XRBLOCK WG last call on
"Report Block for Synchronization Delay and Offset Metrics Reporting"
priort o requesting publication of the document as a proposed standard.

 As per discussion at the last meeting, we are running a second
WGLC on this draft.

Please send your comments, including nits, to the list by the

22nd of May

If you read the draft and you see no issues, concerns, or nits, please
express the fact that you have no issue progressing the draft on the
list as well.

The latest version can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-04.txt

Regards

Shida as co-chair