Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <> Wed, 19 December 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641E521F8609 for <>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.409
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-s5m-x50OEv for <>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D8921F85FC for <>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:25 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,186,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="381409779"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2012 13:30:24 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2012 13:14:56 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:39:25 -0500
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt
Thread-Index: Ac3TqzdUqpvLfNnHSzW0BwVjQKp6YgKa0Djg
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:39:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:39:26 -0000


The document is in good shape. I have however a number of comments and questions, please address them.

1. In Section 1.1, the second sentence in the second paragraph has a broken syntax. I suggest: 

s/ Burst/Gap metrics are typically used in Cumulative reports however MAY be used in Interval reports./ Burst/Gap metrics are typically used in Cumulative reports, however they also MAY be used in Interval reports./

2. It would be good to provide an example or a reference to the 'stream repair means' mentioned in section 1.4.

3. In Section 3.1 at the Interval Metric flag definition - I guess that the last phrase means 'Sampled Value (I=01) MUST not be used.' 

One more thing is missing here - what is the behavior of the receiver when receiving I=01 or I=00 which is undefined? I believe these need to be specified. 

4. In the definitions of Packets discarded in burst, and of Total Packets expected in bursts we have:

      If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFE SHOULD
      be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the
      measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFF SHOULD be reported.  

What is the reasons that these are SHOULD? If there are exceptions, please specify these, if not s/SHOULD/MUST/

5. In Section 4 please expand PCM in ' PCM Severely Errored Second'

Thanks and Regards,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:14 PM
> To:
> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-
> discard-08.txt
> This is a (second) Working Group Last Call for
> 08.txt.
> Please read and review this document, and send your comments, questions
> and concerns to the WG list before December 20, 2012. If you read the
> document, 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