IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 19 December 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 641E521F8609 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.409
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-s5m-x50OEv for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D8921F85FC for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:39:25 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiILAIbQt1CHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEgmy9GRZsB4IeAQEBAQMBAQEPCx00FwQCAQgNBAQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAEBBBMIARmHbgELoXudDIxAg2BhA5wOijeCcoIh
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,186,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="381409779"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2012 13:30:24 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2012 13:14:56 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:39:25 -0500
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
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: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA044148@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0329F3@AZ-FFEXMB03.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0329F3@AZ-FFEXMB03.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
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-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: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:39:26 -0000

Hi,

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,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-
> discard-08.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a (second) Working Group Last Call for
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-
> 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
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email