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

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Mon, 17 December 2012 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 45ECA21F89B6 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 tGMyiq-baxad for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CEA21F88C9 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so3466419pbc.31 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q6EImG5KLFBOv2S3SQPBCaA1CBh5XjqQvrAo7exDnTI=; b=TLnHYMc7JOBvTtTPxeW0BtxWYzriFpjaLvtWTzZEN2qesvNmQtW1t8BBnv7js0KtIu r39asqWuT816rDSjO4UmI8I3Zahi0EEEt4qaEa1oWMLm7dmAHFrtPio6TuCOCIjF+LjP VnOEoAfKTvUPAuMdwF2BczfUwrh1Md4v18CILLNi83Ej9d7TU7K+mZX8rFZ3w9nM+X3s fJHTyzlv0SWc+qMkPmMCnoBL1HO4qJhgFOsBSce7J5zhiwJtRasM/n6jNhPyXV3+5iQB CbCTg9GL40IN4k+BnLGjiaotZFUH4IlmHNQ4v+Of1hFEZzPu/Snkk3nTJsOl8MjeyQDd wqPA==
Received: by 10.66.77.39 with SMTP id p7mr40673501paw.8.1355733847466; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-110-169-202-60.revip5.asianet.co.th. [110.169.202.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o5sm8199824paz.32.2012.12.17.00.44.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50CEDB53.3080306@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:44:03 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Claire Bi(jiayu)" <bijy@sttri.com.cn>
References: <908227462.2121355732667678.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web1>
In-Reply-To: <908227462.2121355732667678.JavaMail.hermes@ent-web1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC - draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:44:08 -0000

On 12/17/2012 03:24 PM, Claire Bi(jiayu) wrote:

>> I have a different  suggestion, now that I understand what you're
 >> trying to say :-). How about this:
 >>
 >> Real-time applications employ a jitter buffer to smooth out jitter
 >> introduced on the path from source to destination. These metrics
 >> are used to report how the jitter buffer at the receiving end of
 >> RTP stream behaves as a result of jitter in the network and are
 >> applicable to a range of RTP applications.
 >>
 >> These metrics reflect how terminal-related factors effect
 >> real-time application quality and are useful to provide better
 >> end-user quality of experience (QoE).
 >>
 >
 > This suggestion looks okay to me. Now the section can be better
 > understood. I have just one minor comment:
 >
 > In the last sentence, would it be better to use *affect* instead of
 > *effect*?
 >

Yup, my bad.

> Regards,
 >
 > Claire
 >
 >
 >