[xrblock] FW: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-00.txt

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 12 January 2016 12:22 UTC

X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 12 Jan 2016 07:22:42 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:22:41 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRSehQVEUK2b48Mk21Yqw7tdhJSp7xUAeggAaCS2CAAAEGcA==
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:22:41 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE51E8@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC6605@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>, <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D1D9E9E3D02@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <DUB131-W548B04CA87368FA3367B84D8EE0@phx.gbl>, <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC7B4E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <DBXPR04MB0305363F994BA4600B7F476D8F60@DBXPR04MB030.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D1D9ED66241@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D1D9ED665AE@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D1D9ED665AE@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.48]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE51E8AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/mxRbVQY9MQGmZdNjlyOtxkxMMVg>
Cc: Jan Novak <jjjnovak@hotmail.com>
Subject: [xrblock] FW: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-00.txt
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:22:50 -0000

The PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-00.txt.

Thanks to Jan Novak for the good work.

Document authors - please address these comments together with all the other WGLC comments.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



From: Jan Novak [mailto:jjjnovak@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 2:44 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org<mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: shida@ntt-at.com<mailto:shida@ntt-at.com>; Benoit Claise bclaise@cisco.com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>; alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-00.txt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_id_draft-2Dietf-2Dxrblock-2Dindependent-2Dburst-2Dgap-2Ddiscard-2D00.txt&d=BQMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=qhCYwFipGNesUgcaDFOjSyJVXIQeymv5wa3UmrvouaY&s=TSsTOHeqY_hSVNjwny1nqsE_dyR5FiZ9reV7X5tA3U4&e=>


Hi,



I have read through this draft and browsed through the related RFC7002 and 7003 used as references

with the following conclusions/observations:



Conclusion:

This document emphasis (and also RFC7002/3) is on specifying the report packet format or simply reporting some values but

not really specifying what the exported values are. Two of the metrics/values seem to be just simple counters/numbers (e.g.

not really needing more definitions), the other two are referenced to be defined in RFC7002/7003 . RFC6390 does not really

feel applicable for any of these three documents - there ought to be another document describing what all the metrics are,

defining them in RFC6390 normative format and describing how and where they are measured unless there already is another

document defining them - if so, it should be referenced here instead of 7002/7003.



Observations:

1) The term "discard burst" seems to be crucial for all the metrics but none of the three documents contains any

     definition other than just the reader's intuitive notion of its meaning

2) The two metrics "Packets Discarded in Bursts" and "Discard Count" are referenced to the same section of

    RFC7002 which contains exactly same wording as this document for "Discard Count" with no further definition.

    I am not familiar with RTP quality metrics so just assume that there could be other packet losses/packet discards

    than during the discard bursts to make the two values different.

 3)  Similarly "Total Packets Expected in Bursts" is referenced to RFC7003 with exactly same wording as this

    document - assuming that the term "discarded bursts" is a typo for "discard burst"



Jan


The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ... and the strong envy them.

                                    Dr. Johnson

[xrblock] FW: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of https:/… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Re: [xrblock] FW: [pm-dir] RFC 6390 REVIEW of htt… Varun Singh