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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 08:46 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 94A8421F9360 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 01:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 B42TJIKnEL9i for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 01:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 064A921F92F4 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 01:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAAH/ZlGHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABQgkIjITbBSIEHFnSCHwEBAQEDDAYbTBACAQgNBAQBAQsWBwchERQJCAIEAQ0FCAEZh2ADDwELoDyTOQ2JRheMQ4IiJgsGAYJgYQOVHgGICoVMhRyDC4Io
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,456,1363147200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="10893943"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 04:46:17 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 04:42:30 -0400
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 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 13 May 2013 04:46:15 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, 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: AQHOTRpxw6p5KZhl+0WbFHcj5xLk85kAk1cAgAG56ACAAFY4AIAALrfQ
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:46:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA16A98F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.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> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45802B6D@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45802B6D@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA16A98FAZFFEXMB04globala_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 08:46:27 -0000

Any other opinions on this issue?

Roni, I understand that your preference for option 2 is not blocking. Am I correct?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huangyihong (Rachel)
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:58 AM
To: Qin Wu; Roni Even; 'Shida Schubert'; 'xrblock'
Cc: 'xrblock-chairs'
Subject: Re: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization

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> [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