Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06.txt

Hi Dan,

no, as far as I understand it, the current revision of the draft
addresses Benoit's discuss. I guess he will clear it as soon as he gets
around to reading the new revision.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 18/09/2012 6:54 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo and Benoit,
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that Benoit's
> DISCUSS is related to the process of defining the  metrics in the
> different places in the IETF in a consistent manner and keeping them in
> one repository with a clear owner. Are there any text changes required
> in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv? 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:45 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Cc: Qin Wu; Glen Zorn; xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-
>> 06.txt
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> yes, it is better to update the document. Just make sure you
> coordinate
>> the document update with the conversation with Benoit to clear his
>> discuss so that nobody gets confused when the new revision is posted.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 18/09/2012 11:02 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>> Gonzalo,
>>>
>>> We can do one more update before the document is approved, in order
> to
>>> incorporate these changes. This would spare a lengthy note to the
> RFC
>>> editor.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:10 AM
>>>> To: Glen Zorn; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>>>> Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:
>>>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv- 06.txt
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Glen:
>>>> Thank for your comments, please see my reply inline.
>>>>
>>>> Regards!
>>>> -Qin
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
>>>> Cc: <xrblock@ietf.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:
>>>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv- 06.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/16/2012 03:55 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>>>>> A revised version of raft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv was issued in
>>>> order
>>>>>> to address the problems raised in DISCUSSes and COMMENTs during
> the
>>>> IESG
>>>>>> review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We believe that the changes are editorial and clarification in
>>>> nature,
>>>>>> they do not affect bits on the wire and improve the quality of
> the
>>>>>> document. However, more scrutiny from the other WG participants
>>> never
>>>>>> harms. Please read the revised version and let us know before
> 9/21
>>> if
>>>>>> you see any problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> The change to Section i.1 introduced a punctuation error: s/,,/,/
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: Good catch and will fix this. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the change to Section 1.4 rather confusing:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Application designers can know the range of delay
>>>>> variation they must
>>>>>                 accommodate, whether they are designing fixed or
>>>>> adaptive buffer
>>>>>                 systems.
>>>>
>>>>> Are these app designers clairvoyant?  If not, how can they "know
> the
>>>>> range of delay variation they must accommodate, whether they are
>>>>> designing fixed or adaptive buffer systems" from measurements that
>>>> can't
>>>>> be made until the system is not only implemented but deployed (at
>>>> least
>>>>> in a test bed)?
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: Sorry to bring confusing here, what we want to convey is
> these
>>>> application designers need to know the range of delay variation
> they
>>>> must accomodate, and then based on the range of delay variation to
>>>> determine whether
>>> they
>>>> are designing
>>>> fixed or adaptive buffer systems.
>>>> You can get more details in the section 3.2 of RFC5481.
>>>> Do we really need to delete this first sentence you mentioned
> above?
>>>>
>>>>> The next sentence doesn't make much sense, either, as written.  I
>>>>> suggest deleting the first and rewriting the second to
>>>> make
>>>>> more sense; for example: "For example, network managers can use
> this
>>>>> metric to compare actual delay variation to targets (i.e., a
>>> numerical
>>>>> objective or Service Level Agreement) to help ensure the quality
> of
>>>>> real-time application performance." Or something like that.
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: Your proposed change to the second setence looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>>> What does Section 2 mean?  How can one use an entire RFC as a
>>>>> "terminology statement"?  Does it actually mean "This document
> uses
>>>> ABNF
>>>>> notation [RFC5234] in Section 4."?
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: Yes, this statement doesn't intend to apply to the whold
>>>> document.
>>>> Thank for your proposed change.
>>>>
>>>>> If so, just say that; OTOH, since
>>>>> the ABNF usage is in the context of SDP & RFC 3611 both references
>>> the
>>>>> ABNF spec and is listed as a normative reference in this draft,
> why
>>>>> bother?
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: The reason is ABNF spec referenced by SDP document (i.e.,
>>>> RFC4566) and RFC3611
>>>> is outdated or obsoleted RFC4234, this RFC should be replaced by
>>>> RFC5234.
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest just deleting Section 2.
>>>>
>>>> [Qin] How about move this statement to the first place in the
> section
>>> 4?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org  [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org]
> On
>>>>>> Behalf Ofinternet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:26 PM
> To:i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>>>> Cc:xrblock@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: [xrblock] I-D Action:
>>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts
>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>>   This draft is a work item of the Metric Blocks for use with
>>> RTCP's
>>>>>> Extended Report Framework Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Title           : RTCP XR Report Block for Packet Delay
>>>>>> Variation Metric Reporting
>>>>>> Author(s)       : Alan Clark
>>>>>>                            Qin Wu
>>>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06.txt
>>>>>> Pages           : 21
>>>>>> Date            : 2012-09-14
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>     This document defines a Real-Time Control Protocol (RTCP)
>>>> Extended
>>>>>>     Report (XR) block that allows the reporting of Packet Delay
>>>> Variation
>>>>>>     metrics for a range of Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
>>>>>>     applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xrblock mailing list
>>>>>> xrblock@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xrblock mailing list
>>>>>> xrblock@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xrblock mailing list
>>>>> xrblock@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 