Re: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 26 July 2012 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 B307E21F8616 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.313
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 q5ofGTFXQTqX for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2570021F8607 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AII67189; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:04:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:02:25 -0700
Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:02:23 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:02:16 +0800
Message-ID: <3957D425E6DA4354A8512A91E1EBE282@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <D8C720B9E77243D0BE6C58CA45A2A735@china.huawei.com><88D9BF6DCE6840D3B896E0C0445265B9@china.huawei.com> <B0CC02A1-26A5-4089-A2C8-BDFEBAD941BE@csperkins.org> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407DBE958@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:02:15 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05.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: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:04:37 -0000

I tend to agree, and I prefer to put it as one informative reference.
Otherwise I am wondering why should this draft support duplication packet discard?

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>; "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05.txt


+1

... but (question to Colin) - do you believe that this reference needs
to be Normative? 

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Colin Perkins
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:59 AM
> To: Qin Wu
> Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-
> 05.txt
> 
> On 25 Jul 2012, at 07:49, Qin Wu wrote:
> > Based on Alan's proposal to the open issue mentioed below, we like
to
> add one new section after SDP signaling section as follows:
> > "
> > 6. Consideration for duplicate packets discards
> >
> > Early/ late discards are usually regarded as a symptom of PDV due to
> congestion (or route changes) however duplicate packets discards have
> quite different causes.
> >
> > (a) A few duplicate packets can indicate some form of Layer 1/2 LAN
> problem. This would not need to be an accurate measure - more of a
> general barometer.
> >
> > (b) If the number of duplicate packets is very high then this may be
> due to RTP replication - and if this is the case then you would want
to
> compare the number of duplicate packets to the number of received
> packets in the same time interval. If the duplicate packet count is X%
> of the received packet count, this indicates that a (100-X)% packet
loss
> rate is being "hidden" by the replicated packets, and  it is very
useful
> to know the actual loss rate(useful to indicate that replication
should
> be kept "on" and helpful to know that there are some network issues
that
> need to be investigated).
> > "
> 
> Duplicating RTP packets in this way for robustness is a very bad idea,
> since - as you note - it disrupts all the RTCP statistics. If you need
> to send duplicate streams, draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-00
> describes how to do it without breakage. If you are going to mention
> duplication, I'd recommend including a reference to the working group
> draft to show how to do it right.
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock