Re: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard andxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics

(as contributor)

I read the documents and they look almost ready for submission to the
IESG. 

Here are a few comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard:

1. It would be useful I think to say more about the relation between
this metric and the discard rate metric defined in section 4.7.1 of RFC
3611. Maybe calling the metric here Discarded Packets metric would help,
as both RFC 3611 and this document refer to 'discard metric' but the two
are different (one is rate, the other packets). 

2. In Section 3.1 diagram we use NBGD for Block Type, while the text in
Section 3.2 refers to the ND constant. We should get to a consistent
representation 

3. 

Section 2.1: 

      A packet that arrives within
      this time window but is too early or late to be played out shall
      be regarded as discarded.  A packet shall be classified as one of
      received (or OK), discarded or lost.  The Discard Metric counts
      only discarded packets.  

Section 3.1 however includes: 

         00: packets are discarded due to other reasons than late
         arrival, early arrival, or both (e.g., duplicate, redundant
         packets).

This seems inconsistent. 

4. Is there any reasons for the Interval Metric flag (I) to be 2 bits,
rather than one bit, with the other one reserved? 

5. number of packets discarded:

> If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFFFE
      SHOULD be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  

Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? Are there any exceptions? 

6. In the IANA Considerations section: 

s/ The contact information for the registrations is/ The following
contact information is provided for all registrations in this document/

Here are a few comments on
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics:

1. Runing idnits indicates that references to RFC 3551 and RFC 5760 are
unused. 

2. Section 3 - explain that the BT field MUST be assigned the DRLE value
assigned by IANA as per the assignment required in the IANA
Considerations section. Also there are three 'rsvd' bits in Figure 1,
while the text mentions only 2. 

3. Section 4 - explain that the BT field MUST be assigned the BDR value
assigned by IANA as per the assignment required in the IANA
Considerations section.

4. Is there any reasons for the Interval Metric flag (I) to be 2 bits,
rather than one bit, with the other one reserved?

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Shida Schubert
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:27 AM
> To: xrblock
> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-
> xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard@ietf.org
> Subject: [xrblock] WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard
> andxrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics
> 
> All;
> 
>  We have had very little feedback (actually none) on
> WGLC for xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics, which is
> ending on the 14th.
> 
>  As xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics references
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard, we will try to run WGLC
> for these two drafts in parallel to hope for more feedbacks.
> 
>  We will carry this WGLC until June 28th.
> 
>  If you are interested in one of the draft, please try to
> read through both drafts and provide some comments on
> the list. If there are no issues, please indicate that on the
> list as well to show that you have read and happy with the
> document(s).
> 
>  Many Thanks & Regards
>   Shida Schubert as co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock