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

It's up to the editor actually, from my perspective the text was correct, maybe not very clear. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huangyihong (Rachel) [mailto:rachel.huang@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:37 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [xrblock]RE: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> The change clears my concern. Thanks.
> 
> Best regards,
> Rachel
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:23 PM
> To: Huangyihong (Rachel); xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [xrblock]RE: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> 
> I think that what is meant here is that until a future usage of this
> field is defined the transmitter and receiver must have the behavior
> indicated in section 4.2 of RFC 6709 for reserved fields.
> 
> Maybe it would be more clear:
> 
> OLD:
> 
> Reserved: 6 bits
> 
>       This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
>       such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
>       ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2).
> 
> NEW:
> 
> Reserved: 6 bits
> 
>       This field is reserved for future use.  Until future use is
>       defined, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero at
>       transmission and ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section
> 4.2).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Huangyihong (Rachel) [mailto:rachel.huang@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:07 AM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> > Subject: [xrblock]RE: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have read this draft and believe it's in good shape. I have only one
> > minor comment:
> >
> > In the section 3.2
> > "
> > Reserved: 6 bits
> >
> >       This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
> >       such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero
> and
> >       ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2).
> >
> > "
> >
> > In What kind of case such a definition will be absent?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rachel
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:36 PM
> > To: xrblock@ietf.org
> > Subject: [xrblock] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the second WGLC for the Internet-Draft 'RTP Control Protocol
> > (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MoS Metric Reporting'
> > previously known as 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
> > Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting'. Please send your comments,
> > questions, and concerns to the WG list before Wednesday 9/4. If you
> > have no comments or questions and you believe that this document is
> > ready for submission to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
> > Standard, please send a message stating this.
> >
> > The latest version of the document can be retrieved from
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10.txt.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xrblock mailing list
> > xrblock@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock