IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xrblock] SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 01:49 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 CCB4321F863F; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wa27jkSQ4ouS; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEDF21F8650; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALK27870; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:49:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:49:32 +0100
Received: from SZXEML415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:49:53 +0100
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml415-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:49:44 +0800
Message-ID: <D3E4CF5C42E64D10BAA6BB4DDDE77460@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, mmusic@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A75E666@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:49:43 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_027D_01CDA53A.3E65FD50"
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
Subject: Re: [xrblock] SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09
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, 08 Oct 2012 01:49:59 -0000

Hi,Christer:
Thank for your valuable review. please see my reply inline below.

Regards!
-Qin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christer Holmberg 
  To: mmusic@ietf.org 
  Cc: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com ; sunseawq@huawei.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 6:30 PM
  Subject: RE: SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09


  Draft authors included.

   

  From: Christer Holmberg 
  Sent: 2. lokakuuta 2012 13:29
  To: mmusic@ietf.org
  Cc: 'draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-all@tools.ietf.org'
  Subject: SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09

   

  Hi,

   

  I have been asked to provide comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09, from an "SDP perspective".

   

  From a technical perspective the text looks ok. As the draft extends an existing attribute, I don't think that much text is needed.

   

  However, a couple of suggestions which I think would be useful to implement:

   

  Q1: I would suggest to add a subchapter (e.g. "4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension"), where the extended syntax is defined.

   

[Qin]: Good suggestion, thanks. I like to move the 2st paragraph to section 4.1. 

  Q2: I would suggest to add a subchapter ("4.2 Offer/Answer Usage"), and indicate that the SDP Offer/Answer usage defined in RFC 3611 apply. I know it's very little text for a new subchapter, but it makes it easier to find the information.



[Qin]: Okay, you have a good suggested text, so how about adding a sentence in this new section 4.2 to say "

When SDP is used in offer-answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage defined in [RFC3611] applies.

"

   

  Thanks!

   

  Regards,

   

  Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email