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

Qin Wu <> Mon, 08 October 2012 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB4321F863F; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.812
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wa27jkSQ4ouS; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEDF21F8650; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALK27870; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:49:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:49:32 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:49:53 +0100
Received: from w53375 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:49:44 +0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Qin Wu <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>,,
References: <>
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: []
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [xrblock] SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:49:59 -0000

Thank for your valuable review. please see my reply inline below.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christer Holmberg 
  Cc: ; 
  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
  Cc: ''
  Subject: SDP comments draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-09




  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.