Re: [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

Hi, Dan:
I am happy to see my comments being forwarded to rtcweb@ietf.org if they are interested
and want to more input from XRBLOCK WG. However I am not sure how much of their
work is related to XRBLOCK work? Do they only look for some basic metrics obtained
from SR/RR. But I agree with you consistency between the metrics used by RTCP XR and
RTCWEB is a good thing. 
It will be great to see metrics used by RTCP XR can be used in RTCWEB as well.

BTW: I have subscribed to rtcweb list and am interest to join the discussion as I said and
expected.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-DAction:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt

> Hi Qin,
> 
> Would you like me to forward your comments to rtcweb@ietf.org? You can
> also subscribe to the list to follow the responses and participate in
> the discussions, but I should warn you that performance statistics are a
> fraction of the many problems this very active WG have on their hands. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:17 AM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-
>> registry-00.txt
>> 
>> Interesting -00 draft.
>> Have a quick look at this draft, I have the folowing comments:
>> 1. Jitter should also refers to PDV draft since PDV draft provide
>> another two measurement methods with different measurement precision
>> which are different from "inter-arrival jitter" described in RFC3550.
>> In the early version of PDV draft, we also accomodate "inter-arrival
>> jitter" and support reporting inter-arrival jitter. However we remove
>> inter-arrival jitter from this draft based on WG review since inter-
>> arrival jitter use different measurement unit and has wider range.
>> 2.ReceivedPacketCount
>> Loss RLE report block can be used to report the packet received. It is
>> more staightfoward to calculate ReceivedPacket Count based on  Loss
> RLE
>> report block defined in RFC3611 rather than based on MIB information
>> defined in RFC2959. Also in some case, WebClient may not support SNMP.
>> So I suggest to refer to section 4.1, RFC3611.
>> 3. RecevedOctetCount
>> Same as RecevedPacketCount. I think Loss RLE report block also can be
>> used to calculate RecevedOctetCount.
>> It is better to refer to section 4.1, RFC3611.
>> 4. Section 4.2 Transport variable
>> It is not clear how Transport variable is relate to Variables from
> basic
>> RTCP SR/RR defined in section 4.1, how transport vaiable is
> calculated,
>> e.g., what's the relationship between ReceivedPackets and
>> ReceivedPacketcount? Are they the same variable?
>> Is 4 transport variable defined in section 4.2 sufficient to measure
> the
>> performance of media stream? Why not refer to some variable defined in
>> XRBLOCK WG?
>> 
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
>> To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:48 PM
>> Subject: [xrblock] FW: I-D Action:draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-
>> registry-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> >I believe that this I-D (individual submission targeting the RTCWEB
> WG)
>> > is of interest for some of the folks who participate in XRBLOCK.
>> > Reaching consistency between the metrics used by RTCP XR and RTCWEB
>> > (when relevant) seems to be desirable.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org
>> > [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> > internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:17 PM
>> > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> > Subject: I-D Action: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
>> >
>> >
>> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> > directories.
>> >
>> >
>> > Title           : A Registry for WebRTC statistics identifiers
>> > Author(s)       : Harald T. Alvestrand
>> > Filename        : draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00.txt
>> > Pages           : 8
>> > Date            : 2012-09-24
>> >
>> > Abstract:
>> >   This memo describes a registration procedure for statistics
>> >   identifiers used in the WebRTC Javascript API to access
> statistical
>> >   information about a PeerConnection.
>> >
>> >   It also gives some identifiers that will, when approved, form the
>> >   initial content of this registry.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-
>> registry
>> >
>> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00
>> >
>> >
>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > I-D-Announce mailing list
>> > I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xrblock mailing list
>> > xrblock@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> xrblock@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock