Re: [xrblock] WGLC fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Thu, 13 December 2012 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 2940E21F855D for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:17:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 58b6bzZ50Hz5 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.130.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5C621F8AA0 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [195.101.98.59] (helo=[192.168.0.158]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1Tj4v8-0005Z5-0y; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:35 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5A64CB4B-3418-43DB-B5DA-B5FF92BFBA0C"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <3C2D83D59AC34A99A9A97BF46F8507C2@china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:25 +0100
Message-Id: <FBD0E3D1-BCBF-4195-B176-E4A2C9DA4332@csperkins.org>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0329F3@AZ-FFEXMB03.global.avaya.com> <4509053F-861C-40C2-AE6E-A39071B018B5@csperkins.org> <8FBC337CBD27418CA6E08DE44368A42F@china.huawei.com> <AABB76E6-8ED0-432C-B57E-8C1CA1716AE2@csperkins.org> <3C2D83D59AC34A99A9A97BF46F8507C2@china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:48 -0000

On 13 Dec 2012, at 03:25, Qin Wu wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Perkins" <csp@csperkins.org>
> To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; <xrblock@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] WGLC fordraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-08.txt
...
>>>>  - Section 3.3 reads as-if some new metrics are going to be defined, but all it actually does is reference another draft. I wonder if those summary metrics shouldn’t be defined in this draft, and if the split of related metrics into a separate draft is worthwhile in this case?
>>>>  
>>> [Qin]: Okay, it looks no harm to remove section 3.3.
>>> 
>> 
>> My question was actually whether it would make sense to split the summary metrics draft, and move some of that content into Section 3.3 of this draft.
> 
>  
> [Qin]: I see your point, sorry for misunderstanding your intent.
> I propose the following changes to sectioin 3.3 by moving some text from summary metrics draft as follows:
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> 3.3.  Derived metrics based on reported metrics
> 
>    The metrics described here are intended to be used in conjunction
>    with information from the Measurement Information block [RFC6776],
>    discard block [DISCARD] (which MUST be present in the same RTCP
>    packet as the Burst/Gap Discard block).
> 
>    These metrics provides the following information relevant to
>    statistical parameters, including:
> 
>    o  The fraction of packets discarded during bursts (burst discard
>       rate in [SUMSTAT])
> 
>    o  The fraction of packets discarded during gaps (gap discard rate in
>       [SUMSTAT])
> 
>    The details on calculation these parameters in the metrics are
>    described in [SUMSTAT].
> "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
> 3.3.  Derived metrics based on reported metrics
>  
>    The metrics described here are intended to be used in conjunction
>    with information from the Measurement Information block [RFC6776]
>   (which MUST be present in the same RTCP packet as the Burst/Gap
>    Discard block) and also with the metric "number of packets discarded"
>    provided in the RTCP XR Discard Count Block [DISCARD]. The RTCP XR
>    Discard Count Block SHOULD be sent if the Burst/Gap Discard block is
>    sent, but the converse does not apply.
>  
>    These metrics provides the following information relevant to
>    statistical parameters, including:
>  
>    o  The fraction of packets discarded during bursts (burst discard
>       rate in [SUMSTAT]),which can be calculated using the metric  
>       " Packets Discarded in Bursts " and the metric " Total Packets expected in Bursts " provided in Burst/Gap Discard metrics block.
>  
>  
>    o  The fraction of packets discarded during gaps (gap discard rate in
>       [SUMSTAT]) ,which can be calculated using the metric  
>      " Packets Discarded in Bursts " and the metric " Total Packets expected in Bursts " provided in Burst/Gap Discard metrics block.
>  
>    The details on calculation these parameters in the metrics are
>    described in [SUMSTAT].
> "


This improves the text a little, thanks.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/