Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info repetitionindraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Perkins" <[e-mail]>
To: "Christian Groves" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info repetitionindraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch


> Christian,
> 
> The main issue is that I don't see much benefit from using short tags as an indirection to a more detailed identity information block. It would seem cleaner to use the SSRC for identity in XR blocks, as done in the other RTCP packet types. 
> 
> If there's interest in interval metrics calculated other durations other than the last RTCP reporting interval, then most of the other fields in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02 seem appropriate, but the block should be defined as an interval metrics duration block, and identified by SSRC, I think.

[Qin]: In some case, you can not monitor the whole session, instead, you only track one or several parts of the session, 
e.g., set one measurment interval, monitor RTP packets in one or several measurement Interval, in such case, I think Interval Metric is preferable.

> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> On 27 May 2011, at 02:46, Christian Groves wrote:
>> Hello Colin, all,
>> 
>> I've in inherited the editorship of ITU-T H.248.48 (http://wftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2009-2012/1103_Gen/H248_48.zip) which defines the use of the RTCP XR monitoring architecture with H.248. Currently the only normative reference made to any of the IETF drafts is to draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity. So I'm trying to get a handle on where this is going.
>> 
>> Could you clarify in more detail what in Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 you think needs to be changed/added?
>> 
>> It seems that part of your concern is that the measurement identity block has other information than purely just an "Identity". Do you have a problem with the other information in general or just that it is contained in a block with the word "identity" as part of the title?
>> 
>> Regards, Christian
>> 
>> On 23/05/2011 9:19 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> Qin,
>>> 
>>> [bcc to avt, so replies go to the xrblock list only]
>>> 
>>> The identity information in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02 is derived from that in draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02, true. Both blocks contain too much non-identity information for my taste, however. None of this negates my comment on Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01, which I think still focusses on the wrong things.
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to hear other opinions though.
>>> 
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 17 May 2011, at 05:00, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>> Hi, Colin:
>>>> It looks like to me we go back to the history and re-pickup the story of identity block again although I haven't gotten invloved into the historical discussion.
>>>> However I do check with section 4.3 of draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02 and compare it with measurement identity block specified in draft-ietf-avt-rtcp
>>>> -xr-meas-identity.
>>>> I think identity block has already considered the way on how to correlate RTP-layer identity information with other identity data. If you look at the format
>>>> of identity block, you will see identity block defines the sub-identifier field to carry an additional identifier which can be useful in the context of a specific application, e.g.,
>>>> IMS Charging Identity,SIP Call-ID, all these additional identity can be included in the identity block. Using this application specific identity information,
>>>> you can easily correlate RTP-layer identity information with other identity data.
>>>> I think the only problem with measurement identity block is which kind of information should be included, which kind of information should not be included.
>>>> Therefore it will be good to have a template for measurement identity block or any other new RTCP XR block.
>>>> Regards!
>>>> -Qin
>>>> 
>>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>>    *From:*Colin Perkins <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>    *To:*Qin Wu <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>    *Cc:*AVT WG <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>    *Sent:*Monday, May 16, 2011 6:37 PM
>>>>    *Subject:*Re: [xrblock] [AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info
>>>>    repetition indraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch
>>>> 
>>>>    Qin,
>>>> 
>>>>    To my mind, the most important part of the identity block was the
>>>>    correlation tag used to relate RTCP statistics to non-RTCP
>>>>    measurements (draft-clark-avt-rtcphr-02 had something along these
>>>>    lines, although more structured than needed). The tools to save
>>>>    space in RTCP XR packets by removing duplicate identity
>>>>    information when stacking reports are less compelling. Given
>>>>    this, I don't see much value in Section 5.2 of
>>>>    draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch as currently written, and would prefer
>>>>    to see the draft focus on ways to correlate RTP-layer identify
>>>>    information with other identify data.
>>>> 
>>>>    I'd be interested to hear other opinions though.
>>>> 
>>>>    Colin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On 10 May 2011, at 03:22, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>>>    Just make correction. My colleague reminds me that the example
>>>>>    figure 2  does not conflict with report block format defined in
>>>>>    draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02.
>>>>>    Since the detailed measurement identity information following
>>>>>    the field SSRC of stream source in the figure 2 is omitted.
>>>>>    However as I mentioned, it is not clear how much information is
>>>>>    included in identity block until identity block is clearly
>>>>>    defined in XRBlock WG.
>>>>>    That is why I propose to remove figure 2 and related text from
>>>>>    this document.
>>>>>    Regards!
>>>>>    -Qin
>>>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> 
>>>>>        *From:*Qin Wu <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>        *To:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>        *Cc:*[e-mail]
>>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>        *Sent:*Monday, May 09, 2011 4:08 PM
>>>>>        *Subject:*[AVTCORE] Open issue- identity info repetition
>>>>>        indraft-ietf-avtcore-monarch
>>>>> 
>>>>>        In the last IETF meeting, there was discussion on identity
>>>>>        info repetition or dupplication. However it
>>>>>         was not clear whether new packet type for identity block is
>>>>>        needed. Here is some clarification and
>>>>>        prososal from my point of view.
>>>>>        In the example figure 2 of section 5.2
>>>>>        in drat-ietf-avtcore-monarch, it is assumed there is an RTCP
>>>>>         XR packet containing four metrics blocks, reporting on
>>>>>        streams from two source.
>>>>>        each source is associated with two meric block.
>>>>>        In order to reduce overhead to carry duplicated data for all
>>>>>        the metric block contained in
>>>>>        the same RTCP XR packet, it was proposed by
>>>>>        draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch that measurement
>>>>>        identity information should be separated from metric block
>>>>>        and form independent block.
>>>>>        However this proposal save zero octets in figure 2. So the
>>>>>        question  is
>>>>>        whether an identity block is actually needed if identity
>>>>>        information
>>>>>        only contain SSRC of stream souce, or if just stacking
>>>>>        multiple XR Blocks is acceptable.
>>>>>        However I re-check with RTCP XR Report Block for Measurement
>>>>>        Identity defined in
>>>>>        draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02, identity
>>>>>        information included is more than
>>>>>        SSRC of stream source. So it should be useful to define new
>>>>>        packet type for identity block.
>>>>>        However the example figure 2(i.e., only contain SSRC of
>>>>>        stream souce) is actually not consistent with report block
>>>>>        format defined in
>>>>>        draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-02(i.e., contain more
>>>>>        than SSRC of stream source).
>>>>>        Also as we know, identity block work has just started from
>>>>>        XRBlock WG,
>>>>>        Therefore  I suggest that the example(Figure 2, and the
>>>>>        related discussion) is removed until the identity block is
>>>>>        clearly
>>>>>        defined in XRBLock.
>>>>>        Any Comments or suggestion?
>>>>>        Regards!
>>>>>        -Qin
>>>>> 
>>>>>        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>        Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>>>>        [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>>>> 
>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>    xrblock mailing list
>>>>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>>>> 
>>>>    --     Colin Perkins
>>>>    http://csperkins.org/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Colin Perkins
>>> http://csperkins.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> _______________________________________________
>> xrblock mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock