Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 16 January 2013 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 1BD4B21F85D6 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:36:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.924
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.326, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 DmKSsRp04gLF for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13E221F85D7 for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:36:46 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8FAAEvoFDGmAcF/2dsb2JhbAA6BwOBf0ojgy20UId5c4EIgh4BAQEBAwEBAQ8RChwfBgsMBAIBCAcGBAQBAQsdAwICAiULFAkIAgQBDQUIGodoAQqeJoonkVqMJYMOghkyYQOXGIRxijaCb4FkFx4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,759,1344225600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="44562813"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2013 05:25:18 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2013 05:32:00 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:36:56 -0500
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHN82SQF54sYu9KG0KVJ9tnhPnwhJhLw4gQ
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:36:56 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA061BBB@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <FAB2D6A6BD794F67B5EF665FB7966291@china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA021171@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <-5577438416726931362@unknownmsgid> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA02129A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <56FF1AB29F4046F0BDCDF6F7B21FC0EC@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1UfwNR+7jNx=r+P3rMR35NRdby_S+Xh1GADivvx3_r6w@mail.gmail.com> <686F7A581585402D82BDCA8F213EB5E7@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1FqHh0SVBKudc-cJoJxw9hPUeBUwdgrf54xLwSFDfO6g@mail.gmail.com> <6C47A394F32143709E3B1E7CB411A08E@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q0E867g+Rae84dwisaPWQh=vQ-cN5iMPexqSW6n+Gn+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <0326892069B04DA88E01A3365C022667@china.huawei.com> <34B82B74BBCB422FA3685F9D224A10B2@china.huawei.com> <CALw1_Q1oxFZyYwJQY-Tq-1sD+Bg+22xh-QW9ZRaTB7iSLw4L_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALw1_Q1oxFZyYwJQY-Tq-1sD+Bg+22xh-QW9ZRaTB7iSLw4L_A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA061BBBAZFFEXMB04globala_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: xrblock <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.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: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:36:48 -0000

Kevin, Qin,

Do you want to discuss this one2one, or should we organize a short conference call? Do other think that they can contribute to clarify the issues, or want to participate?

Dan



From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Gross
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:08 PM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: xrblock
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

I think we need to have a phone call to discuss this whole thing.

Kevin Gross
+1-303-447-0517
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com<http://www.avanw.com/>m/>, www.X192.org<http://www.X192.org>

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi,Kevin:
I like to make some additioal clarification to your question.
I think the packet arrives exactly on time, is also referred to the packet that has nominal delay.
So we have two ways to address this.
a. It is more like implementation specific issue,e.g., rely on timing information in the headers of previous
packet and current packet or rely on time window to determine this. So we can leave this to the specific
 implemenations.

b. we can explain the packet that arrives exactly on time as the packet that has nominal delay.
The nominal delay can either be choosen as the jitter buffer delay for the packet with minimal delay(i.e.,
the reference packet is choosen as the packet with minmal delay) or average delay for all the packets that arrives
within the implementation specific time window during the measurement interval.
I am not sure we should details to talk about this, but If we take (b), we prefer to add the following sentence in the draft to say:
"Note that the reference packet is generally selected as the packet
 with minimum delay based on the most common criterion (see Sections 1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6798#section-1> and 5.1 of [RFC5481<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481>])>]).
"
Let me know what you think about this.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message -----
From: Qin Wu<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Kevin Gross<mailto:kevin.gross@avanw.com>
Cc: xrblock<mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Kevin:
As I clarified to you in the previous email, "implemention specific time window" described in Burst Gap drafts will be used to identify a "packet that arrives exactly on time".
That is to say, if the receiving packet falls within  implemention specific time window and can be sucessfully playout, such packet will be regarded as packet that arrives exactly on time.
Hope this clarifies.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Gross<mailto:kevin.gross@avanw.com>
To: Qin Wu<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: xrblock<mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: offlist//Re: [xrblock] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt

Qin,

Of the jitter buffer delay metric, the draft currently says "It is calculated based on the difference between the receipt time and the playout time for the packet that arrives exactly on time."

My issue is that I don't know how to identify a "packet that arrives exactly on time".

Kevin Gross
+1-303-447-0517<tel:%2B1-303-447-0517>
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com<http://www.AVAnw.com>om>, www.X192.org<http://www.X192.org>

________________________________
_______________________________________________
xrblock mailing list
xrblock@ietf.org<mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock