Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Rachel,

On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:17, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
> Hi Colin,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Best Regards!
> Rachel
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:44 PM
>> To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [xrblock] Comments on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-00
>> 
>> On 18 Oct 2012, at 04:30, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> I have 2 comments for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization:
>>> 
>>> 1.       In RTP flows synchronization offset metric block, only one SSRC set to the SSRC of the reference RTP stream has been specified. IMO,  the SSRC of the reporting stream should be also required.
>>> 2.       Synchronization offset is a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point number. No indication shows which stream, the reporting stream or the reference stream,  is lag behind. So I propose to split one bit from "Reserved" field to indicate the offset direction.
>> 
>> It would probably be easier to implement if you made the Synchronisation Offset a signed 64 bit value, rather than an unsigned 64 bit value and a separate sign bit.
>> 
> [Rachel]: The reason I proposed that is because the synchronization offset is represented using the timestamp format of NTP (a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point number), which I think it's better to keep it unchanged.  Are you suggesting to use a nonstandard format instead of the standard NTP format? But you're right that it may be easier for implementations to use a signed value to tell fast or slow from 2 streams.


Thinking about this more, I'm confused why you need a 64 bit NTP format timestamp here. With the addition of a sign bit, this choice allows you to represent synchronisation offsets up to 136 years in either direction with picosecond accuracy. That range seems unnecessary. What is the actual requirement?

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