IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xrblock] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07

Varun Singh <varun@comnet.tkk.fi> Thu, 25 December 2014 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <varun@comnet.tkk.fi>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109C81A8844; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:32:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K_2QwjinNpj7; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (smtp-out-01.aalto.fi [130.233.228.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6487E1A8842; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Email Security Appliance) with SMTP id 57B3F115305_49C4A3CB; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:32:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by smtp-out-01.aalto.fi (Sophos Email Appliance) with ESMTP id 223211152AC_49C4A3CF; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:32:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FFC1E0F7; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:32:44 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 08dBGZE-2EdF; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:32:38 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (82-181-253-247.bb.dnainternet.fi [82.181.253.247]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D6401E02A; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:32:38 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AE9D61F5-6A3C-4AC3-B810-2678315DEB60"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Varun Singh <varun@comnet.tkk.fi>
In-Reply-To: <549C1531.2070602@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:32:34 +0200
Message-Id: <08593D52-D833-4326-A5B5-76EBEB18BF32@comnet.tkk.fi>
References: <549B796F.30802@gmail.com> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB862A1ADE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <549C1531.2070602@gmail.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xrblock/zeo0vNZZN76sU2iVkCzWfc_Li2U
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 03:31:58 -0800
Cc: Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>, "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 25 Dec 2014 17:32:49 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reading the draft and the feedback.

> On 25 Dec 2014, at 15:46, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Replies with [PTT] below.
> 
> On 25/12/2014 3:21 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> Thank you for the nice Gen-ART review. Please see my replies inline starting with "[Rachel]".
>> 
>> BR,
>> Rachel
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:
>>> 
>>> 1) Second paragraph of Introduction: last sentence introduces the "repaired
>>> loss count". I found this confusing. Figure 1 shows you really meant "unrepaired
>>> loss count".
>> 
>> [Rachel]: This report block introduces two metrics : "unrepaired loss count" which is specified as the total number of packets finally lost after applying loss-repair methods. And "repaired loss count" is specified as the total number of packets which are fully repaired after applying loss-repair methods. And in this sentence, I meant "repaired loss count" because this metric is used to help calculating pre-repair loss count (pre-repair loss count = unrepaired loss count + repaired loss count). Maybe the name of "unrepaired loss count" is confusing. Would it better changing to "post-repair loss count"?
> 
> [PTT] Yes, "post-repair loss count" sounds good.

This is a very good recommendation, we should replace other instances of unrepaired loss with post-repaired, as well. Including in the block format. 

 
---
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email