• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: xrblock

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

(System)

RFC published

(System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor

Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

(System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress

(System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors

(System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

(System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

Wenson Wu

New revision available

Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my comments, copied over here, for historical reasons:

In one of my previous DISCUSS-DISCUSS on xr-block, we settle on:

- RFC 6390 template is required for new perf metric definition

- RFC 6390 template is a nice-to-have when we refer to an existing
perf metric

Nice-to-have because the performance metric reference doesn't
always include all the required information about: measurement
points, measurement timing, use and applications, reporting model,
etc... but focus only on the "Method of Measurement or
Calculation"

It might not be fair to change the requirements on this document, while it left the WG some time ago. So I'm ready to let go without the RFC6390 template (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6390#section-5.4.4)
So I'm not opposed to the publication of this document for THAT reason. Note that I will be stricter with future documents.

However, back to this document. You should do a better job of documenting what is required, both from an implementer point of view, and the performance metrics semantic, for someone who might want to(re)- use the metric.
Feel free to discuss with me if I can be of any help

For example: the measurement period is mentioned multiple times in the metric definitions

Mean Network Round Trip Delay: 32 bits

The Mean Network Round Trip Delay is the mean value of the RTP-to-
RTP interface round trip delay over the measurement period,
expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds.

However, you don't mention where to find it.
I guess it relates to the measurement interval mentioned in

This metric block
relies on the measurement interval in the Measurement Information
block indicating the span of the report and SHOULD be sent in the
same compound RTCP packet as the measurement information block.

Assuming that the readers understand that the two different names are related, it doesn't tell where to find this information. Is this in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6776/ ?

For example,

Min Network Round Trip Delay: 32 bits

The Min Network Round Trip Delay is the minimum value of the RTP-
to-RTP interface round trip delay over the measurement period,
expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds. This value is typically
determined using RTCP SR/RR. It also can be determined using RTCP
Receiver Reference Time Report Block and DLRR Report Block.

The last two sentences. Why not be a little bit more explicit, telling exactly which fields need to be taken into consideration from RTCP SR/SR and from DLRR report block.

Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

(System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

Wenson Wu

New revision available

Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation

Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.