Multicast Acquisition Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XRs)
draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-06
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
No Objection
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-25)
Unknown
It would have helped me as a reader to have had some idea of the range of potential sizes of the random acquisition delay. I suspect that it can be expressed in packets and extrapolated to a time interval based on line speeds, etc. Obviously (?) if the range is 0 to < 1ms we might conclude that this work is not very necessary. Can you add a short note to help scope the work? --- Section 3 says: This document uses the following acronyms and definitions from [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp]: But the definitions presented are somewhat different from those in the referenced document. Although the intent may be the same, I don't think it is helpful to have different definitions and I recommend that you remove all but a list of terms and a pointer to the other I-D. --- Nit Abstract s/ore/or/
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-25)
Unknown
1) in 4.1, "Rsvd. (16 bits): The RTP receiver MUST set this bit to zero. The recipient MUST ignore this bit when received." - MUST ignore these bits or MUST ignore this field. 2) in 7.1, do you want to replcae or supplement the existing RFC#? 3) in 7.4, should 0, 255, and 128-254 be included in the registry with approrpiate notations?
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-24)
Unknown
In 4:
It is better to send the MA report block after all the necessary
information is collected and computed. Partial reporting is
generally not useful as it cannot give the full picture of the
multicast acquisition, and causes additional complexity in terms of
report block matching and correlation. The MA report block is only
sent as a part of an RTCP compound packet, and it is sent in the
primary multicast session.
Is there a reason 2119 language was not used here? (i.e., SHOULD send
only after all information is collected, MUST send as part of an RTCP
compound packet in the primary multicast session)
In 4.2.1:
o SFGMP Join Time (32 bits): TLV element that denotes the greater
of zero or the time difference (in ms) between the instant SFGMP
Join message has been sent and the instant the first packet was
received in the multicast session. If the multicast join was
successful, this element MUST be included. If no multicast packet
has been received, this element MUST NOT exist in the report
block.
and
o Size of Burst-to-Multicast Gap (32 bits): Optional TLV element
that denotes the greater of zero or the difference between the
sequence number of the first multicast packet (received from the
primary multicast stream) and the sequence number of the last
burst packet minus 1 (considering the wrapping of the sequence
numbers). If no burst packet has been received in the unicast
session or no RTP packet has been received from the primary
multicast stream, this element MUST NOT exist in the report block.
When could the "greater of zero or" part kick in? That is, when can the
difference possibly be negative?
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-24)
Unknown
Additional text describing the assumptions around when you would use a status code of zero would help greatly. The expected use is that the sender of a report would only use that code when it knew from out-of-band methods that the receiver would understand the private TLVs in the report - one of those private TLVs, ostensibly, would replace semantics of the status code. Saying that explicitly would help avoid the situation where a client unintentionally throws away information like "multicast join was successful" by adding a private TLV that the server doesn't understand to a report that it would otherwise have used a status code of 1 on.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-23)
Unknown
Sec 4: r/The optional extensions that are/The OPTIONAL extensions that are Sec 4.2.1: r/Optional/OPTIONAL x 9. For Types 1 and 2 - are they optional too?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-05-25)
Unknown
(1) s/one ore more/one or more/
(C2 The constant 11 - I assume that's decimal - probably worth
saying just in case someone interprets it as '11'H or 3 or
whatever.
(C3 I think you want to to s/this bit/this field/g below.
o Rsvd. (16 bits): The RTP receiver MUST set this bit to zero. The
recipient MUST ignore this bit when received.
(4) Suggest rephrasing this in 4.2.1 (how can a time measured
locally be negative?)
OLD
o SFGMP Join Time (32 bits): TLV element that denotes the greater
of zero or the time difference (in ms) between the instant SFGMP
Join message has been sent and the instant the first packet was
received in the multicast session.
NEW
o SFGMP Join Time (32 bits): TLV element
with the time difference (in ms) between the instant the SFGMP
Join message was sent and the instant the first packet was
received in the multicast session.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown