RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metrics
draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-03

[Ballot comment]
Sorry still not an RT(C)P expert, but one question out of curiosity:

Would it be a valid operation if I send one MIR Block per burst (by adapting the measurement duration dynamically), in case I really want to know the length of each burst separately?

If so (or also if not, I guess), would it make sense to give recommendations about how often one should send feedback, or is this generally covered elsewhere (provide pointer!) that applies for this case?

[Ballot comment]
I have a few minor comments:

-1.1, 3rd paragraph, first sentence:
Is the "MUST" a new normative requirement, or a statement of fact concerning 7003? If the later, please consider restating without the 2119 keyword.

- 2, last paragraph:
"RECOMMENDS" also seems like a statement of fact.
Please expand "GMin" on first use.

-3.2, definition of "I": Why define "I=01" then forbid it's use?

-5, last sentence: Is the "MAY" a statement of fact?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, IANA will complete two actions, provided that both have been approved by the IESG-designated registry expert.

First, IANA will register the following in the RTCP XR Block Type registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types:

TBD  Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block  [this document]

Second, IANA will register the following in the RTCP XR SDP Parameter registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters:

ind-burst-gap-discard  [this document]

We've asked the IESG-designated expert to review both actions and will change the document's IANA state to "IANA OK - Actions Needed" upon approval.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
IANA Lead Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard@ietf.org, xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, dromasca@avaya.com, "Dan Romascanu"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Extended Last Call:  (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with
RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following
document:
- 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent
  Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric'
  as Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
  (XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics
  independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of
  RTP applications.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard@ietf.org, xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, xrblock@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, dromasca@avaya.com, "Dan Romascanu"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with
RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following
document:
- 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent
  Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric'
  as Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-07-21. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
  (XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics
  independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of
  RTP applications.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
  (XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics
  independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of
  RTP applications.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process was quick and efficient.

Document Quality

  Similar metrics are already implemented and at least two participants mentioned that they plan to align the implementations with the metrics as defined in the i-D. The document was reviewed by the PM-DIR and SDP 
  directorates and the comments were considered in the updated version.

Personnel

  Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd.  Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area
  Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I performed reviews at adoption and during WGLC. I consider this document ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

N/A

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, all authors confirmed that they are not aware abour any related IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is a small core of contributors in the XRBLOCK WG, none of them expressed concerns.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There is one warning related to an outdated reference - it can be easily fixed by the RFC Editor.

== Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
    draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-01

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

SDP and PM-DIR reviews were performed, and the comments were considered for update.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA is required to assign a new RTCP XR Block Type Value and a new RTCP XR SDP Parameter.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A