RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Concealment Metrics Reporting on Audio Applications
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-12

[Ballot comment]
Just editorial stuff:

In 3.2 and 4.2, you say things like:

      If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFFFE
      MUST be reported to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the
      measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFFFF MUST be reported.

You should instead use the style that appears in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe:

      Two values are reserved: A value of 0xFFFE indicates out of range
      and a value of 0xFFFF indicates that the measurement is
      unavailable.

If you wanted to clarify even more, you could say:

      Two values are reserved: A value of 0xFFFFFFFE indicates out of
      range (that is, a measured value exceeding 0xFFFFFFFD) and a value
      of 0xFFFFFFFF indicates that the measurement is unavailable.

The MUSTs are unnecessary. These are definitions, not protocol requirements.

4.2: I would strike the words "For clarification". While reading this, it declarified things for me for a moment. :-)

5.1: No need to redefine DIGIT. Just put a reference to RFC 5234 in section 2.

[Ballot comment]

- section 2.2 confused me a bit, you said these new
values are in seconds, but then present the binary
fraction encoding. Is that latter really needed for
this one? (Just checking, I assume it is used in some
field.)

[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's DISCUSS point.  I followed the chain of related RFCs back to 3550 as far as the definition of an RTP Extension Header goes.  Section 5.3.1 of 3550 says the following:

  The header extension contains a 16-bit length field that
  counts the number of 32-bit words in the extension, excluding the
  four-octet extension header (therefore zero is a valid length).

So, 6 appears to be the correct length for the report structure in 3.1.

[Ballot discuss]
Sorry to raise a Discuss on what is primarily an editorial issue, but
it would impact interop, I think. At least it will be simple to
address.

The figure in 3.1 has block length = 5

And the text in 3.2 has
  block length: 16 bits

      The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one.  For
      the Loss Concealment Block, the block length is equal to 5.

RFC 3611 has
  block length: 16 bits
        The length of this report block, including the header, in 32-
        bit words minus one.

Looks like the figure has 7 32-bit words, so block length should be 6.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the RTCP XR Block Type subregistry of the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/

two new block types are to be registered as follows:

BT: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Loss Concealment Block
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

BT: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: Concealment Seconds Block
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters/

two new RTCP XR SDP parameters are to be registered as follows:

Parameter: loss-conceal
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Parameter: conc-sec
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporting on Audio Applications) 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:
- 'RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporting on Audio
  Applications'
  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 2014-03-28. 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 two RTCP XR Report Blocks that allows the
  reporting of concealment metrics for audio applications of RTP.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal/ballot/


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

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-09.txt

(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?

The document is being requested as a Standards Track RFC.

The document defines two new Extended Report (XR)
Report Block [RFC 3611] and standards track is appropriate for this document.

Standards Track is indicated in the title page.

(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 draft defines two new block type to augment those defined in
[RFC3611] for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block types
supports the reporting of concealment metrics for audio applications of RTP.

Working Group Summary

There were several points of debate within the working group; however,
none were particularly rough and authors and commentators came up
with the text that resolves any issues thus consensus was achieved in
all cases.


Document Quality

This document has been reviewed by numerous people within
XRBLOCK through two rounds of WGLCs and in AVT WG where
the draft previously belonged. The document resolved any
outstanding issues.

The document has been reviewed by SDP directorate post WGLC
for SDP extensions defined, any issues raised were resolved.

The document has been reviewed by PM-DIR as well.

Personnel

Shida Schubert is the Document Shepherd.
Gonzalo Camarillo 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 have reviewed the last three iterations of this document, including providing
technical and editorial review comments during the WGLC reviews.
All of my comments and that of others provided during WGLC are addressed.

(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.

There are no concerns.

(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

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

Yes

Cisco has filed an IPR statement to the predecessors of this document
(As we adopted the draft in XRBLOCK from AVT we merged two drafts
into one)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1131/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1132/

As WG we discussed the existance of IPR statement against the drafts
we were interested in moving forward. Despite an IPR statements,
the WG agreed to move the draft forward as there was enough interests
to do so and no alternatives were on the table.

(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?

Yes, there is strong consensus.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No concern..

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

No formal reviews are required for this document.

(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 (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).

Appropriate reservations have been included for IANA registries.

(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.

None.

(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.

None required.