Measurement Identity and Information Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-10

[Ballot comment]
3.1 "This item MUST be ignored by applications that are not configured to make use of it." That's a very odd construction. It sounds like you're saying that if I'm configured to ignore it, I MUST ignore it. What are the circumstances you are trying to prevent here? I don't understand.

4.2 "The length of this report block in 32-bit words minus one." Perhaps this is an RTCP thing, but this seems like it's destined for confusion. First, instead of using length in bytes, you're using length in words. Do you really think that it is likely for a future block to be longer than 16K 32-bit words? Also, calling it the "block length" but then not having it be the length of the block seems like it's going to cause confusion. If you're going to stick with count of 32-bit words, call it "extension word count" or something like that.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.1, while defining the APSI SDES item says "If no identifier is provided, the length field MUST be set to zero." Why would you provide this item at all if the no identifier is to be provided? If there's a case where that makes sense, could you describe it in the document?

In the new XR block, the Measurement Duration (Cumulative) field as defined can only represent intervals up to about 18.2 hours. What is an implementation supposed to do if the stream it's reporting on has been active longer than that? (Using the example from the monarch document, say you were reporting the total number of RTP packets lost since the start of the RTP session.)

[Ballot comment]
The short-title that shows in the header of each page beyond the first could be more descriptive. Perhaps "Measurement Identity and Duration"?

In section 1.1, "This document defines a new Extended Report block that must be used as defined in..."  says
"this block must be used". You are trying to say "if you use this block, you must follow the rules in ....". Perhaps
this could be replaces with "This document defines a new Extended Report block. The use of Extended Report blocks is defined by RFC 3611.

[Ballot comment]
I have no problems with the publication of this document.  I do have one, non-blocking, question...

Section 3.1 describes the APSI and provides the following statement : "If no identifier is provided, the length field
  MUST be set to zero."

Is there a scenario where the APSI SDES item would be included without an ID being provided?

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity and has
the following comments:

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

First, in the RTP SDES item types subregistry of the Real-Time Transport
Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at:

www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xml

a new registration will be added as follows:

Value: [ TBD at time of registration ]
Abbreviation: APSI
Name: Application Specific Identifier
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, 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/rtcp-xr-block-types.xml

a new registration will be added as follows:

BT: [TBD at time of registration ]
Name: Measurement Information Block
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands these two actions to be the only ones required
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
Subject: Last Call:  (Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block) 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:
- 'Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR
  Block'
  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 2012-06-14. 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) Source
  Description (SDES) item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block
  carrying parameters that identify and describe a measurement period,
  to which one or more other RTCP XR Report Blocks may refer.




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

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


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

Document shepherd write-up for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06

(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 one new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source
Description (SDES) [RFC3550] item and one new Extended Report (XR)
Report Block [RFC 3611], and it is normatively referenced by other
documents currently being worked with XRBLOCK. 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 document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description
(SDES) item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block carrying parameters
that identify and describe a measurement period, to which one or more
other RTCP XR Report Blocks may refer. The need for these is called out
explicitly in section 5.4 of draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13, "Monitoring
Architecture for RTP".
                 

Working Group Summary

There were several points of debate within the working group; however,
none were particularly rough and consensus was achieved in all cases.
Main point of consensus include:

Correlation Tag
Remove the 3 bit correlation tag defined in earlier version of the
document. The SSRC and CNAME can be used to correlate RTCP XR data. The
RTCP SDES APSI block can be used to correlate with non-RTP sessions.

Measurement Duration
There was debate whether it was more appropriate to include in the
measurement information block, or have it be included explicitly within
each individual metric block to which it applies. The consensus was to
include it within the measurement information block to avoid duplication
in individual metric blocks, and add the following requirement in
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch, "Note that for packet loss robustness if the
report blocks for the same interval span over more than one RTCP packet
then each must have the measurement identity information even though
they will be the same."

Extended First/Last Sequence Number
Paraphrasing of the concept defined in RFC 3550 led to some
disagreements. The paraphrasing was replaced with references to section
6.4.1 and Appendix A.1 of RFC 3550 to avoid any potential ambiguity.


Document Quality

This document has been reviewed by multiple people in AVTCORE involved
with draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch as well as by numerous people within
XRBLOCK. This document is normatively referenced by other documents
within XRBLOCK, providing evidence that there is intent to produce
implementations according to this document.

Personnel

Charles Eckel 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 each iteration of this file, including providing
technical and editorial review comments as part of two WGLC sessions
called on previous revisions of this document. All of my comments have
been addressed to my satisfaction, and I feel it is 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.

My only concern is that draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13, "Monitoring
Architecture for RTP", which calls specifically for this document and
includes statements governing its use, has not yet been published.

(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.

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? 

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.

Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
    draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12

This draft is still a work in progress. The reference was correct when
originally posted. This reference will need to be updated at time of
publication.

(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.