RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-07
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -05)
Unknown
Pete covers the point I would raise.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-18)
Unknown
Thanks for adding the additional reference [RFC6990] to address my prior discuss question: I have a question on the security considerations and would like to discuss it to see if it can be improved in the current document. The Security Considerations Section references RFC3611. In RFC3611, confidentiality concerns are raised and it is good that they are spelled out explicitly. SRTCP is mentioned as a possible option, but says it is just in development. What's the current use of SRTCP and should there be a stronger recommendation for it's use in this new draft to address the confidentiality concerns? Or are there other measures that have evolved for confidentiality and DoS protections since RFC3611 was written. Thanks.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -05)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I wonder if anybody who is an MPEG-TS expert has reviewed this document? This is not clear from the sherpherd write-up.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -05)
Unknown
Pete asked my question, also ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-07 for -05)
Unknown
This is probably explained in some ETSI document, but the sole distinction between PAT_error_count and PAT_error_2_count seems to be whether it reports the absence of a table of type 0, or the presence of a table not of type 0. The document explains that the two counts can't coexist, but doesn't explain why. If this is explained somewhere else, a reference to that document might be helpful. (I didn't find an explanation in section 5.2.1 of [ETSI], FWIW). Same observation applies for PMT_error_count.