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

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Alissa Cooper) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -05)
No email
send info
Pete asked my question, also ...

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -05)
No email
send info
Pete covers the point I would raise.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-07 for -05)
No email
send info
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.

(Kathleen Moriarty) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-18)
No email
send info
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.

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -05)
No email
send info
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.