Subject: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:50:54 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
	Author(s)       : Qin Wu
                          Geoff Hunt
                          Philip Arden
	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2012-06-19

Abstract:
   This memo proposes an extensible RTP monitoring framework for
   extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended
   Reports (XR) (RFC3611) block type to report new metrics regarding
   media transmission or reception quality, following RTCP guidelines
   established in RFC5968.  This memo suggests that a new block should
   contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant to a
   single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing a
   number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all those
   parameters of concern to a specific application.  Applications may
   then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which covers their set
   of concerns.  Where possible, a specific block should be designed to
   be re-usable across more than one application, for example, for all
   of voice, streaming audio and video.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:52 +0200

WG and authors,

I hope that anyone that has any additional comments can provide these
within a week from now. I will by then tell our AD that the WG believes
they have resolved the issues and have consensus on the updates.

In regards to the AD review comments I think this document do address
them. At least as long as one accept that we have made clear that the
documents purpose is more to describe the monitoring framework that has
grown into existence rather than defining a monitoring architecture.

I have some few comments from my review. All minor editorial ones.

1. Abstract:

 following RTCP guidelines
   established in RFC5968.

I wonder if this reference should be expanded with the title in the
abstract.

2. Section 1:
The objective of this document is to define an extensible RTP
   monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality
   of Service (QoS)/QoE metrics which facilitate reduced implementation
   costs and help maximize inter-operability.

What I reacted to in the above sentence is "define" which i think should
be changed to describe, discuss or review.

3. Section 5.4:
  This memo proposes to
   define a new XR Block (i.e., the Measurement information block
   [MEASI]) that will be used to convey the common time period and the
   number of packets sent during this period.

Considering that the reference is in IESG evaluation, shouldn'ta
different word than "proposes" to point to this reference. I think you
might simply state something like.

"Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR
Block" [MEASI] enables an RTCP sender to convey the common time period
and the number of packets sent during this period.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2012-06-20 03:50, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:06:43 +0800

1. Abstract:

[Qin]: Okay, but the word "guidelines" may repeat twice in this sentence if we just expand the reference with its title.
How about the following change:
OLD TEXT:
"
 following RTCP guidelines
   established in RFC5968.
"
NEW TEXT:
"
following "Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" (RFC5968).
"

2. Section 1:

[Qin]: Okay, will use "describe".

3. Section 5.4:
  This memo proposes to

[Qin]: Reasonable, thank for your proposed change.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:50:46 +0200

> I wonder if this reference should be expanded with the title in the abstract.
>
> [Qin]: Okay, but the word "guidelines" may repeat twice in this 
> sentence if we just expand the reference with its title.

In my view we should avoid references in Abstracts completely. The abstract stands alone, in many documents (e.g. the list of RFCs), without the reference list. 

In any case, the purpose of the abstract is to identify what the document does, not how it does it, and this reference seems to be doing the latter. 

Could I also suggest that we delete the word "suggests" from the abstract. Either the document is instructing XRblock designers to do this or it is not.

Regards

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 20 June 2012 11:07
To: Magnus Westerlund; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:24:35 +0700

> > I wonder if this reference should be expanded with the title in the abstract.

It's not actually a reference citation, even though the misspelling
makes it look like one; why not just change "RFC5968" to "RFC 5968"?

> In my view we should avoid references in Abstracts completely. 

I believe that to be the RFC Editor's view, as well, but again there is
no reference involved.

> The abstract stands alone, in many documents (e.g. the list of RFCs), without the reference list. 
> 

I do think that the Abstract could use a re-write.

> Could I also suggest that we delete the word "suggests" from the abstract. Either the document is instructing XRblock designers to do this or it is not.

Actually, since it's Informational, I'm not sure that it can instruct
anybody to do anything.  Maybe BCP would be a better intended status?

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:02:56 +0200

On 2012-06-20 12:50, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>> 1. Abstract:
>> 
>> following RTCP guidelines established in RFC5968.
>> 
>> sentence if we just expand the reference with its title. How about
>> the following change: OLD TEXT: " following RTCP guidelines 
>> established in RFC5968. " NEW TEXT: " following "Guidelines for
>> Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" (RFC5968). "
> 
> In my view we should avoid references in Abstracts completely. The
> abstract stands alone, in many documents (e.g. the list of RFCs),
> without the reference list.
> 
> In any case, the purpose of the abstract is to identify what the
> document does, not how it does it, and this reference seems to be
> doing the latter.
> 
> Could I also suggest that we delete the word "suggests" from the
> abstract. Either the document is instructing XRblock designers to do
> this or it is not.
> 

The ID guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html) says the
following under 6. Formating:

An Abstract should be complete in itself, so it should contain no
citations unless they are completely defined within the Abstract.

It might be equally simple to drop the whole sub-phrase "following RTCP
guidelines    established in RFC5968." as it isn't the most relevant for
an abstract.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:45:19 +0000

Hi,Keith:
Thank for your comments, please see my replies inline.

Regards!
-Qin
________________________________________
发件人: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年6月20日 18:50
到: Qin Wu; Magnus Westerlund; [email-masked]
主题: RE: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

[Qin]: Okay, I like to remove this sentence to make abstract standalone.

[Qin]: Okay, I like to remove "This memo suggests that " from the related sentence in the abstract.

Regards

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 20 June 2012 11:07
To: Magnus Westerlund; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:46:03 +0000

Hi,
________________________________________
发件人: Magnus Westerlund [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年6月20日 21:02
到: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Qin Wu; [email-masked]
主题: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

[Qin]: Looks good to me, thank for your suggestion.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:04:07 +0000

Hi,Glen and all:
________________________________________
发件人: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] 代表 Glen Zorn [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年6月20日 20:24
到: [email-masked]
主题: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

> I wonder if this reference should be expanded with the title in the abstract.

It's not actually a reference citation, even though the misspelling makes it look like one; why not just change "RFC5968" to "RFC 5968"?

[Qin]: Your are right, but it looks to me deleting the sub-sentence " following RTCP guidelines
established in RFC5968" from abstract is not a big deal and does no harm to what the abstract mainly wants to convey.

I believe that to be the RFC Editor's view, as well, but again there is no reference involved.

[Qin]: Okay. 

[Qin]:Okay,Thank for your clarification.

Actually, since it's Informational, I'm not sure that it can instruct anybody to do anything.  Maybe BCP would be a better intended status?

[Qin]:That's a good question. I don't have strong opinion on whetherthis document should be BCP
or informational. So I like to hear what our chairs and others think about this.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 20 June 2012 11:07
To: Magnus Westerlund; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16.txt

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt