Subject: [rmcat] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 10:00:53 -0800

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document.

I understand that section 3.1 is not serving the main purpose of this document,
but I don't think it is implementable as written. In particular:

3.1.  RTP Log Format

   Having a common log format simplifies running analyses across and
   comparing different measurements.  The log file should be tab or
   comma separated containing the following details:

           Send or receive timestamp (unix)
           RTP payload type
           SSRC
           RTP sequence no
           RTP timestamp
           marker bit
           payload size

Is this sufficient inambiguous to be useful for interoperability? I.e. does
each field has a single textual format? How is "marker bit" encoded? Is each
line CRLF or LF terminated?