Subject: Re: [xrblock] Update of Burst Gap related drafts

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:28:35 +0800 (CST)

Agree. That is the issue we need to fix.

-Jing

>------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------

>发件人：Qin Wu

>时　间：2012/01/20 09:09:30 星期五

>收件人：Colin Perkins

, [email-masked]

>抄送人：xrblock

>主　题：Re: [xrblock] Update of Burst Gap related drafts

>Hi, ----- Original Message -----

>From: "Colin Perkins"

To:

Cc: "xrblock"

>Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:29 PM

>Subject: Re: [xrblock] Update of Burst Gap related drafts

> On 19 Jan 2012, at 08:30, [email-masked] wrote:

>>> Qin and us have worked out the revision of Burst gap related drafts. The new updates are available at:

>>> a. Burst Gap Loss Draft

>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-01 >> b. Burst Gap Discard Draft

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-01

>Looking at the changes in burst-gap-discard metrics draft-01, it seems that the Threshold field is removed, but nothing is added to replace it. >Given this change, how are bursts defined? The draft suggests, but does not seem to require the Gmin parameter from RFC 3611 is used, but >what value for Gmin?

[Qin]: Good point, I think Threshold should be put back rather than defining any new replacement since Threshold is used to differentiate burst from gap.

>> Colin

>> > > > -- > Colin Perkins > http://csperkins.org/ >

>> > > _______________________________________________

>> xrblock mailing list >
[email-masked]

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock