Subject: [xrblock] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 12:18:44 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: 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-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics/

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

Thanks for producing this document.

I did have one comment (and I apologize in advance that this is a particular
hot button for me).

I understand that you can do things with these metrics that you can't do with
previous metrics, but I wish there was a clearer description of "if you want to
understand X, you should implement this metric" earlier in the document. The
impression the reader is left with, is "if you're doing RTCWeb, you should
implement this metric", but I'm guessing that at least some of these metrics
would be useful for people who weren't doing RTCWeb, but need to measure
something that people who are doing RTCWeb also need to measure, and if that's
true, a short section that helped them figure that out would be helpful.

---

From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 02:59:41 +0000

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.

BR,
Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:19 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; Shida Schubert;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with COMMENT)
> 

[Rachel]: Would it be helpful if we add a new short paragraph in the section 1, after the 3rd para and before the last one, as following

"
Standards such as "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611] as well as other extensions standardized in the XRBLOCK working group have been produced for the purpose of collecting and reporting performance metrics from RTP endpoint devices that can be used to have a end-to-end service visibility and measure the delivering quality in various RTP services. These metrics are able to complement those in [RFC3550].
"

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:45:00 -0500

Hi, Rachel,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:59 PM Huangyihong (Rachel) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> [Rachel]: Would it be helpful if we add a new short paragraph in the
> section 1, after the 3rd para and before the last one, as following
>
> "
> Standards such as "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)"
> [RFC3611] as well as other extensions standardized in the XRBLOCK working
> group have been produced for the purpose of collecting and reporting
> performance metrics from RTP endpoint devices that can be used to have a
> end-to-end service visibility and measure the delivering quality in various
> RTP services. These metrics are able to complement those in [RFC3550].
>

This is exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping for.

If you can provide more specifics, that would probably be more helpful for
people who are doing RTP but not as part of RTCWeb, but the text you
suggested is already an improvement.

(I've spent a lot of time since 1996 in conversations about "it's this way
because it's wireless". Actually, "it's this way because of a high error
rate, or highly variable RTTs, or about a million other side effects of
being wireless, that can also happen when you're not using a wireless
connection but still encounter those characteristics". That's why just
pointing to a use case drives me nuts! Thanks for working through that with
me)

Spencer

---

From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 01:11:00 +0000

Hi Spencer,

I’ll add more specifications like burst loss gap/discard [RFC6958] [RFC7008]. Thanks again for raising the issue. I fully understand your concern.

BR,
Rachel

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:45 PM
To: Huangyihong (Rachel)
Cc: IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Rachel,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:59 PM Huangyihong (Rachel) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Spencer,

BR,
Rachel

> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Shida Schubert;
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

"

If you can provide more specifics, that would probably be more helpful for people who are doing RTP but not as part of RTCWeb, but the text you suggested is already an improvement.

(I've spent a lot of time since 1996 in conversations about "it's this way because it's wireless". Actually, "it's this way because of a high error rate, or highly variable RTTs, or about a million other side effects of being wireless, that can also happen when you're not using a wireless connection but still encounter those characteristics". That's why just pointing to a use case drives me nuts! Thanks for working through that with me)

Spencer

"