Subject: [xrblock] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 04:21:34 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For the AD: Please note that the intended status in the datatracker is
"Proposed Standard" while the doc itself says "Informational". After reading
the doc, I would find informational correct. However, please clarify what the
intended status is supposed to be!

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

Thanks for the well-written document. A few comments mostly on references:

- Maybe also provide an (informative) reference to
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-19 on the first occurrence of WebRTC...?

- Is ReportGroup defined in another RFC? If so, please provide reference in
ther terminology section.

- Maybe provide (informative) references for Mean Opinion Score (MoS) and Media
Delivery Index (MDI), as well as "Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI" maybe.

- It seems to me that at least [W3C.WD-webrtc-stats-20161214] should be a
normative reference.

- I wonder if it would make sense to refer to some of the IPPM RFCs that define
these or similar metrics?

---

From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 01:47:25 +0000

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for the comments. Please see inline.

BR,
Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:22 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; Shida Schubert;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 

[Rachel]: It intends to be informational but I don't know what happened in the datatracker. I'll leave Ben or others to respond.

[Rachel]: Make sense to me. Will do in the next version.

> ther terminology section.

[Rachel]: It's only defined here.

> Delivery Index (MDI), as well as "Media Loss Rate (MLR) of MDI" maybe.

[Rachel]: Will do in the next version.

> - It seems to me that at least [W3C.WD-webrtc-stats-20161214] should be a

[Rachel]: Can I know why? We put it in the informative reference was because this work only provides background of what happening in W3C, we didn't refer to the technologies in that work.

> these or similar metrics?

[Rachel]: I don't know. This document is only talking about the metrics in RTP layer. It didn't refer to any metrics in IPPM. So what kind of ippm metrics should be listed here in your mind?

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 10:03:47 -0500

> On May 18, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It is supposed to be informational. That is an oversight on my part. I’m fixing it now.