Subject: RE: [AVT] RTP MIB Extensions

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:45:24 +0200

> 
> With regard to the relative priorities of (i) and (ii), I 
> recall that there
> seemed to be no disagreement that the RTP MIB update was 
> important but there
> was no suggestion that this was more or less important than 
> progressing an
> RTCP XR based draft.  There is considerable interest in using 
> RTCP XR for
> VoIP fault/performance management and some definite expressed 
> interest in
> seeing a MIB based on the RTCP XR metrics.
> 
> Alan Clark
> 
> 
> 

Alan,

RTCP XR is an extension of RTP/RTCP. Subsequently, the RTCP XR MIB is an extension of the RTP MIB. At this point in the evolution of RTP, as RFC 3550 obsoletes RFC 1889, it looks imperative that the necessary changes are being made to the RTP MIB first, so that any extension work (like the proposed work on RTCP XR MIB) is based on an updated version of the MIB and standard. 

Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Alan Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:08:01 -0500

[Dan R] RTCP XR is an extension of RTP/RTCP. Subsequently, the RTCP XR MIB
is an extension of the RTP MIB. At this point in the evolution of RTP, as
RFC 3550 obsoletes RFC 1889, it looks imperative that the necessary changes
are being made to the RTP MIB first, so that any extension work (like the
proposed work on RTCP XR MIB) is based on an updated version of the MIB and
standard. 

Dan

I have to disagree with you.  There is minimal overlap between the two other
than a need to put the RTCP XR MIB/Group under the RTP MIB OID and hence
they can be progressed in parallel. 

At this moment there are no proposed specific changes to the RTP MIB other
than the draft discussed in Minneapolis and hence making these serial
activities would delay the progress of the RTCP XR MIB work for an
indefinite period, which I'm sure you would not want.  There is strong
interest in the use of RTCP XR for VoIP fault/ performance management - I am
prepared to do the work needed to progress the draft and would welcome your
input and comments.

Regards

Alan

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:14:55 -0500

I see no reason why the two can't be developed in parallel.  Yes, the 
RTCP XR MIB will be an extension, but I would think the updates to the 
RTP MIB would stabilize pretty quickly.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:03:48 +0100

Hi Alan,

Based on the discussion in this thread, and the dependency that the XR 
MIB extension will have on the core (as I see it), it seems necessary to 
make the extension dependent on a updated core. This means that the work 
can be performed in parallel, but the XR MIB extension can't go forward 
until the updated core is also available.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund