Subject: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:33:11 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
	Author(s)       : Qin Wu
                          Geoff Hunt
                          Philip Arden
	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt
	Pages           : 29
	Date            : 2012-09-20

Abstract:
   This memo proposes an extensible Real-Time Protocol (RTP) monitoring
   framework for extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP
   Extended Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding
   media transmission or reception quality.  In this framework, a new XR
   block should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics
   relevant to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than
   containing a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage
   of all those parameters of concern to a specific application.
   Applications may then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which
   covers their set of concerns.  Where possible, a specific block
   should be designed to be re-usable across more than one application,
   for example, for all of voice, streaming audio and video.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:38:55 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch

I'm a little confused by the changes to this draft. The last paragraph of the Introduction now has a strong focus on definition of new metrics, and explicitly refers to the RFC 6390 guidelines for defining new metrics. However, we've been pretty consistent that new RTCP XR report blocks don't define new metrics, but rather explicitly convey metrics that have been defined elsewhere. 

I'd suggest changing:

   In the Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390], guidelines for
   Considering New Performance Metric Development are provided.  The
   objective of this document is to describe an extensible RTP
   monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality
   of Service (QoS) / QoE metrics which facilitate reduced
   implementation costs and help maximize inter-operability.  The
   "Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968]
   has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the
   preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611]
   block.  This memo assumes that all the guidelines from RFC 5968 must
   apply on top of the guidelines in this document.  In the Performance
   Metrics Framework [RFC6390], guidelines for Considering New
   Performance Metric Development are provided.  When new performance
   metrics are specified, they must follow the RFC 6390 rules:
   specifically, the performance metric definition template (see section
   5.4.4, RFC 6390) must be used.

to:

   The objective of this document is to describe an extensible RTP
   monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality
   of Service (QoS) / QoE metrics which facilitate reduced
   implementation costs and help maximize inter-operability.  The
   "Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968]
   has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the
   preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611]
   block.  This memo assumes that all the guidelines from RFC 5968 must
   apply on top of the guidelines in this document. Guidelines for 
   developing new performance metrics are specified in [RFC6390]. New
   RTCP XR report block definitions should not define new performance
   metrics, but should rather refer to metrics defined elsewhere. It
   is expected that the referenced metrics will conform to [RFC6390].

Colin 

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

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:47:33 +0800

Good point, thank for clarification and proposed change.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Colin Perkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt

> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:12:49 +0700

On 09/21/2012 04:38 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

...

> I'm a little confused by the  changes to this draft. The last
 > paragraph of the Introduction now has a strong focus on definition of
 > new metrics, and explicitly refers to the RFC 6390 guidelines for
 > defining new metrics. However, we've been pretty consistent that new
 > RTCP XR report blocks don't define new metrics, but rather explicitly
 > convey metrics that have been defined elsewhere.
 >
 > I'd suggest changing:
 >
 > specifically, the performance metric definition template (see
 > section 5.4.4, RFC 6390) must be used.
 >
 > to:
 >
 > metrics, but should rather refer to metrics defined elsewhere. It is
 > expected that the referenced metrics will conform to [RFC6390].

I think that that is all fine, except the last sentence.  To give one 
example from a draft currently under discussion, 
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv uses metrics developed by ITU-T.  Can we 
reasonably expect that ITU-T metrics will conform to RFC 6390?

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:22:05 +0100

On 21 Sep 2012, at 11:12, Glen Zorn wrote:
> I think that that is all fine, except the last sentence.  To give one example from a draft currently under discussion, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv uses metrics developed by ITU-T.  Can we reasonably expect that ITU-T metrics will conform to RFC 6390?

Good point - I guess we could add "...if developed in the IETF", or we could just remove the last sentence.

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

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:24:30 +0700

On 09/21/2012 05:22 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:

...

 >> I think that that is all fine, except the last sentence. To give
 >> one example from a draft currently under discussion,
 >> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv uses metrics developed by ITU-T.
 >> Can we reasonably expect that ITU-T metrics will conform to RFC
 >> 6390?
 >
 >

Deleting is easy :-).

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:41:04 +0800

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
To: "Colin Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-21.txt

> > we could just remove the last sentence.

[Qin]:Okay, looks good to me.