RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for De-Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-08-08
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-07-30
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-07-19
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-07-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-07-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-07-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-07-02
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-07-01
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-07-01
|
14 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-07-01
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-07-01
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-07-01
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2013-07-01
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-07-01
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-07-01
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-06-28
|
14 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2013-06-27
|
14 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-14.txt |
2013-06-27
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-06-27
|
13 | Qin Wu | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-06-27
|
13 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-13.txt |
2013-06-27
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2013-06-27
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-06-27
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Same remark as for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard. jitter buffer versus de-jitter buffer. I know it's mentioned in section 1.4, but some changes would ideal. The … [Ballot comment] Same remark as for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard. jitter buffer versus de-jitter buffer. I know it's mentioned in section 1.4, but some changes would ideal. The draft is not consistent. |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-06-26
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-06-25
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-06-21
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Note field has been cleared |
2013-06-21
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Dan Romascanu |
2013-06-21
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-06-21
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In 3. Jitter Buffer Operation Overall user perceived delay = network round trip delay + local (jitter buffer (nominal) delay + … [Ballot comment] In 3. Jitter Buffer Operation Overall user perceived delay = network round trip delay + local (jitter buffer (nominal) delay + encoder serialization delay) + remote (jitter buffer (nominal) delay + encoder serialization delay) This is likely a stupid question, but are both local and remote serialization delays "encoder" delays? Or are "decoder" delays negligible? Or am I missing a term of RTCP art? In 5. SDP Signaling [RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. However XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling (see section 5 of RFC3611). This text is saying, to me: - You can signal the use of XR blocks in SDP, - or not - but if you do signal the use of XR blocks in SDP, here's how you would do that for JB Is there any guidance you can give about which choice an implementer should lean toward? |
2013-06-21
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-06-20
|
12 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-06-20
|
12 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-06-20
|
12 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-06-18
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-06-18
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-06-18
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-06-27 |
2013-06-18
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2013-06-18
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot has been issued |
2013-06-18
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-06-18
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-06-17
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-06-17
|
12 | Qin Wu | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-06-17
|
12 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12.txt |
2013-06-16
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-06-16
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-06-13
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2013-06-13
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2013-06-13
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2013-06-06
|
11 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2013-05-31
|
11 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-05-29
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-05-29
|
11 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the RTCP XR Block Type subregistry of the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/rtcp-xr-block-types.xml a new Block Type will be registered as follows: BT: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: JB Metrics Block Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the RTCP XR SDP Parameters subregistry of the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters.xml a new SDP Parameter will be registered as follows: Parameter: jitter-buffer Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that these are the only actions required upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-05-23
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-05-23
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2013-05-23
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2013-05-23
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following document: - 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-05-31. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block that allows the reporting of Jitter Buffer metrics for a range of RTP applications. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call was requested |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-05-17
|
11 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Changed document writeup |
2013-05-07
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard - similar to all the other XRBLOCK documents. Header says ' Intended status: Standards Track ' (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block that allows the reporting of Jitter Buffer metrics for a range of RTP applications. Working Group Summary The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient. Several technical comments were made during the reviews and all were resolved with consensus. Document Quality At least one vendor has implemented this draft in the lab. It is expected that with the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase. Personnel Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have performed a detailed review of the document and I consider it ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. This I-D deals with reporting of jitter buffer metrics. Appendix A contains a definition of these metrics using the template defined in RFC 6390. An SDP review was performed by Christer Holmberg who stated that the document is ready for submission. A PM-DIR review was performed by Vinayak Hegde and his comments were considered. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11.txt or its predecessors. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The number of active participants in the Working Group is not very high (around ten). Among the active participants there seems to be solid consensus in support of this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues. Idnits shows no error. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. An RFC 6360 PM-DIR review was performed by Vinayak Hegde and his comments were considered. An SDP review was performed by Christer Holmberg who stated that the document is ready for submission. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. N/A (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document requires from IANA allocations of values in existing registries which are clearly defined. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2013-05-07
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Dan Romascanu (dromasca@avaya.com) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2013-05-07
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-05-07
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-04-26
|
11 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11.txt |
2013-04-02
|
10 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-10.txt |
2013-03-15
|
09 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-09.txt |
2013-02-23
|
08 | Alan Clark | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-08.txt |
2013-01-25
|
07 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-07.txt |
2013-01-10
|
06 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-06.txt |
2012-12-18
|
05 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-05.txt |
2012-12-16
|
04 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-04.txt |
2012-12-13
|
03 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-03.txt |
2012-11-26
|
02 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-02.txt |
2012-10-16
|
01 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-01.txt |
2012-05-09
|
00 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-00.txt |