RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for De-Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-14

[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.

[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?

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.

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.

(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