RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Summary Statistics Metrics Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-07-30
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-07-22
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-07-17
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2013-07-16
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2013-07-01
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2013-04-08
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-04-07
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-04-03
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2013-04-03
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-04-03
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-04-03
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-04-03
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-03-24
|
11 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11.txt |
2013-03-22
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Qin, thanks for continuous effort to improve your document, and clear my DISCUSS. Regards, Benoit |
2013-03-22
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-03-21
|
10 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-10.txt |
2013-03-07
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-03-07
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] My DISCUSS points are nicely handled in -09; thanks very much for the work. The "binary point" change is missing in the definition … [Ballot comment] My DISCUSS points are nicely handled in -09; thanks very much for the work. The "binary point" change is missing in the definition of Burst Discard Rate -- it got into the other three places. Gonzalo can put in an RFC Editor note asking to fix this, thus: In Section 3.2.2, please make the following change: OLD Burst Discard Rate: 16 bits The fraction of packets discarded during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. NEW Burst Discard Rate: 16 bits The fraction of packets discarded during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point immediately after the left-most bit. |
2013-03-07
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-03-07
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] The text in section 3.1.2 describing the representation of loss rates and in section 3.2.2 describing the representation of discard rates now appears … [Ballot comment] The text in section 3.1.2 describing the representation of loss rates and in section 3.2.2 describing the representation of discard rates now appears to be OK. I trust the differences between these representations and the 8-bit representations of similar rates in RFC 3611 will not be problematic or confusing for implementors. |
2013-03-07
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-02-21
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-02-21
|
09 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-09.txt |
2013-02-21
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-02-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I love it when everyone else gets the DISCUSSes in that I would have before I have a chance. Less typing for me. … [Ballot comment] I love it when everyone else gets the DISCUSSes in that I would have before I have a chance. Less typing for me. Definitely support Robert's DISCUSS. Barry and Ralph's DISCUSS looks spot-on. |
2013-02-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-02-20
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2013-02-20
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot discuss] Please keep in mind the agreement with the XRBLOCK regarding RFC 6390. See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv/ballot/#benoit-claise When I see the following (to take just … [Ballot discuss] Please keep in mind the agreement with the XRBLOCK regarding RFC 6390. See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv/ballot/#benoit-claise When I see the following (to take just one example): Burst Loss Rate: 16 bits The fraction of packets lost during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. This value is calculated by dividing Packets Loss in Bursts by Total Packets expected in Bursts, multiplying the result of the division by 7FFF, with the maximum value 7FFF, and taking the integer part as follows: Packets Loss in Bursts / Total Packets expected in Bursts If the measurement is unavailable, the value 0x8000 MUST be reported. ... you define new metrics in this document. Therefore the RFC 6390 template must be applied. Regards, Benoit |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I support Barry and Ralph's discuss. |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] In support of Barry's and Ralph's DISCUSS. |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot comment text updated for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-02-19
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-02-18
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] The frame impairment block includes the total number of frames received. I'm not sure if such information is new in XR blocks or … [Ballot comment] The frame impairment block includes the total number of frames received. I'm not sure if such information is new in XR blocks or not, but that does suggest a potential attack that I don't think is noted in 3611 and that might be worth a mention here. If a bad actor knows that N seconds into a piece of media the boss says "fire the chief security officer" and the bad actor could DoS the video stream between "chief" and "security" then the recipient(s) might take the wrong action. I guess you can invent a load of amusing variants of this, but this new XR block could provide the trigger for launching the DoS since it says how many frames have been received in total. It is maybe a little silly as an attack, but could be worth adding. I won't object if you choose not to add it. If you do, and other XR blocks expose similar information then I guess adding references to those would also be nice. The secdir review [1] suggests a few nit-fixes too. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03762.html |
2013-02-18
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-02-17
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2013-02-16
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] Following up on Barry's Discuss, and getting some additional background from RFC 3611, I understand the "Rates" in sections 3.1 and 3.2 … [Ballot discuss] Following up on Barry's Discuss, and getting some additional background from RFC 3611, I understand the "Rates" in sections 3.1 and 3.2 to be fixed-point binary fractions, with as assumed binary point to the left of the fraction carried in the field. I have to say I found the description of the computation a little confusing, as I didn't understand that it was literally telling me how to compute a decimal number that, when converted to binary, would yield the correct bit pattern in the field. However, there is a precedent in RFC 3611 for this descriptive text, so it makes sense to use the same style in this document. But, I don't think the computation still quite yields the right result - why multiply by 0x7FF rather than 0x10000 (the equivalent of 0x100 as used in RFC 3611 for an 8-bit field)? Here's my suggestion, based on Barry's text and using RFC 3611 as a template: NEW The fraction of packets lost during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. This value is calculated by dividing Packets Lost in Bursts by Total Packets Expected in Bursts, multiplying the result of the division by 65536, limiting the maximum value to 65535 (to avoid overflow) and keeping only the integer part. This field MUST be populated and MUST be set to zero if no packets have been received. END |
2013-02-16
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2013-02-14
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-02-14
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-02-14
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] The ABNF in section 5.1 needs a minor tweak. You have double-quote space stuff space double-quote on all three lines that you are … [Ballot discuss] The ABNF in section 5.1 needs a minor tweak. You have double-quote space stuff space double-quote on all three lines that you are adding to xr-format. You want double-quote stuff double-quote. That is "burst-gap-loss-stat", not " bust-bap-loss-stat ". The shepherd's writeup indicates N/A for formal language checks? I'm also not seeing evidence of an SDP directorate review (this is, admittedly a trivial extension to SDP, but that review would have caught this bug). |
2013-02-14
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] These spaces-inside-the-quotes also appear in the IANA considerations in section 6.2, but IANA appears to have interpreted the instructions correctly. Consider making 6.2 … [Ballot comment] These spaces-inside-the-quotes also appear in the IANA considerations in section 6.2, but IANA appears to have interpreted the instructions correctly. Consider making 6.2 clearer for future readers, though, to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation. |
2013-02-14
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2013-02-12
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] This is a fine document, which I'll be happy to see approved. I'm confused, though, by the definitions of four items, and I … [Ballot discuss] This is a fine document, which I'll be happy to see approved. I'm confused, though, by the definitions of four items, and I worry that it might result in incorrect implementations. -- Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 -- This comment applies to Burst Loss Rate, Gap Loss Rate, Burst Discard Rate, and Gap Discard Rate. I'm using the first as an example. Burst Loss Rate: 16 bits The fraction of packets lost during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. This value is calculated by dividing Packets Loss in Bursts by Total Packets expected in Bursts, multiplying the result of the division by 7FFF, with the maximum value 7FFF, and taking the integer part as follows: Packets Loss in Bursts / Total Packets expected in Bursts I scratched my head over the "and taking the integer part as follows" bit followed by the formula, which appeared to go together and be separate from the rest. I also didn't understand the formula, because it lacks the multiplier. And then I think it finally dawned on me what you mean. Shortening a little here (and assuming that "packets loss" should be "packets lost"), I think you mean for the formula to be >> integer-part( (PLB / TPEB) * 32767 ) << So, if the total packets expected in bursts (TPEB) is 2,591, and the packets lost in bursts (PLB) is 39, then the Burst Loss Rate value should be 493, or 0x01ED. Do I have that right? Assuming I understand correctly, I think a little change would have helped my confusion. Would you mind doing these four items this way (again, using this one as an example)?: NEW The fraction of packets lost during bursts since the beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. This value is calculated by dividing Packets Lost in Bursts by Total Packets Expected in Bursts, multiplying the result of the division by 32767 (0x7FFF), and keeping only the integer part. The maximum value is thus 7FFF. Representing this as a formula: integer-part( (Packets Lost in Bursts / Total Packets Expected in Bursts) * 0x7FFF ) END Do you see where I was confused before? Does a change like this work for you? I'll also note that the "binary point" (I presume this is a binary variant of "decimal point") is not actually at the left edge of the field. For one thing, the left-most bit is always 0 for any valid value, so the point is at least one bit to the right of that. For another, a value of "1" (total loss) is represented not by "1.000 0000 0000 0000", but by "0.111 1111 1111 1111". I don't know how to describe that in terms of the binary point, but I don't think saying that the binary point is at the left edge works. But if the rest of the description is clear about how to compute the value, I think you can just remove that bit. (I actually don't understand why you don't multiply by 32768 (0x1000), and use 0xFFFF as the unknown value, because that does put the binary point in a sensible place, and has total loss represented as "1.000 0000 0000 0000". I see that you do use 0xFFFF as the unknown value for some of the other fields (such as Burst Duration Mean and Burst Duration Variance). Why not be consistent?) |
2013-02-12
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Here are two very minor and non-blocking points that I'd like you to please consider as well. -- Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 -- … [Ballot comment] Here are two very minor and non-blocking points that I'd like you to please consider as well. -- Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 -- Reserved: 6 bits This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and SHOULD be ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2). But RFC 6079, Section 4.2, says, "Must Be Zero on transmission, Must Be Ignored on reception," not "SHOULD". Do you really want "SHOULD" here? If so, why cite 6709 this way? (Might it also make sense to label these "Reserved: 6 bits (MBZ)", to highlight the connection to what 6709 says?) -- Section 4.1.2 -- You punctuate "full_lost_frames" inconsistently, using 4 different versions in the same paragraph: 1. full_lost_frames 2. full_lost-frames 3. full lost_ frames 4. full lost frames There's a similar inconsistency in partial_lost_frames, though it's not quite as bad. I think the RFC Editor will ask about this, but it will probably be best to fix it now, to avoid AUTH48 delays while you sort it out. |
2013-02-12
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Updated Document Writeup: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … Updated Document Writeup: (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 three RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks that allow the reporting of loss, duplication and discard summary statistics metrics in a range of RTP applications. Working Group Summary The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient. Many technical comments were made during the reviews and all were resolved with consensus. Document Quality At least one vendor has implemented this draft. 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. Al Morton performed the PM-DIR review according to RFC 6390. A number of comments he made led to clarifications included in version 08 of the document. (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. Glen Zorn stated that he considers any I-D submission as an implicit confirmation of the IP terms and conditions, as per BCP 79 section 3.2.1 (see Glen's message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg01109.html) (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-summary-stat 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 excepting the fact that RFC6709 is mentioned in a couple of places without being put inside brackets (should be [RFC6709]) and a few references are made on documents that have issued more recent versions since the publication of the I-D. I hope that the RFC Editor can easily fix these. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. See (5) (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? N/A (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 |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-02-21 |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot has been issued |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-02-07
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga. |
2013-02-05
|
08 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-08.txt |
2013-02-04
|
07 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-07.txt |
2013-02-01
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-01-29
|
06 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06 and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06 and has the following comments: 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 three new block types will be registered as follows: BT: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: Burst/Gap Loss Summary Statistics Block Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] BT: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: Burst/Gap Discard Summary Statistics Block Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] BT: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: Frame Impairment Statistics Summary 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 three new SDP parameters will be registered as follows: Parameter: burst-gap-loss-stat Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Parameter: burst-gap-discard-stat Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Parameter: frame-impairment-stat Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that these two actions are the only ones 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. |
2013-01-25
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
2013-01-25
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
2013-01-24
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-01-24
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Summary Statistics Metrics 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) Blocks for Summary Statistics Metrics 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 2013-02-01. 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 three RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks that allow the reporting of loss, duplication and discard summary statistics metrics in a range of RTP applications. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call was requested |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-01-18
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-01-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | (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 three RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks that allow the reporting of loss, duplication and discard summary statistics metrics in a range of RTP applications. Working Group Summary The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient. Many technical comments were made during the reviews and all were resolved with consensus. Document Quality At least one vendor has implemented this draft. 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 Transport and Application layers metrics. Although several PM-DIR members participate in the WG, a formal RFC 6390 review could be useful. (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-summary-stat-06 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 excepting the fact that RFC6709 is mentioned in a couple of places without being put inside brackets (should be [RFC6709]) and a few references are made on documents that have issued more recent versions since the publication of the I-D. I hope that the RFC Editor can easily fix these. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. I would recommend for another reviewer from the performance metrics directorate to do an RFC 6390 review of the I-D. (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? N/A (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 |
2013-01-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Note added 'Dan Romascanu (dromasca@avaya.com) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2013-01-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-01-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-01-16
|
06 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-zorn-xrblock-rtcp-xr-al-stat |
2013-01-16
|
06 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-06.txt |
2012-12-18
|
05 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05.txt |
2012-12-13
|
04 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-04.txt |
2012-11-26
|
03 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-03.txt |
2012-10-22
|
02 | Glen Zorn | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-02.txt |
2012-10-14
|
01 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-01.txt |
2012-07-29
|
00 | Qin Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-00.txt |