Changes look okay. Mostly editorial fixes and some no= menclature changes in metric name for clarity.

-- Vinayak
<= /div>

On Tue, = Nov 5, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Varun Singh <varun@comnet.tkk.fi> = wrote:

Hi all,

I uploaded the draft based on the feedback, Please review the changes made = in the document:
Links to the diffs are listed below:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff= ?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-08.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcd= iff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01.txt

Cheers,
Varun

On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:28, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 28/10/2013 8:20 PM, Varun Singh wrote:
>> Thanks Alan for the review and the clarification.
>> I=92ll update both the drafts as suggested and submit it on 4th No= vember when the submission reopens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Varun
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2013, at 21:17, Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Varun
>>>
>>> We would like to proliferate the use of RFC 6390 and hence, as= this draft
>>> already has a template then I'd recommend keeping it and u= pdating the
>>> wording as you suggested - to include "RTP" in Appen= dix A in the metric
>>> title, name and description
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Hi Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My comments related to RFC 6390 compliance for dra= fts have largely been
>>>>>> that RFC 6390 must be applied if the draft defines= a metric but does not
>>>>>> necessarily need to be applied if the draft simply= reports a metric that
>>>>>> is defined elsewhere. The objective should be to m= ake sure that there is
>>>>>> a single RFC 6390 compliant definition of a metric= - sometimes having
>>>>>> multiple definitions of the same thing can lead to= divergent
>>>>>> descriptions and confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I=B9ll review the rle-metrics draft and send comme= nts today
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/23/13 10:04 AM, "Benoit Claise" &l= t;bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 Hi Varun,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0I believe that the RFC 6390 is actually imp= ortant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0Regards, Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Hi Benoit,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Thanks for the review and catching the= error, comments below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 In
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.= org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-07
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 I can add RTP in the following way in<= br> >>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a. =A0Run-length encoding (RLE) of = Discarded RTP Packets Metric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* Metric Description: Instances= of RTP packets discarded over the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 period covered by = this report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 OR, I could remove the RFC6390 templat= e altogether, Alan's
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 comment from his original PM-DIr revie= w email (July 2013)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 suggested that it was not needed, copy= -pasting it below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Other than a normative referen= ce to =B3discard=B2 the definition
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of this block does not require= an RFC6390 metric template as
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 it refers to a sufficiently de= tailed definition in RFC3611.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Which of the above option would be pre= ferred?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 In
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr= aft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metri>>>
>>> c
>>>>>> -00
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 updated template =A0will be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0a. =A0RTP Payload Bytes Discarded M= etric
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* =A0Metric Name: RTP P= ayload Bytes Discarded Metric
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* =A0Metric Description= : Total number of RTP payload bytes
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 discarded over the
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 period covered by = this report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Varun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Benoit Cl= aise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Hi Alan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Can you please let us know = if you're fine with the new
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 version of the draft.
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My DISCUSS is at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metr>>>
>>> i
>>>>>> cs/ballot/#benoit-claise
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I want to make sure that yo= ur PM-DIR feedback is taken into
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 account.
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On my side, I believe that = the RFC 6390 template is not
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 specific enough. For example t= he metric name doesn't even
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 mention it's specific to R= TP. Same thing for the metric
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 description.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Regards, Benoit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-------- Original Message -= -------
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Subject: =A0New Version Not= ification -
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-dis= card-rle-metrics-07.txt
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date: =A0Mon, 30 Sep 2013 2= 3:22:41 -0700
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0From: =A0<internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0To: =A0<xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <mailto:xrblock-chairs@tools.ietf.org> ,
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <draft-ietf-xrblock-r= tcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics@tools.ietf.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discar= d-rle-metrics@tools.ietf.org>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 , <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <mailto:gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com> ,
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <bclaise@cisco.com> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com> ,
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 A new version (-07) has been s= ubmitted for
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-dis= card-rle-metrics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-d= rafts/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-m>>>
>>> e
>>>>>> trics-07.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sub state has been changed to = AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The IETF datatracker page for = this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metr>>>
>>> i
>>>>>> cs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Diff from previous version: >>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?= url2=3Ddraft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metr>>>
>>> i
>>>>>> cs-07
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Please note that it may take a= couple of minutes from the
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 time of submission
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 until the htmlized version and= diff are available at
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 IETF Secretariat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pm-dir mailing list
>>>> pm-dir@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir
>>

_______________________________________________
pm-dir mailing list
pm-dir@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir

--047d7b2eded5561e9704ea9c8f29-- From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Nov 10 14:06:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD7521E8168 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:06:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvYZZYjJtjdC for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E216A21E816C for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:06:32 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAAM6VgK027726 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:06:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAAM6DfM001456 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:06:23 +0100 (CET) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id rAAM6B74003143 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:06:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:06:11 +0100 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20131110220611.GA3140@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:06:55 -0000 Dear all, This is an automatically generated email. It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference. It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric". Regards, Benoit =========================================================== Normative References -------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08 Active draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-01Active draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Active draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-03 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-10 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 Active draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xt-discard-metrics-00 Active From bclaise@cisco.com Thu Nov 14 15:16:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E39621E809F; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:16:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UWnrMCEwo6Aq; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C6221E808A; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:16:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7478; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384470969; x=1385680569; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tfDgbbYYnySCcElBBTcuEGC1EiJ9ErsobwCeCnfc+9U=; b=g8mqpnfmXD8W30nFHc2U+t6M1UwAyNJu0VrSPsBaetNJALG30QxFpz2L o2t3NTTQxsH6kCFtFvy5zy16hVrqiidhXDay0qgLiKyhWC1Ril8xOE4F+ +sGfzSZxq/UvWWTe81voFlaQNpgPLGmbAoHeqhcy9Jm0QjvKEPxOLIZQx o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAMxYhVKrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABagwc4v3GBIhZ0giYBAQQ4QBEdDxYPCQMCAQIBDygECgYBDAYCAQGHawMODrcjDYlTjG2BOYFAhDEDiUKMY4FrgS+FD4YWhTiBaoFfG4EuBxcG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,702,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="94359535" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 23:16:08 +0000 Received: from [10.154.201.154] ([10.154.201.154]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAENG4na022581; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:16:06 GMT Message-ID: <528559B4.8080004@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:16:04 -0800 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "aaa-doctors@ietf.org" , "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" , YANG Doctors , "ops-dir@ietf.org" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , IETF DNS Directorate References: <20131114230329.16565.11105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20131114230329.16565.11105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20131114230329.16565.11105.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pm-dir] Fwd: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2013-11-21 IESG Teleconference X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:16:14 -0000 Dear all, Please find below the agenda of the Nov 21st IESG telechat. Please send your questions, comments and concerns before Nov 20th COB. Thanks and Regards, Benoit. INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) Summarized Agenda for the 2013-11-21 IESG Teleconference This agenda was generated at 2013-11-14 15:02:01 PST Up-to-date web version of this agenda can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-15 - IETF stream Multicast in VPLS (Proposed Standard) Note: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-10 - IETF stream Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) (Proposed Standard) Note: Joe Salowey (jsalowey@cisco.com) is the Document Shepherd Token: Sean Turner IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-38 - IETF stream Real Time Streaming Protocol 2.0 (RTSP) (Proposed Standard) Note: Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com) Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-11 - IETF stream Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN Networks (Proposed Standard) Token: Adrian Farrel IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12 - IETF stream Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (Proposed Standard) Token: Brian Haberman IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-ecrit-unauthenticated-access-08 - IETF stream Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for dealing with Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices (Proposed Standard) Token: Richard Barnes IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping-03 - IETF stream Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol (Proposed Standard) Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-02 - IETF stream Delayed Duplication Attribute in the Session Description Protocol (Proposed Standard) Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-22 - IETF stream RPKI-Based Origin Validation Operation (Best Current Practice) Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-opsec-ip-options-filtering-05 - IETF stream Recommendations on filtering of IPv4 packets containing IPv4 options. (Best Current Practice) Token: Joel Jaeggli IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-rates-10 - IETF stream Support for Multiple Clock Rates in an RTP Session (Proposed Standard) Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-08 - IETF stream Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains (Proposed Standard) Token: Brian Haberman IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-mile-sci-11 - IETF stream IODEF-extension for structured cybersecurity information (Proposed Standard) Token: Sean Turner IANA Review: Version Changed - Review Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07 - IETF stream Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic Measurement (Proposed Standard) Token: Benoit Claise IANA Review: Version Changed - Review Needed Consensus: Yes 2.1.2 Returning Items NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Items NONE 2.2.2 Returning Items NONE 2.3 Status Changes 2.3.1 New Items NONE 2.3.2 Returning Items NONE 2.3.3 For Action o status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic-00 - IETF stream Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic (None) Token: Barry Leiba 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10 - IETF stream Advice for Safe Handling of Malformed Messages (Informational) Token: Barry Leiba IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-04 - IETF stream Requirements for Labeled NFS (Informational) Note: Spencer Shepler (spencer.shepler@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Martin Stiemerling IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-09 - IETF stream Operations Model for Router Keying (Informational) Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-07 - IETF stream Threat Model for BGP Path Security (Informational) Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes 3.1.2 Returning Items NONE 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD 3.2.1 New Items o draft-sin-sdnrg-sdn-approach-05 - IETF stream Software-Defined Networking: A Perspective From Within A Service Provider (Informational) Token: Adrian Farrel IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-resnick-on-consensus-06 - IETF stream On Consensus and Humming in the IETF (Informational) Token: Jari Arkko IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-housley-smime-oids-00 - IETF stream Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group (Informational) Token: Sean Turner IANA Review: IANA - Not OK Consensus: Unknown Last call expires: 2013-11-18 3.2.2 Returning Items NONE 3.3 Status Changes 3.3.1 New Items NONE 3.3.2 Returning Items NONE 3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission Stream Documents 3.4.1 New Items NONE 3.4.2 Returning Items o conflict-review-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-00 IETF conflict review for draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-03 A Summary of Various Mechanisms Deployed at L-Root for the Identification of Anycast Nodes (ISE: Informational) Token: Joel Jaeggli 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review NONE 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review o Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (cdni) o Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ecrit) 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval o Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure (opsec) From vinayakh@gmail.com Fri Nov 15 11:03:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B50311E8143 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gpuvv9yoA6cg for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FF721F9F19 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ld10so3987875pab.20 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UCb3RBcMWsZPZrMyyrNPIlRs6zQ9jAcvnvkB8IdrVT4=; b=ZI9dIVGPPTjE65sfJBQ6i8wssERv80/7v6YW7cD0AIrdQeRAf+mFVs/YgEmFw5z/Dq unuN99R0bkVWHc7py+EZ2GRvkmEADXsU9zcgp9A27bAcVbkAg3VT0s9bgFf0miE7NROg RBSkI4lCxPmrbt8eaHg2RwxY+4n19G05YDdk4a1dvxxPXZwTd08AFo+LWioVfGX4xLCy uJcznoALv4YcJtoRCrBXT3obGCbauTmkRlTinqa+YxUN/Aca1m6eo6dQmxUK0Wsbxq8J 8gC/gqLxfs1NrnR6xdURKiNJ50JTkEJxx7k+rb4JxPmbvDwvPEYbLWxdJZD91YYFRXog MwAA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.139.196 with SMTP id ra4mr8443657pab.103.1384542180304; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.25.205 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:03:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131110220611.GA3140@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> References: <20131110220611.GA3140@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:33:00 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Benoit Claise Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5dbaacd56e6004eb3bd8e7 Cc: "pm-dir@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:03:01 -0000 --047d7b5dbaacd56e6004eb3bd8e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I will pickup the following drafts for reviews: 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01 Will review in the next few days. I have updated the tracking sheet for this. -- Vinayak On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > This is an automatically generated email. > It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a > normative or informative reference. > It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance > metric". > > Regards, Benoit > > =========================================================== > > Normative References > -------------------- > draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active > > Informative References > ---------------------- > draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active > > drafts containing performance metric > ------------------------------------ > draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08 Active > draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-01Active > draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-01 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-01 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-01 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-04 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active > draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Active > draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00 Active > draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-03 Active > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-10 Active > draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 Active > draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 Active > draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 Active > draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xt-discard-metrics-00 Active > _______________________________________________ > pm-dir mailing list > pm-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir > --047d7b5dbaacd56e6004eb3bd8e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I will pickup the following drafts for reviews:<= br>
1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10
2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-= discarded-metric-01

Will review in the next few days. I have updated the tracking she= et for this.

-- Vinayak

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Benoi= t Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

Dear all,

This is an automatically generated email.
It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a no= rmative or informative reference.
It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance m= etric".

Regards, Benoit

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Normative References
--------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active

Informative References
----------------------
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In IESG p= rocessing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 =A0 =A0 Active

drafts containing performance metric
------------------------------------
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Activ= e
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-01Active
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-01 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Activ= e
draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-01 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Act= ive
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-01 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Active
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-04 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Active<= br> draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Active
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Act= ive
draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Act= ive
draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In = IESG processing - ID Tracker state <Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D= Needed>
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-03 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Act= ive
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Active
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Active<= br> draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Activ= e
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Activ= e
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In IESG p= rocessing - ID Tracker state <In Last Call>
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 =A0 =A0 Active
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xt-discard-metrics-00 =A0 =A0 Active
_______________________________________________
pm-dir mailing list
pm-dir@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir

--047d7b5dbaacd56e6004eb3bd8e7-- From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Nov 17 14:06:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C26511E8132 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:06:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69AAzVLleHbS for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B2711E81B5 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:06:47 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAHM6kQW014786 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:06:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAHM6HH6018045 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:06:27 +0100 (CET) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id rAHM6DfN028841 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:06:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:06:13 +0100 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20131117220613.GA28839@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:06:59 -0000 Dear all, This is an automatically generated email. It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference. It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric". Regards, Benoit =========================================================== Normative References -------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08 Active draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-01Active draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Active draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-04 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-10 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 Active draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xt-discard-metrics-00 Active From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Nov 18 08:48:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3F011E81C6; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5HkRvYzBmzTD; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5026C11E817E; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAGACdDilLGmAcV/2dsb2JhbABZgmYhgQu/NoEcFm0HgicBAQMSKD8SARUVFEImAQQODRqHXwGlZpx9jzgxgyeBEQOedosngyiCKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,724,1378872000"; d="scan'208";a="37280283" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2013 11:45:29 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2013 11:39:13 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC04.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.14]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:45:28 +0100 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 Thread-Index: Ac7kfZXgBPXNkVKoRnSjO64aLIqIrw== Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:45:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1293FC7D@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: [pm-dir] PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:48:49 -0000 This is the PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10. I am the assig= ned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D.=20 This Internet-Draft defines the media transport aspects and provides the de= tails of the RTP usage in WebRTC - specifically the requirements for which = RTP features, profiles and extensions need to be supported in WebRTC.=20 The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a 6390 review does not appl= y.=20 The I-D includes a short section (section 8) dedicated to 'WebRTC Use of RT= P: Performance Monitoring'. I am fine with the content of this section with= two comments:=20 1.=20 > It is not yet clear what extended metrics are appropriate for use in the WebRTC context, so implementations are not expected to generate any RTCP XR packets. I believe that it would be more appropriate to replace ' implementations ar= e not expected ' by ' implementations are not required ' 2.=20 > A large number of additional performance metrics are supported by the RTCP Extended Reports (XR) framework [RFC3611]. =20 I think that mentioning 3611 only is limiting nowadays and that RFC 6792 sh= ould be mentioned as well. Regards, Dan From magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Tue Nov 19 02:55:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AC01ADBF7; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:55:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wEaOOLycnJY5; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DCF1AD7BF; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:55:01 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-c9-528b437f9585 Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 63.DE.27941.F734B825; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:54 +0100 Message-ID: <528B437E.5090903@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:54:54 +0100 From: Magnus Westerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1293FC7D@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1293FC7D@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW69c3eQwZRbyhZff/5gtTj6wdJi 7b92dgdmj4Mr57B7LFnykymAKYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr48zsicwFT/gruk/OYGxgPMvTxcjJ ISFgInFw1xcmCFtM4sK99WwgtpDAEUaJezMkuhi5gOzljBLtp6+xgyR4BbQlWvZ/YAWxWQRU JRae+c8IYrMJWEjc/NEI1iwqECxx/tViqHpBiZMzn7CA2CICYRIT5x4F62UWUJe4s/gcWI2w gKvEv+n97BCLgyU+7zsJdhCnQIjEnEVngGwOoOPEJXoagyBa9SSmXG1hhLDlJZq3zmaGaNWW aGjqYJ3AKDQLyeZZSFpmIWlZwMi8ipGjOLU4KTfdyGATIzBkD275bbGD8fJfm0OM0hwsSuK8 H986BwkJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg7HHte30waf++KzsmCHKmp9yO/P0+fFpq 45elvAVhV/bM37t3169wN+cXbmf4OAoXJJUKzdZ/XRm0ZsU5udObVp/99vfkzlvHd8Wz7XhU FXN0g5/b84mefmtuXD1eO0tFqPfwv3XSj0+Vb/kjp/XHx/ZrotTB2QZt8xO75Ep9Nu5Pn1pu 8FgouEGJpTgj0VCLuag4EQCZKIqpJwIAAA== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 01:49:51 -0800 Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [rtcweb] PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:55:04 -0000 Hi Dan, Thanks for your review. I see no issue with changing the document as you have requested. Cheers Magnus On 2013-11-18 17:45, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > This is the PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10. I am the > assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. > > This Internet-Draft defines the media transport aspects and provides > the details of the RTP usage in WebRTC - specifically the > requirements for which RTP features, profiles and extensions need to > be supported in WebRTC. > > The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a 6390 review does > not apply. > > The I-D includes a short section (section 8) dedicated to 'WebRTC Use > of RTP: Performance Monitoring'. I am fine with the content of this > section with two comments: > > 1. >> It is not yet clear > what extended metrics are appropriate for use in the WebRTC context, > so implementations are not expected to generate any RTCP XR packets. > > I believe that it would be more appropriate to replace ' > implementations are not expected ' by ' implementations are not > required ' > > 2. >> A large number of additional performance metrics are supported by >> the > RTCP Extended Reports (XR) framework [RFC3611]. > > I think that mentioning 3611 only is limiting nowadays and that RFC > 6792 should be mentioned as well. > > Regards, > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > -- Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 F�r�gatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From bclaise@cisco.com Thu Nov 21 02:24:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BDE1AD75F for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:24:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.026 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8b-uQHUXpvil for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4690C1ACCEA for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:24:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=496; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385029473; x=1386239073; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=+DchM3CxdCp1DfP3S54UGjRE4qIDA0b88QJ1ceyRWJk=; b=MJN9jxiZSlGgPTanBSl051uJhBusQJ5wlva6Y/ud7/T+6a+MhVpbGJuF UzykBsOeUKRrN/WR3cIRSZJIPDTP5cRk4vzHLvjWJh89nCAMVZEBzb+eY borPXQ9fSp+dSi+C8+/2XpMP3vqNoqSPLnJy0D9l60qsFfgccDqvO3BG9 g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvQFAB/ejVKQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4vm4WbQeCZEA9FhgDAgECAUsNCAEBh30NoFagGwSUJAOYEoZCi06DKTs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,743,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="970078" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2013 10:24:31 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rALAOPjW015525 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:27 GMT Message-ID: <528DDF59.9050204@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:24:25 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pm-dir] Support for Multiple Clock Rates in an RTP Session X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:41 -0000 Dear all, FYI. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-rates/ Abstract This document clarifies the RTP specification when different clock rates are used in an RTP session. It also provides guidance on how to interoperate with legacy RTP implementations that use multiple clock rates. It updates RFC 3550. This document explains the implication of multiple clock rates within a single SSRC on the jitter calculation. Regards, Benoit From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Nov 24 14:07:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E962C1AE35B for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:07:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TqD7VFoIui5J for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8151AE382 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:07:05 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAOM6uuK024759 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:06:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (sweet-brew-5.cisco.com [144.254.10.206]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAOM6DFS024721 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:06:37 +0100 (CET) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id rAOM6BB4012611 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:06:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:06:11 +0100 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20131124220611.GA12609@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:07:07 -0000 Dear all, This is an automatically generated email. It lists the IETF internet-drafts that reference the PMOL RFC 6390, as a normative or informative reference. It also lists all the IETF internet-drafts that contain "performance metric". Regards, Benoit =========================================================== Normative References -------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-07 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08 Active draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-01Active draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-01 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 Active draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01 Active draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-00 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-04 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-10 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-02 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10 Active draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-07 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xt-discard-metrics-00 Active