From shida@ntt-at.com Wed May 29 10:00:52 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 A990421F972F for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.835, BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 Z4F1q7OvE92E for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (gator465.hostgator.com [69.56.174.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F1321F972D for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [50.152.169.249] (port=57913 helo=[192.168.1.23]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uhjjz-0002U1-90; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:00:47 -0500 From: Shida Schubert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:00:46 -0700 Message-Id: <2870F991-096A-4266-98D7-8BBAD263FD41@ntt-at.com> To: pm-dir@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.1.23]) [50.152.169.249]:57913 X-Source-Auth: shida.schubert+tingle.jp X-Email-Count: 4 X-Source-Cap: c3NoaWRhO3NzaGlkYTtnYXRvcjQ2NS5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 05:40:03 -0700 Cc: Benoit Claise , "Dan \(Dan\) Romascanu" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 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: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:00:52 -0000 Dear PMDIR,=20 As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request an RFC6390=20 review of = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05.=20= This document is in WGLC until June 12th.=20 Many Thanks & Regards Shida Schubert =20= From acmorton@att.com Sat Jun 1 06:38:29 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 31E4621E8148 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Gph54SLNkm6v for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4A421E8205 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F9A12046C; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED377F0362; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:35:12 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: Shida Schubert , "pm-dir@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 09:35:11 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Thread-Index: Ac5ezEm4nhnfyxgtQiOHEOuJ/zIddwAADMKg Message-ID: References: <2870F991-096A-4266-98D7-8BBAD263FD41@ntt-at.com> In-Reply-To: <2870F991-096A-4266-98D7-8BBAD263FD41@ntt-at.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Benoit Claise , "Dan \(Dan\) Romascanu" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 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: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 13:38:29 -0000 Hi Shida, (sorry for the delay moderating this message) The requested review has been sent to the authors and pm-dir, from Vinayak Hegde (appended below). There are a couple of=20 questions, but it looks as though the draft is in decent shape. Al -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- I did a review of the RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporti= ng on Audio Applications (version 5) Link - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-0= 5 The draft is well written and conforms to RFC 6390 template for performance= metric definition. I have only some small nitpicks to improve clarity and = comprehension. Comments follow: =3D=3D=3D 1.1 SCS threshold fixed (constant) - how is it communicated to the receiver ? P= lease add a reference to the definition later in the draft. 3.2. Definition of Fields in Loss Concealment Report Block VAD acronym is not defined at first use though it is defined and referenced= further down in the draft. Please reference it here to improve clarity. -- Vinayak > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Shida Schubert > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:01 PM > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise; Dan (Dan) Romascanu; Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of draft-ietf-xrblock- > rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 >=20 >=20 > Dear PMDIR, >=20 > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request an RFC6390 > review of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss- > conceal-05. >=20 > This document is in WGLC until June 12th. >=20 > Many Thanks & Regards > Shida Schubert >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pm-dir mailing list > pm-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Jun 2 14:06:43 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 4F78A21F918C for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, 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 pD+mPt1YHXgJ for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 14:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380E021F86C0 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 14:06:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 r52L6Xdq012157 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 23:06:33 +0200 (CEST) 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 r52L63ZL015830 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 23:06:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id r52L63gj001302 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130602210603.GA1300@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, 02 Jun 2013 21:06:43 -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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active From shida@ntt-at.com Sun Jun 2 20:38:51 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 BEDB921F8F2F for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 8s+u7Jq62DBJ for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (gator465.hostgator.com [69.56.174.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AF421F8900 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [50.152.169.249] (port=60633 helo=[192.168.1.5]) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UjLba-0002xV-3N; Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:38:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Shida Schubert In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:38:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9D8F10E0-737B-494C-8416-1C43E56DBAAC@ntt-at.com> References: <2870F991-096A-4266-98D7-8BBAD263FD41@ntt-at.com> To: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.1.5]) [50.152.169.249]:60633 X-Source-Auth: shida.schubert+tingle.jp X-Email-Count: 4 X-Source-Cap: c3NoaWRhO3NzaGlkYTtnYXRvcjQ2NS5ob3N0Z2F0b3IuY29t X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 06:11:38 -0700 Cc: Benoit Claise , "Dan \(Dan\) Romascanu" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 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, 03 Jun 2013 03:38:51 -0000 Thanks Al, I appreciate it! Regards Shida On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:35 AM, MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > Hi Shida, >=20 > (sorry for the delay moderating this message) >=20 > The requested review has been sent to the authors and pm-dir, > from Vinayak Hegde (appended below). There are a couple of=20 > questions, but it looks as though the draft is in decent shape. >=20 > Al >=20 > -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- >=20 > I did a review of the RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics = Reporting on Audio Applications (version 5) > Link - = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 >=20 > The draft is well written and conforms to RFC 6390 template for = performance metric definition. I have only some small nitpicks to = improve clarity and comprehension. Comments follow: > =3D=3D=3D > 1.1 > SCS threshold fixed (constant) - how is it communicated to the = receiver ? Please add a reference to the definition later in the draft. >=20 > 3.2. Definition of Fields in Loss Concealment Report Block >=20 > VAD acronym is not defined at first use though it is defined and = referenced further down in the draft. Please reference it here to = improve clarity. >=20 > -- Vinayak >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >> Of Shida Schubert >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:01 PM >> To: pm-dir@ietf.org >> Cc: Benoit Claise; Dan (Dan) Romascanu; Gonzalo Camarillo >> Subject: [pm-dir] Request for an RFC6390 review of = draft-ietf-xrblock- >> rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 >>=20 >>=20 >> Dear PMDIR, >>=20 >> As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request an RFC6390 >> review of = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss- >> conceal-05. >>=20 >> This document is in WGLC until June 12th. >>=20 >> Many Thanks & Regards >> Shida Schubert >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> pm-dir mailing list >> pm-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From bill.wu@huawei.com Mon Jun 3 06:04:23 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 D997021F8DBC for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 YHbOkZABw6Tv for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6242211E80A2 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATN35836; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:04:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:03:26 +0100 Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:04:08 +0800 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:04:05 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Vinayak Hegde , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "gwz@net-zen.net" , "alan.d.clark@telchemy.com" , "bijy@sttri.com.cn" Thread-Topic: PM dir - Review of RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporting on Audio Applications Thread-Index: AQHOXnGCmYh7lO6v3EiVgtu3Ov42zpkj94Qw Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:04:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B3E9EBnkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 06:11:38 -0700 Subject: Re: [pm-dir] PM dir - Review of RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporting on Audio Applications 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, 03 Jun 2013 13:04:23 -0000 --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B3E9EBnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Vinayak: Thanks for your valuable review, please see my reply inline below. Regards! -Qin From: Vinayak Hegde [mailto:vinayakh@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:41 AM To: pm-dir@ietf.org; gwz@net-zen.net; alan.d.clark@telchemy.com; bijy@sttri= .com.cn; Qin Wu Subject: PM dir - Review of RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Re= porting on Audio Applications Hi draft authors / PM-dir, I did a review of the RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Reporti= ng on Audio Applications (version 5) Link - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-0= 5 The draft is well written and conforms to RFC 6390 template for performance= metric definition. I have only some small nitpicks to improve clarity and = comprehension. Comments follow: =3D=3D=3D 1.1 SCS threshold fixed (constant) - how is it communicated to the receiver ? P= lease add a reference to the definition later in the draft. [Qin]: Good comment. We will add a sentence in the offer answer usage secti= on (i.e., section 5.2) to say: threshold is declared by the offer since med= ia sent by the entity that generated the SDP in one direction. 3.2. Definition of Fields in Loss Concealment Report Block VAD acronym is not defined at first use though it is defined and referenced= further down in the draft. Please reference it here to improve clarity. [Qin]: Okay, thanks. -- Vinayak --_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B3E9EBnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Vinayak:

Thanks for your valuable review, please see my reply= inline below.

 

Regards!

-Qin

From: Vinayak = Hegde [mailto:vinayakh@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:41 AM
To: pm-dir@ietf.org; gwz@net-zen.net; alan.d.clark@telchemy.com; bij= y@sttri.com.cn; Qin Wu
Subject: PM dir - Review of RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment met= rics Reporting on Audio Applications

 

Hi draft authors / PM-dir,

I did a review of the  RTCP XR Report Block for Concealment metrics Re= porting on Audio Applications (version 5)
Link - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05
The draft is well written and conforms to RFC 6390 template for performance= metric definition. I have only some small nitpicks to improve clarity and = comprehension. Comments follow:
=3D=3D=3D
1.1
SCS threshold fixed (constant) - how is it communicated to the receiver ? P= lease add a reference to the definition later in the draft.

[Qin]: Good comment. We w= ill add a sentence in the offer answer usage section (i.e., section 5.2) to= say: threshold is declared by the offer since media sent by the entity that  generated the SDP in one direction.


3.2. Definition of Fields in Loss Concealment Report Block

VAD acronym is not defined at first use though it is defined and referenced= further down in the draft. Please reference it here to improve clarity.

 <= /p>

[Qin]: Okay, thanks.=



-- Vinayak

--_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B3E9EBnkgeml501mbschi_-- From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Jun 3 06:48:51 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 33EEB21F994E for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:48:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 owxUexMVo2nK for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70C121F964C for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:48:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtUMAF2drFGHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABZgmghML57AQMBAwGBABZtB4IlAQEDEig/EgEVFRRCJgEEDg0BGYdrAQufIJwYjk8nMYJ+YQOdf4p/gViBN4In X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,792,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="14450360" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2013 09:48:45 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2013 09:44:13 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:48:43 +0200 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "pm-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQ== Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:48:43 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@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: "Benoit Claise \(bclaise\)" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 03 Jun 2013 13:48:51 -0000 Hi PMDIR, As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 review= of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in WGLC until 6/17. Thanks and Regards, Dan From acmorton@att.com Mon Jun 3 13:57:22 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 8FE5421F96FB for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:57:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 sC3S5S5s1qVy for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D972A11E80F9 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D030E120464; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC9CF018E; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:51:57 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: Benoit Claise , "pm-dir@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:51:56 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email Thread-Index: Ac5f1R/jKcWHz88ZQ0m90H0IVSkjFgAxta0Q Message-ID: References: <20130602210603.GA1300@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20130602210603.GA1300@sweet-brew-5.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:57:22 -0000 Here are the diffs from May 15: [system@dell4-4 pm-dir]$ cat diff.txt Diffs from Last Week -=3Dold, +=3Dnew -------------------- --- pmol-old-content.txt 2013-05-15 +++ pmol-uniq-content.txt 2013-06-03 16:47:46.700066939 -0400 @@ -2 +2 @@ -draft-ietf-alto-protocol-15 Active +draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active @@ -13,5 +13,4 @@ -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-12 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-11 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-13 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 Active -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID = Tracker state @@ -19 +18 @@ -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-07 Active +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active @@ -21 +20 @@ -draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-04 Active +draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active [system@dell4-4 pm-dir]$ > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Benoit Claise > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 5:06 PM > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > Subject: [pm-dir] Performance metrics doctors generated email >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > 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". >=20 > Regards, Benoit >=20 > =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 >=20 > Normative References > -------------------- > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state >=20 > Informative References > ---------------------- > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state needed> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active >=20 > drafts containing performance metric > ------------------------------------ > draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active > draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active > draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active > draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active > draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active > draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active > draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state needed> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID > Tracker state > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active > _______________________________________________ > pm-dir mailing list > pm-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From acmorton@att.com Tue Jun 4 08:15:53 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 14E4E21E80A0 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:15:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 UVfgp7bXAiN3 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBBE21F9D1E for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.10]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE25812035A; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B879E01B5; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:22:59 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:22:58 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQAwUcDA Message-ID: References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Benoit Claise \(bclaise\)" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:15:53 -0000 Dan and pm-dir, Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS appear in the report blocks. So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new block, it seems more accurate to simply say:=20 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric Reporting and the related global changes in the text. And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the definition = of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have understood for decades. regards, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 >=20 > Hi PMDIR, >=20 > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 > review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in WGLC > until 6/17. >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pm-dir mailing list > pm-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Jun 4 08:21:14 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 A74DB21F9079; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:21:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.431, 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 NkZXd6gjRkiX; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 08:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE5121F9D8F; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FADHqrVHGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABZgmghML8KfxZ0giMBAQEBAwEBAQ8oNAsMBAIBCA0EBAEBCxQFBAcnCxQJCAEBBAENBQgBGYdrAQugaJxnF451MQcGgnFhA51/in+BWIE3gic X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,799,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="11830144" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2013 09:28:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2013 09:27:13 -0400 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:28:17 -0400 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , 'xrblock' Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQAwUcDAAAEfFiA= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:28:16 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: 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: "Benoit Claise \(bclaise\)" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:21:14 -0000 (forwarding also to the xrblock list) This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the futu= re for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to c= haracterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and other= participants in the WG.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > Dan and pm-dir, >=20 > Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? >=20 > Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: >=20 > Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS > appear in the report blocks. > So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new > block, it seems more accurate to simply say: >=20 > RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > Reporting >=20 > and the related global changes in the text. >=20 > And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the > definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have > understood for decades. >=20 > regards, > Al >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > > > Hi PMDIR, > > > > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 > > review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in WGLC > > until 6/17. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pm-dir mailing list > > pm-dir@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From bill.wu@huawei.com Wed Jun 5 22:44:09 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 28D7121F9690; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.788 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] 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 AEsaUIhpb51C; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64ECA21F9691; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ATP72644; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:43:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:42:59 +0100 Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:43:52 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:43:45 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "'xrblock'" Thread-Topic: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQAwUcDAAAEfFiAAVDjD8A== Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:43:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.99.205.228] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:32:57 -0700 Cc: "Benoit Claise \(bclaise\)" Subject: [pm-dir] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogW3hyYmxvY2tdICByZXF1ZXN0IGZvciBhbiBS?= =?gb2312?b?RkMgNjM5MCByZXZpZXcgb2YgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZC9kcmFm?= =?gb2312?b?dC1pZXRmLXhyYmxvY2stcnRjcC14ci1xb2UtMDgudHh0?= 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, 06 Jun 2013 05:44:09 -0000 SSBjYW4gdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBBbCdzIGNvbmNlcm4gYW5kIHByb3Bvc2FsLiBIb3dldmVyIGRvIHdl IGhhdmUgb3RoZXIgd2F5cyB0byByZXBvcnQgUW9FIGluIG1pbmQgYmVzaWRlcyBNb1MgbWV0cmlj IHJlcG9ydGluZy4NCk1vUyBtZXRyaWMgcmVwb3J0aW5nIGlzIHdpZGVseSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHRv IGEgcmFuZ2Ugb2YgUlRQIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhdWRpbywgdmlkZW8gYW5kIG11 bHRpbWVkaWEgYXBwbGljYXRpb24uDQpOb3QgY2xlYXIgdG8gbWUgdGhlcmUgd2lsbCBiZSBvdGhl ciBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZXMgYmV0dGVyIHRoYW4gTW9TIG1ldHJpY3MgcmVwb3J0aW5nPw0KDQpCdXQg SSBhbSBmaW5lIGlmIGFueWJvZHkgaGFzIG5vIG9iamVjdGlvbiB0byB0YWtlIHRoaXMgcHJvcG9z YWwuDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMhDQotUWluDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogeHJibG9j ay1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86eHJibG9jay1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHt IFJvbWFzY2FudSwgRGFuIChEYW4pDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxM8TqNtTCNMjVIDIxOjI4DQrK1bz+ yMs6IE1PUlRPTiBKUi4sIEFMRlJFRCBDIChBTCk7IHBtLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZzsgJ3hyYmxvY2sn DQqzrcvNOiBCZW5vaXQgQ2xhaXNlIChiY2xhaXNlKQ0K1vfM4jogUmU6IFt4cmJsb2NrXSBbcG0t ZGlyXSByZXF1ZXN0IGZvciBhbiBSRkMgNjM5MCByZXZpZXcgb2YgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9pZC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXhyYmxvY2stcnRjcC14ci1xb2UtMDgudHh0DQoNCihmb3J3YXJkaW5n IGFsc28gdG8gdGhlIHhyYmxvY2sgbGlzdCkNCg0KVGhpcyBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSBsaWtlIGEgZ29v ZCBjb21tZW50IC0gQWwncyBwcm9wb3NhbCBtYWtlcyByb29tIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUgZm9yIG1l dHJpY3MgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRoYW4gdGhlIG9uZXMgcmVwb3J0aW5nIE1PUyB2YWx1ZXMgdG8gYmUg dXNlZCB0byBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpemUgUW9FLiBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gaGVhciB0aGUgb3Bpbmlv biBvZiB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycywgYW5kIG90aGVyIHBhcnRpY2lwYW50cyBpbiB0aGUgV0cuIA0KDQpU aGFua3MgYW5kIFJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCkRhbg0KDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0t LS0NCj4gRnJvbTogTU9SVE9OIEpSLiwgQUxGUkVEIEMgKEFMKSBbbWFpbHRvOmFjbW9ydG9uQGF0 dC5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEp1bmUgMDQsIDIwMTMgNDoyMyBQTQ0KPiBUbzogUm9t YXNjYW51LCBEYW4gKERhbik7IHBtLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBDYzogQmVub2l0IENsYWlzZSAo YmNsYWlzZSk7IEdvbnphbG8gQ2FtYXJpbGxvDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbcG0tZGlyXSByZXF1 ZXN0IGZvciBhbiBSRkMgNjM5MCByZXZpZXcgb2YgDQo+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWQv ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi14cmJsb2NrLXJ0Y3AteHItcW9lLTA4LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gRGFuIGFuZCBwbS1k aXIsDQo+IA0KPiBDb25zaWRlciB5b3VyIHJlcXVlc3QgbWFkZS4gRG8gd2UgaGF2ZSBhIHZvbHVu dGVlcj8NCj4gDQo+IEhlcmUncyBhIGNvbW1lbnQgYmFzZWQgb24gbXkgc2NhbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJh ZnQ6DQo+IA0KPiBBbHRob3VnaCB0aGUgcXVhbGl0eSBsZXZlbCBpcyBkZXNjcmliZWQgYXMgUW9F LCBvbmx5IGVzdGltYXRlcyBvZiBNT1MgDQo+IGFwcGVhciBpbiB0aGUgcmVwb3J0IGJsb2Nrcy4N Cj4gU28gcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gcmVseWluZyBvbiB0aGUgaW5kdXN0cnkncyBidXp6d29yZCB0byBk ZXNjcmliZSB0aGUgbmV3IA0KPiBibG9jaywgaXQgc2VlbXMgbW9yZSBhY2N1cmF0ZSB0byBzaW1w bHkgc2F5Og0KPiANCj4gUlRQIENvbnRyb2wgUHJvdG9jb2wgKFJUQ1ApIEV4dGVuZGVkIFJlcG9y dCAoWFIpIEJsb2NrcyBmb3IgTU9TIE1ldHJpYw0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgUmVwb3J0aW5nDQo+IA0KPiBhbmQgdGhlIHJlbGF0ZWQgZ2xvYmFsIGNoYW5nZXMgaW4g dGhlIHRleHQuDQo+IA0KPiBBbmQgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlcmUgaXMgY29udGludWVkIGRpc2N1c3Np b24gYW5kIGV2b2x1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgDQo+IGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgUW9FLCBNT1MgaXMganVz dCBvbmUgYXNwZWN0IG9mIFFvRSAtIHRoZSBhc3BlY3Qgd2UgaGF2ZSANCj4gdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBm b3IgZGVjYWRlcy4NCj4gDQo+IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+IEFsDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdp bmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+IEZyb206IHBtLWRpci1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWls dG86cG0tZGlyLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIA0KPiA+IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBSb21hc2NhbnUs IERhbiAoRGFuKQ0KPiA+IFNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgSnVuZSAwMywgMjAxMyA5OjQ5IEFNDQo+ID4g VG86IHBtLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+IENjOiBCZW5vaXQgQ2xhaXNlIChiY2xhaXNlKTsgR29u emFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG8NCj4gPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbcG0tZGlyXSByZXF1ZXN0IGZvciBhbiBSRkMg NjM5MCByZXZpZXcgb2YgDQo+ID4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXhy YmxvY2stcnRjcC14ci1xb2UtMDgudHh0DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEhpIFBNRElSLA0KPiA+DQo+ ID4gQXMgYSBjby1jaGFpciBvZiBYUkJMT0NLIFdHLCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCB0 aGUgYW4gUkZDIDYzOTAgDQo+ID4gcmV2aWV3IG9mIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYteHJibG9jay1ydGNwLXhy LXFvZS0wOC4gVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBpbiANCj4gPiBXR0xDIHVudGlsIDYvMTcuDQo+ID4N Cj4gPiBUaGFua3MgYW5kIFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBEYW4NCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gPiBwbS1kaXIg bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+ID4gcG0tZGlyQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wbS1kaXINCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQp4cmJsb2NrIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KeHJibG9ja0BpZXRmLm9y Zw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby94cmJsb2NrDQo= From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Fri Jun 7 04:17:19 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 CA50021F867B for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 MYFUvS6B4mju for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF33C21F8C38 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54264D9309 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:10 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ifSvQtqtnPBr for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08B23D9304 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:10 +0200 (MEST) From: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:17:09 +0200 Message-Id: <012B72F1-710A-44C8-AEF7-773FF5920FFC@tik.ee.ethz.ch> To: pm-dir@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Subject: [pm-dir] draft-ietf-alto-protocol metareview 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, 07 Jun 2013 11:17:19 -0000 Greetings, all, As the assigned/volunteered pm-dir reviewer for = draft-ietf-alto-protocol, I've quickly reviewed the document, and found = that it does not define any performance metrics which should be subject = to review: the mention of performance metrics in the draft is a note = that ALTO-based traffic optimization could be used as an input to = metric-based traffic optimization processes, in order to guide active = measurements and make them more efficient (section 1.2.2). ALTO uses a "cost metric" for traffic optimization, with a single metric = provided by the base protocol: "routingcost" (Section 6.1.1.1). The = exact mapping of this to any real-world value is explicitly declared out = of scope: "This Cost Metric conveys a generic measure for the cost of = routing traffic from a source to a destination. Lower values indicate a = higher preference for traffic to be sent from a source to a destination. = Note that an ISP may internally compute routing cost using any method it = chooses (e.g., air-miles or hop-count) as long as it conforms to these = semantics." Performance metrics (i.e.., of the ALTO protocol itself) are explicitly = out of scope for the document (15.2.5.) IMO pm-dir need not take any further action for this document. Best regards, Brian= From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Jun 9 14:06:41 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 E80EB21F8FA1 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:06:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, 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 p8+iDqLIpWOM for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C9921F8F9E for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:06:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 r59L6OMD019604 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:06:24 +0200 (CEST) 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 r59L674u016573 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id r59L634R028772 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130609210603.GA28770@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, 09 Jun 2013 21:06:42 -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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active From acmorton@att.com Wed Jun 12 05:14:40 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 A547121F9A82 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:14:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 cFW3rq4HmsDQ for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F7321F9C3D for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A52120499; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F8BF036D; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:14:33 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:14:32 -0400 Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQAwUcDAAZArs/A= Message-ID: References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Benoit Claise \(bclaise\)" , Gonzalo Camarillo Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:14:40 -0000 Dan, I circulated your request for comments beyond pm-dir, among folks whose wor= k is referenced and reported in this draft. Several people commented, and there was an independent request for the change to MOS already suggested. I have consolidated the three additional comments below. Please consider these comments during WGLC. regards, Al -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Since it has just been approved in March 2013, [P.NBAMS-HR] can now be repl= aced by [P.1202.2]. The list of models referred to in this future RFC should be extended to inc= lude G.107.1,=20 P.862.1, P.862.2 and P.863. Important Point concerning MOS scales:=20 There is no place in this draft RFC to define the type of MOS scale reporte= d=20 according to the terminology defined in P.800.1.=20 Here is a simple example. Depending on whether you use or not a measurement= result=20 for end-to-end delay for the MOS computation (if not, you will use a 0 ms d= efault value),=20 the E-model will give you a MOS-CQE or a MOS-LQE (this is terminology from = P.800.1).=20 Another example is whether you use a Narrow-Band (NB) scale or a mixed Wide= Band-NB scale.=20 These are only audio examples and there may be similar examples for video,= =20 but apparently this draft applies to audio MOS alone. In other words, it ma= y not be sufficient to simply cite the Recommendation used for calculations, there are further = details needed to interpret the MOS value. -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:23 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information= . >=20 > Dan and pm-dir, >=20 > Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? >=20 > Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: >=20 > Although the quality level is described as QoE, > only estimates of MOS appear in the report blocks. > So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to > describe the new block, it seems more accurate to simply say: >=20 > RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > Reporting >=20 > and the related global changes in the text. >=20 > And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the definitio= n > of QoE, > MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have understood for decades= . >=20 > regards, > Al >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > > > Hi PMDIR, > > > > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 > > review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in WGLC > > until 6/17. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 From Roland.Schott@telekom.de Wed Jun 12 23:48:01 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 4FAA421F9A2C; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 kiFCro1mKanY; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F57221F9A24; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.17]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 13 Jun 2013 08:47:54 +0200 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.17]) by HE113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:47:53 +0200 From: To: , , , Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:47:52 +0200 Thread-Topic: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: Ac5gYQ9I7RVp2fqNSQGoapzPQBnVOQAwUcDAAAEfFiABtpgxUA== Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D17B5000E34@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:07:55 -0700 Cc: bclaise@cisco.com Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 13 Jun 2013 06:48:01 -0000 Dear all, Quality of Experience (QoE), is a subjective measure of a customer's experi= ences with a service. QoE systems will try to measure metrics that customer= will directly perceive as a quality parameter. In my opinion QoE is a good expression to convey our intention. Regards Roland -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag = von Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 15:28 An: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; 'xrblock' Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise) Betreff: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://ww= w.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt (forwarding also to the xrblock list) This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the futu= re for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to c= haracterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and other= participants in the WG. Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > Dan and pm-dir, > > Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? > > Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: > > Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS > appear in the report blocks. > So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new > block, it seems more accurate to simply say: > > RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > Reporting > > and the related global changes in the text. > > And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the > definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have > understood for decades. > > regards, > Al > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > > > Hi PMDIR, > > > > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 > > review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in WGLC > > until 6/17. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pm-dir mailing list > > pm-dir@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock From yaakov_s@rad.com Thu Jun 13 05:46:04 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 78F5821F9A8C for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:46:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, 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 PtnWP74-w+KD for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay01.rad.co.il [62.0.23.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646DC21F9A2A for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay01 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Jun 2013 15:37:53 +0300 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:45:20 +0300 From: Yaakov Stein To: "Roland.Schott@telekom.de" , "dromasca@avaya.com" , "acmorton@att.com" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "xrblock@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOaC6pdgG619SDSEe9h3s2CbSpFZkzlDjg Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:45:20 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904E24400@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA17F3AD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1816DA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D17B5000E34@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D17B5000E34@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.17.140.37] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A0C0202.51B9BEE1.0165,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: "bclaise@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 13 Jun 2013 12:46:04 -0000 One should distinguish subjective QoE measures (averaging of measurements o= n human subjects, e.g., MOS, MUSHRA, BT.500, Apdex) and objective QoE (i.e., predictions of algorithms that have shown to corre= late well with subjective QoE, e.g., PESQ, PEAQ, P.563, PEVQ). Also note that there are several scales used for QoE type measures. MOS is from 1 to 5 (and CCR MOS is from -3 to 3). Apdex is from 0 to 1. R-f= actor is from 0 to 100. So when retrieving a QoE measure one needs to know what to expect. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Roland.Schott@telekom.de Sent: 13 June, 2013 09:48 To: dromasca@avaya.com; acmorton@att.com; pm-dir@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.org Cc: bclaise@cisco.com Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://ww= w.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Dear all, Quality of Experience (QoE), is a subjective measure of a customer's experi= ences with a service. QoE systems will try to measure metrics that customer= will directly perceive as a quality parameter. In my opinion QoE is a good expression to convey our intention. Regards Roland -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag = von Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 15:28 An: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; 'xrblock' Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise) Betreff: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://ww= w.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt (forwarding also to the xrblock list) This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the futu= re for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to c= haracterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and other= participants in the WG. Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > Dan and pm-dir, > > Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? > > Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: > > Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS=20 > appear in the report blocks. > So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new=20 > block, it seems more accurate to simply say: > > RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > Reporting > > and the related global changes in the text. > > And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the=20 > definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have=20 > understood for decades. > > regards, > Al > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > > To: pm-dir@ietf.org > > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > > Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of=20 > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > > > Hi PMDIR, > > > > As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390=20 > > review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in=20 > > WGLC until 6/17. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pm-dir mailing list > > pm-dir@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock _______________________________________________ pm-dir mailing list pm-dir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From alan.d.clark@telchemy.com Thu Jun 13 06:26:50 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 70B3E21F8F33; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:26:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 BX6G4WOZ6w4t; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omx.cbeyond.com (omx.cbeyond.com [50.20.30.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A71421F8B51; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:26:15 -0700 (PDT) X-SBRS: None X-HAT: Sender Group None, Policy $ACCEPTED applied. X-Hostname: omx06bay.sys.cbeyond.net X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjkDAMTHuVEYYhY6/2dsb2JhbAANToM5vy8DARZ/gxcBAQEDAQEBATkBMQsFBwYBCBEEAQEkBC4fCQgCBAENBQmHfxKoUpJPjmQsMwcGg1oDiGihc4FT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,858,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="36150888" Received: from c-24-98-22-58.hsd1.ga.comcast.net (HELO [192.168.1.8]) ([24.98.22.58]) by omx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA; 13 Jun 2013 09:26:11 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:26:05 -0400 From: Alan Clark To: Yaakov Stein , "Roland.Schott@telekom.de" , "Dan (Dan)" , Al Morton , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "xrblock@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOaC6pdgG619SDSEe9h3s2CbSpFZkzlDjggAAOhxA= In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904E24400@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "bclaise@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 13 Jun 2013 13:26:51 -0000 I agree that "MOS" is widely used and widely misunderstood. There are many different MOS ranges 1-5, 1-10, 1-11,....... and a plethora of other QoE related metrics ITU P.800.1 helps to an extent for speech MOS - using MOS-[L|C]Q[E|O|S] where L =3D Listening, C =3D Conversational, E =3D estimated, O =3D objective and S =3D subjective. Things are getting more complex - with speech/audio there are at least six different audio bandwidths/ sample rates used, in some cases the MOS/QoE score is mapped onto different ranges and sometimes onto the same range. With video we are already seeing 4k resolutions as well as 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480i...... Yaakov also points out indirectly that there are many organizations that develop algorithms and standards related to the user perceived quality of applications (in the broad sense). ITU-T has a long history with speech MOS and a shorter history with video MOS measurement, ITU-R with video and audi= o MOS, and other organizations with data/ application QoE models. Just a minor point on Yaakov's comments - P.563 obtained good correlation when averaged over a large set of conditions and speech samples (which is how ITU tested the algorithm) however performs poorly for individual calls, with MOS errors of up to +/- 40%. Regards Alan On 6/13/13 8:45 AM, "Yaakov Stein" wrote: > One should distinguish subjective QoE measures (averaging of measurements= on > human subjects, e.g., MOS, MUSHRA, BT.500, Apdex) > and objective QoE (i.e., predictions of algorithms that have shown to > correlate well with subjective QoE, e.g., PESQ, PEAQ, P.563, PEVQ). >=20 > Also note that there are several scales used for QoE type measures. > MOS is from 1 to 5 (and CCR MOS is from -3 to 3). Apdex is from 0 to 1. > R-factor is from 0 to 100. > So when retrieving a QoE measure one needs to know what to expect. >=20 > Y(J)S >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Roland.Schott@telekom.de > Sent: 13 June, 2013 09:48 > To: dromasca@avaya.com; acmorton@att.com; pm-dir@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.o= rg > Cc: bclaise@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > Quality of Experience (QoE), is a subjective measure of a customer's > experiences with a service. QoE systems will try to measure metrics that > customer will directly perceive as a quality parameter. > In my opinion QoE is a good expression to convey our intention. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Roland >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftra= g von > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 15:28 > An: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; 'xrblock' > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise) > Betreff: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > (forwarding also to the xrblock list) >=20 > This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the fu= ture > for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to > characterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and ot= her > participants in the WG. >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org >> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo >> Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >>=20 >> Dan and pm-dir, >>=20 >> Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? >>=20 >> Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: >>=20 >> Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS >> appear in the report blocks. >> So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new >> block, it seems more accurate to simply say: >>=20 >> RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric >> Reporting >>=20 >> and the related global changes in the text. >>=20 >> And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the >> definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have >> understood for decades. >>=20 >> regards, >> Al >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM >>> To: pm-dir@ietf.org >>> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo >>> Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Hi PMDIR, >>>=20 >>> As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 >>> review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in >>> WGLC until 6/17. >>>=20 >>> Thanks and Regards, >>>=20 >>> Dan >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pm-dir mailing list >>> pm-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir > _______________________________________________ > xrblock mailing list > xrblock@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock > _______________________________________________ > 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 From bill.wu@huawei.com Thu Jun 13 18:01:40 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 7242D21F9B80; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.671, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ynnla+7aRO4R; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1EB21F9B64; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASL01338; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:01:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:01:14 +0100 Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:01:30 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:01:24 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Alan Clark , Yaakov Stein , "Roland.Schott@telekom.de" , "Dan (Dan)" , Al Morton , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "xrblock@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOaDm5AZi4QcJDJ0au0jgQLHQH35k0YQsg Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:01:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904E24400@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 04:35:22 -0700 Cc: "bclaise@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 14 Jun 2013 01:01:40 -0000 Hi,all: It looks to me we are talking about two things. One is mos type,e.g., listening MoS, Conversational MoS, objective MoS, Sub= jective MoS. The other is Mos reference or MoS Scale, e.g., audio with different bandwid= th, video with different resolution. Regarding mos type, I am wondering whether it can be inferred from payload = type carried in the QoE XR Block, If the answer is no, I think we can add one new SDP attribute called "mos t= ype", mapping "mos type" in the SDP=20 to CAID used in the packet. Otherwise, we can infer mos type from payload t= ype. Regarding mos reference or MoS Scale, currently we have already supported 3= options using "mosref"attribute, i.e.,lower resolution, higher resolution and combined lower and higher reso= lution. However we may have more than 2 scales,e.g., as Alan pointed out with speec= h/audio there are at least six different audio bandwidths/ sample rates used, in order to address this,=20 one option is to define more than two option like lower resolution, middle = resolution and high resolution and qualify them as typical resolution. Another option is to remove this 'mosref' and depend on other means to know= these information. Regards! -Qin -----Original Message----- From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Alan Clark Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:26 PM To: Yaakov Stein; Roland.Schott@telekom.de; Dan (Dan); Al Morton; pm-dir@ie= tf.org; xrblock@ietf.org Cc: bclaise@cisco.com Subject: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://ww= w.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt I agree that "MOS" is widely used and widely misunderstood. There are many different MOS ranges 1-5, 1-10, 1-11,....... and a plethora of other QoE related metrics ITU P.800.1 helps to an extent for speech MOS - using MOS-[L|C]Q[E|O|S] where L =3D Listening, C =3D Conversational, E =3D estimated, O =3D objecti= ve and S =3D subjective. Things are getting more complex - with speech/audio there are at least six different audio bandwidths/ sample rates used, in some cases the MOS/QoE score is mapped onto different ranges and sometimes onto the same range. With video we are already seeing 4k resolutions as well as 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480i...... Yaakov also points out indirectly that there are many organizations that develop algorithms and standards related to the user perceived quality of applications (in the broad sense). ITU-T has a long history with speech MOS and a shorter history with video MOS measurement, ITU-R with video and audi= o MOS, and other organizations with data/ application QoE models. Just a minor point on Yaakov's comments - P.563 obtained good correlation when averaged over a large set of conditions and speech samples (which is how ITU tested the algorithm) however performs poorly for individual calls, with MOS errors of up to +/- 40%. Regards Alan On 6/13/13 8:45 AM, "Yaakov Stein" wrote: > One should distinguish subjective QoE measures (averaging of measurements= on > human subjects, e.g., MOS, MUSHRA, BT.500, Apdex) > and objective QoE (i.e., predictions of algorithms that have shown to > correlate well with subjective QoE, e.g., PESQ, PEAQ, P.563, PEVQ). >=20 > Also note that there are several scales used for QoE type measures. > MOS is from 1 to 5 (and CCR MOS is from -3 to 3). Apdex is from 0 to 1. > R-factor is from 0 to 100. > So when retrieving a QoE measure one needs to know what to expect. >=20 > Y(J)S >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Roland.Schott@telekom.de > Sent: 13 June, 2013 09:48 > To: dromasca@avaya.com; acmorton@att.com; pm-dir@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.o= rg > Cc: bclaise@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > Quality of Experience (QoE), is a subjective measure of a customer's > experiences with a service. QoE systems will try to measure metrics that > customer will directly perceive as a quality parameter. > In my opinion QoE is a good expression to convey our intention. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Roland >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftra= g von > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 15:28 > An: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; 'xrblock' > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise) > Betreff: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > (forwarding also to the xrblock list) >=20 > This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the fu= ture > for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to > characterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and ot= her > participants in the WG. >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org >> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo >> Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >>=20 >> Dan and pm-dir, >>=20 >> Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? >>=20 >> Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: >>=20 >> Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS >> appear in the report blocks. >> So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new >> block, it seems more accurate to simply say: >>=20 >> RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric >> Reporting >>=20 >> and the related global changes in the text. >>=20 >> And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the >> definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have >> understood for decades. >>=20 >> regards, >> Al >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM >>> To: pm-dir@ietf.org >>> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo >>> Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Hi PMDIR, >>>=20 >>> As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 >>> review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in >>> WGLC until 6/17. >>>=20 >>> Thanks and Regards, >>>=20 >>> Dan >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pm-dir mailing list >>> pm-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir > _______________________________________________ > xrblock mailing list > xrblock@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ xrblock mailing list xrblock@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Jun 14 02:56:41 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 58CAC21F9BA9; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.566, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, 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 yTVUapI3+T3T; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04E021F9B9D; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 r5E9uYFj005902; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5E9uD7X022568; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51BAE8BD.70802@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:13 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080107010101060802070700" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 04:35:21 -0700 Cc: "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [pm-dir] OPS/LMAP chair positions 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, 14 Jun 2013 09:56:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080107010101060802070700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, [bcc'ed a couple mailing lists. You might be receiving duplicates] Joel and I are looking for potential WG chair candidates. 1. Specifically for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP ). At this stage, LMAP is still a proposed WG, but it goes through the process, and might become a WG before the IETF in Berlin. 2. This is also a good opportunity to create a pool of candidates interested in chairing OPS WGs in the future. We might even consider training this group if there is some interest. RFC 2418 might help as background information. Alternatively, if you have questions/comments, don't hesitate to reach out to Joel and I at "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" Regards, Joel and Benoit --------------080107010101060802070700 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

[bcc'ed a couple mailing lists. You might be receiving duplicates]

Joel and I are looking for potential WG chair candidates.
1. Specifically for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP).
At this stage, LMAP is still a proposed WG, but it goes through the process, and might become a WG before the IETF in Berlin.
2. This is also a good opportunity to create a pool of candidates interested in chairing OPS WGs in the future.
We might even consider training this group if there is some interest.

RFC 2418 might help as background information.
Alternatively, if you have questions/comments, don't hesitate to reach out to Joel and I at "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ops-ads@tools.ietf.org>

Regards, Joel and Benoit
--------------080107010101060802070700-- From acmorton@att.com Sun Jun 16 07:30:29 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 515CD21F9BA7; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 5rH5JayWpL6F; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [192.20.225.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9DE21F9BA8; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.10]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B422C120352; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com [135.207.177.33]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197E8E0191; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:29:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299]) by njfpsrvexg7.research.att.com ([fe80::3598:75fe:b400:9299%11]) with mapi; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:30:23 -0400 From: "MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)" To: Qin Wu , Alan Clark , Yaakov Stein , "Roland.Schott@telekom.de" , "Dan (Dan)" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" , "xrblock@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:30:21 -0400 Thread-Topic: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOaDm5AZi4QcJDJ0au0jgQLHQH35k0YQsggAQIyfA= Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904E24400@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "bclaise@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt 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, 16 Jun 2013 14:30:29 -0000 It appears this message to pm-dir (June 12) has not yet reached the XRBLOCK= list, but some similar comments have been made. I pass it along now: =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dan, I circulated your request for comments beyond pm-dir, among folks whose wor= k is referenced and reported in this draft. Several people commented, and there was an independent request for the change to MOS already suggested. I have consolidated the three additional comments below. Please consider these comments during WGLC. regards, Al -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Since it has just been approved in March 2013, [P.NBAMS-HR] can now be repl= aced by [P.1202.2]. The list of models referred to in this future RFC should be extended to inc= lude G.107.1,=20 P.862.1, P.862.2 and P.863. Important Point concerning MOS scales:=20 There is no place in this draft RFC to define the type of MOS scale reporte= d=20 according to the terminology defined in P.800.1.=20 Here is a simple example. Depending on whether you use or not a measurement= result=20 for end-to-end delay for the MOS computation (if not, you will use a 0 ms d= efault value),=20 the E-model will give you a MOS-CQE or a MOS-LQE (this is terminology from = P.800.1).=20 Another example is whether you use a Narrow-Band (NB) scale or a mixed Wide= Band-NB scale.=20 These are only audio examples and there may be similar examples for video,= =20 but apparently this draft applies to audio MOS alone. In other words, it ma= y not be sufficient to simply cite the Recommendation used for calculations, there are further = details needed to interpret the MOS value. -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- > -----Original Message----- > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:23 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information= . >=20 > Dan and pm-dir, >=20 > Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? >=20 > Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: >=20 > Although the quality level is described as QoE, > only estimates of MOS appear in the report blocks. > So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to > describe the new block, it seems more accurate to simply say: >=20 > RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > Reporting >=20 > and the related global changes in the text. >=20 > And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the definitio= n > of QoE, > MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have understood for decades= . >=20 > regards, > Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:01 PM > To: Alan Clark; Yaakov Stein; Roland.Schott@telekom.de; Dan (Dan); MORTON > JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.org > Cc: bclaise@cisco.com > Subject: RE: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > Hi,all: > It looks to me we are talking about two things. > One is mos type,e.g., listening MoS, Conversational MoS, objective MoS, > Subjective MoS. >=20 > The other is Mos reference or MoS Scale, e.g., audio with different > bandwidth, video with different resolution. >=20 > Regarding mos type, I am wondering whether it can be inferred from payloa= d > type carried in the QoE XR Block, > If the answer is no, I think we can add one new SDP attribute called "mos > type", mapping "mos type" in the SDP > to CAID used in the packet. Otherwise, we can infer mos type from payload > type. >=20 > Regarding mos reference or MoS Scale, currently we have already supported > 3options using "mosref"attribute, > i.e.,lower resolution, higher resolution and combined lower and higher > resolution. > However we may have more than 2 scales,e.g., as Alan pointed out with > speech/audio there are at least six > different audio bandwidths/ sample rates used, in order to address this, > one option is to define more than two option like lower resolution, middl= e > resolution and high resolution and qualify them as typical resolution. > Another option is to remove this 'mosref' and depend on other means to > know these information. >=20 > Regards! > -Qin > -----Original Message----- > From: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of Alan Clark > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:26 PM > To: Yaakov Stein; Roland.Schott@telekom.de; Dan (Dan); Al Morton; pm- > dir@ietf.org; xrblock@ietf.org > Cc: bclaise@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt >=20 > I agree that "MOS" is widely used and widely misunderstood. There are man= y > different MOS ranges 1-5, 1-10, 1-11,....... and a plethora of other QoE > related metrics >=20 > ITU P.800.1 helps to an extent for speech MOS - using MOS-[L|C]Q[E|O|S] > where L =3D Listening, C =3D Conversational, E =3D estimated, O =3D objec= tive and > S > =3D subjective. >=20 > Things are getting more complex - with speech/audio there are at least si= x > different audio bandwidths/ sample rates used, in some cases the MOS/QoE > score is mapped onto different ranges and sometimes onto the same range. > With video we are already seeing 4k resolutions as well as 1080p, 1080i, > 720p, 480i...... >=20 > Yaakov also points out indirectly that there are many organizations that > develop algorithms and standards related to the user perceived quality of > applications (in the broad sense). ITU-T has a long history with speech > MOS > and a shorter history with video MOS measurement, ITU-R with video and > audio > MOS, and other organizations with data/ application QoE models. >=20 > Just a minor point on Yaakov's comments - P.563 obtained good correlation > when averaged over a large set of conditions and speech samples (which is > how ITU tested the algorithm) however performs poorly for individual > calls, > with MOS errors of up to +/- 40%. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Alan >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 6/13/13 8:45 AM, "Yaakov Stein" wrote: >=20 > > One should distinguish subjective QoE measures (averaging of > measurements on > > human subjects, e.g., MOS, MUSHRA, BT.500, Apdex) > > and objective QoE (i.e., predictions of algorithms that have shown to > > correlate well with subjective QoE, e.g., PESQ, PEAQ, P.563, PEVQ). > > > > Also note that there are several scales used for QoE type measures. > > MOS is from 1 to 5 (and CCR MOS is from -3 to 3). Apdex is from 0 to 1. > > R-factor is from 0 to 100. > > So when retrieving a QoE measure one needs to know what to expect. > > > > Y(J)S > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of > > Roland.Schott@telekom.de > > Sent: 13 June, 2013 09:48 > > To: dromasca@avaya.com; acmorton@att.com; pm-dir@ietf.org; > xrblock@ietf.org > > Cc: bclaise@cisco.com > > Subject: Re: [pm-dir] [xrblock] request for an RFC 6390 review of > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > Dear all, > > > > Quality of Experience (QoE), is a subjective measure of a customer's > > experiences with a service. QoE systems will try to measure metrics tha= t > > customer will directly perceive as a quality parameter. > > In my opinion QoE is a good expression to convey our intention. > > > > Regards > > > > Roland > > > > > > > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: xrblock-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:xrblock-bounces@ietf.org] Im > Auftrag von > > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 15:28 > > An: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL); pm-dir@ietf.org; 'xrblock' > > Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise) > > Betreff: Re: [xrblock] [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > > > > (forwarding also to the xrblock list) > > > > This seems to me like a good comment - Al's proposal makes room in the > future > > for metrics different than the ones reporting MOS values to be used to > > characterize QoE. I would like to hear the opinion of the authors, and > other > > participants in the WG. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@att.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:23 PM > >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pm-dir@ietf.org > >> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > >> Subject: RE: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > >> > >> Dan and pm-dir, > >> > >> Consider your request made. Do we have a volunteer? > >> > >> Here's a comment based on my scan of the draft: > >> > >> Although the quality level is described as QoE, only estimates of MOS > >> appear in the report blocks. > >> So rather than relying on the industry's buzzword to describe the new > >> block, it seems more accurate to simply say: > >> > >> RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric > >> Reporting > >> > >> and the related global changes in the text. > >> > >> And although there is continued discussion and evolution of the > >> definition of QoE, MOS is just one aspect of QoE - the aspect we have > >> understood for decades. > >> > >> regards, > >> Al > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On > >>> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > >>> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:49 AM > >>> To: pm-dir@ietf.org > >>> Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); Gonzalo Camarillo > >>> Subject: [pm-dir] request for an RFC 6390 review of > >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi PMDIR, > >>> > >>> As a co-chair of XRBLOCK WG, I would like to request the an RFC 6390 > >>> review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08. This document is in > >>> WGLC until 6/17. > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards, > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> pm-dir mailing list > >>> pm-dir@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir > > _______________________________________________ > > xrblock mailing list > > xrblock@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > xrblock mailing list > xrblock@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Jun 16 14:06:47 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 B6A9121F9CA0 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, 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 eS6w2BprEMK6 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9042C21F9BB9 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:06:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 r5GL6ZKV024987 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:06:35 +0200 (CEST) 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 r5GL66CF025874 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:06:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id r5GL63w1016181 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:06:03 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130616210603.GA16179@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, 16 Jun 2013 21:06:47 -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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-05 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Jun 21 09:12:03 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 F1E6721F94E1; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:12:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SVcKOIw7My8L; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FB421F9E7D; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:11:57 -0700 (PDT) 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 r5LGBuek018353; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:11:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5LGBdhO010828; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:11:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51C47B3B.9070701@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:11:39 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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: <20130621155716.11678.21327.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130621155716.11678.21327.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130621155716.11678.21327.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020001050806060307040401" Subject: [pm-dir] Fwd: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2013-06-27 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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:12:03 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020001050806060307040401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Please find below the agenda of the June 27th IESG telechat. Please send your questions, comments and concerns before June 26th COB. Thanks and Regards, Benoit. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2013-06-27 IESG Teleconference Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:57:16 -0700 From: IESG Secretary To: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) Summarized Agenda for the 2013-06-27 IESG Teleconference 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-storm-iser-14 - IETF stream iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification (Proposed Standard) Note: David Black (david.black@emc.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Martin Stiemerling IANA Review: IANA - Not OK Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-05 - IETF stream Relative Location Representation (Proposed Standard) Note: Alissa Cooper (acooper@cdt.org) is the document shepherd. Token: Richard Barnes IANA Review: IANA - Not OK Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-06 - IETF stream Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs (Proposed Standard) Note: Document Shepherd is Thomas Morin (thomas.morin@orange.com). Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 - IETF stream RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count metric Reporting (Proposed Standard) Note: Shida Schubert (shida@ntt-at.com) is the Document Shepherd. Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02 - IETF stream Update to Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP) (Proposed Standard) Note: Magnus Westerlund (magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com) is Document Shepherd. Token: Richard Barnes IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12 - IETF stream RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting (Proposed Standard) Note: Dan Romascanu (dromasca@avaya.com) is the Document Shepherd. Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-06 - IETF stream Miscellaneous Capabilities Negotiation in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) (Proposed Standard) Note: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Gonzalo Camarillo IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-pkix-est-07 - IETF stream Enrollment over Secure Transport (Proposed Standard) Token: Sean Turner IANA Review: IANA - Not OK Consensus: Unknown Last call expires: 2013-06-24 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 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07 - IETF stream Auto Discovery VPN Problem Statement and Requirements (Informational) Note: Paul Hoffman (paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) is the document shepherd. Token: Sean Turner IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown o draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08 - IETF stream Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE (Informational) Note: Julien Meuric is the document shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes o draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-03 - IETF stream Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization (Informational) Note: The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com). Token: Stewart Bryant IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown 3.1.2 Returning Items NONE 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD 3.2.1 New Items o draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07 - IETF stream Adobe's Secure Real-Time Media Flow Protocol (Informational) Token: Martin Stiemerling IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Unknown Last call expires: 2013-06-25 o draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-07 - IETF stream IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives (Informational) Token: Jari Arkko IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: No o draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01 - IETF stream The Internet Numbers Registry System (Informational) Token: Jari Arkko IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed Consensus: Yes 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 NONE 3.4.3 For Action o conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts-00 IETF conflict review for draft-donley-nat444-impacts draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06 Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications (ISE: Informational) Token: Jari Arkko 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review o Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (sacm) 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval o Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap) 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review o Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange (mile) 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval NONE --------------020001050806060307040401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

Please find below the agenda of the June 27th  IESG telechat.
Please send your questions, comments and concerns before June 26th COB.


Thanks and Regards, Benoit.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2013-06-27 IESG Teleconference
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:57:16 -0700
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: iesg-agenda-dist@ietf.org 


INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the 2013-06-27 IESG Teleconference



2. Protocol Actions
2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Items

  o draft-ietf-storm-iser-14  - IETF stream
    iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification (Proposed Standard)
    Note: David Black (david.black@emc.com) is the document shepherd.
    Token: Martin Stiemerling
    IANA Review: IANA - Not OK
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-05  - IETF stream
    Relative Location Representation (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Alissa Cooper (acooper@cdt.org) is the document shepherd.
    Token: Richard Barnes
    IANA Review: IANA - Not OK
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-06  - IETF stream
    Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Document Shepherd is Thomas Morin (thomas.morin@orange.com).
    Token: Stewart Bryant
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Yes

  o draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14  - IETF stream
    RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard
    Count metric Reporting (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Shida Schubert (shida@ntt-at.com) is the Document Shepherd.
    Token: Gonzalo Camarillo
    IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02  - IETF stream
    Update to Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video
    Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP) (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Magnus Westerlund (magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com) is Document
    Shepherd. 
    Token: Richard Barnes
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12  - IETF stream
    RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Jitter
    Buffer Metric Reporting (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Dan Romascanu (dromasca@avaya.com) is the Document Shepherd.
    Token: Gonzalo Camarillo
    IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-06  - IETF stream
    Miscellaneous Capabilities Negotiation in the Session Description
    Protocol (SDP) (Proposed Standard)
    Note: Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com) is the document
    shepherd.
    Token: Gonzalo Camarillo
    IANA Review: IANA OK - Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-pkix-est-07  - IETF stream
    Enrollment over Secure Transport (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Sean Turner
    IANA Review: IANA - Not OK
    Consensus: Unknown
    Last call expires: 2013-06-24

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

3. Document Actions
3.1 WG Submissions
3.1.1 New Items

  o draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07  - IETF stream
    Auto Discovery VPN Problem Statement and Requirements
    (Informational)
    Note: Paul Hoffman (paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) is the document shepherd.
    Token: Sean Turner
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

  o draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08  - IETF stream
    Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE (Informational)
    Note: Julien Meuric  is the document shepherd.
    Token: Adrian Farrel
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Yes

  o draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-03  - IETF stream
    Problem Statement: Overlays for Network Virtualization
    (Informational)
    Note: The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci
    (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com).
    Token: Stewart Bryant
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown

3.1.2 Returning Items

  NONE

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
3.2.1 New Items

  o draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07  - IETF stream
    Adobe's Secure Real-Time Media Flow Protocol (Informational)
    Token: Martin Stiemerling
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Unknown
    Last call expires: 2013-06-25

  o draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-07  - IETF stream
    IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives (Informational)
    Token: Jari Arkko
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: No

  o draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01  - IETF stream
    The Internet Numbers Registry System (Informational)
    Token: Jari Arkko
    IANA Review: IANA OK - No Actions Needed
    Consensus: Yes

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

  NONE

3.4.3 For Action

  o conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts-00
    IETF conflict review for draft-donley-nat444-impacts
      draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06
      Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
    (ISE: Informational)
    Token: Jari Arkko

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review

  o Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (sacm)

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

  o Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap)

4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review

  o Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange (mile)

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

  NONE
--------------020001050806060307040401-- From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Jun 23 14:06:32 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 3299021F9057 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 b7XEpHgVmX64 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBA421F920B for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:06:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 r5NL6OSw006129 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:06:24 +0200 (CEST) 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 r5NL66hD027877 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:06:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id r5NL64V9028097 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:06:04 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130623210604.GA28083@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, 23 Jun 2013 21:06:32 -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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-00 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active From bclaise@cisco.com Sun Jun 30 14:06:53 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 DECB121F9C8E for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ksWJxXN7CIfs for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A08521F9C81 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:06:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 r5UL6bAs006017 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:06:37 +0200 (CEST) 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 r5UL68Mm023154 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:06:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from bclaise@localhost) by sweet-brew-5.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id r5UL641n004166 for pm-dir@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:06:04 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: pm-dir@ietf.org Message-ID: <20130630210604.GA4164@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, 30 Jun 2013 21:06:53 -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-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state Informative References ---------------------- draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-15 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active drafts containing performance metric ------------------------------------ draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06 Active draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16 Active draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04 Active draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-00 Active draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-03 Active draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-02 Active draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-07 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02 Active draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-00 Active draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06 Active draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-15 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-rle-metrics-05 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-14 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-06 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10 Active draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11 In IESG processing - ID Tracker state draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-06 Active