Subject: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-* drafts

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 12:50:45 +1000

Hello Geoff and Alan,

I was reading the RTCP-XR drafts to get a feel for the work and to see 
how these drafts would be supported in the context of H.248.48. I've a 
few comments/questions:

draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-01.txt
-----------------------------------------------
In section 5 SDP signalling there's the ABNF "xr-format = xr-format / 
xr-bgd-block"
Is this really valid ABNF? It seems to me to be a circular reference. I
know you want to add "xr-bgd-block" to the list of xr-formats Would it
be better to simply list the type that is being added in the draft? i.e.
"xr-format = xr-bgd-block"
This is a general comment for all the drafts.

draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-qoe-00
-----------------------------
There's no description of direction in section 3.2??
There also appears to be missing ABNF for the definition of "word" in 
section 4, although I'm not sure that this the correct ABNF for what is 
being described. I assume that you want to be able to set the type and 
calculation algorithm that is required?

draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-siglevel-00.txt
------------------------------------
Similar comments to above. Additionally there's a typo in section 5 
where you refer to QoE Metrics.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:07:15 -0400

Good catch on that first ABNF point. The correct notation (see RFC 5234 section 
3.3) is

     xr-format =/ xr-bgd-block

Christian Groves wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>