W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Updated Stats proposal - May 13

From: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:39:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAEbPqryTeRGi9pnoi9JKPy7BvhXpjVD0+kG1YbWnjHHErsSKYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi Harald,

Comments inline.

Cheers,
Varun

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> I have updated the Stats proposal to include a few more stats that the
> Chrome team has found necessary and/or useful to their work.
>
> The proposal is at https://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/Stats
>

Thank you for updating the document.

> Changes include:
>
> - Added counters for FIR, PLI, NACK and SLI

The reference to FIR should be changed to RFC5104
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5104#section-4.3.1
Was there some discussion around including RPSI (Reference Picture
Selection Indication) for implementations that support it?

> - Added a "packets lost" counter

In IETF 89 (Vancouver) and IETF 90 (London) XRBLOCK discussed
additional statistics for WebRTC [1,2].
Of these burst discard and burst loss were particularly found
interesting, note that those documents are not WG documents and not
all metrics documented there have WG consensus. But discussion about
them in XRBLOCK would be really useful.

> - Added "target bitrate" for an SSRC

Clarification, target bitrate is calculated by the congestion control,
and not necessarily the amount sent or produced by the SSRC.

> - Added RTT on a SSRC (RFC 3550 computation)
> - Added audio level, Echo Return Loss and Echo Return Loss enhancement to a
> MediaStreamTrack
> - Added certificate information
> - Added RTT, bytes sent, bytes received, available outgoing and incoming
> bitrates to a candidate pair
>
> With these changes, I believe we have a reasonably complete set of stats for
> version 1.
>
> Questions for the WG (apart from the obvious "are these well defined,
> necessary and sufficient"):
>
> - Should this be a separate document? (I believe yes)

A different document would definitely be useful.

> - Do we need an IANA registry for later stats, or should we go with "living
> document" approaches?
>

I dont know much about the living document or where it would hosted,
in the wiki -- as it is now?
But then there is the expired Internet draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-stats-registry-00
I prefer the IETF document because it closely follows the metric
naming conventions defined by IPPM in
RFC6390 and all the metrics defined in XR Block follow those
conventions as well.

> Enjoy!
>
>       Harald
>
>

[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huang-xrblock-rtcweb-rtcp-xr-metrics-01
[2]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-xrblock-webrtc-additional-stats-02


-- 
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:40:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:40 UTC