draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14.txt 
Audio/Video Transport Working Group Q. Wu, Ed. Audio/Video Transport Working Group Q. Wu, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational G. Hunt Intended status: Informational G. Hunt
Expires: November 3, 2012 Unaffiliated Expires: November 30, 2012 Unaffiliated
P. Arden P. Arden
BT BT
May 2, 2012 May 29, 2012
Monitoring Architecture for RTP Monitoring Architecture for RTP
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13.txt draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14.txt
Abstract Abstract
This memo proposes an architecture for extending RTP Control Protocol This memo proposes an architecture for extending RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended Reports (XR) (RFC3611) block type to (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended Reports (XR) (RFC3611) block type to
report new metrics regarding media transmission or reception quality, report new metrics regarding media transmission or reception quality,
following RTCP guideline established in RFC5968. This memo suggests following RTCP guidelines established in RFC5968. This memo suggests
that a new block should contain a single metric or a small number of that a new block should contain a single metric or a small number of
metrics relevant to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather metrics relevant to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather
than containing a number of metrics which attempt to provide full than containing a number of metrics which attempt to provide full
coverage of all those parameters of concern to a specific coverage of all those parameters of concern to a specific
application. Applications may then "mix and match" to create a set application. Applications may then "mix and match" to create a set
of blocks which covers their set of concerns. Where possible, a of blocks which covers their set of concerns. Where possible, a
specific block should be designed to be re-usable across more than specific block should be designed to be re-usable across more than
one application, for example, for all of voice, streaming audio and one application, for example, for all of voice, streaming audio and
video. video.
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 3, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RTP monitoring architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. RTP monitoring architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. RTCP Metric Block Report and associated parameters . . . . 10 3.2. Location of RTP Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. RTP Sender/Receiver entities located in network nodes . . 11 4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension . . 10
4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension . . 12 4.1. Using compound metrics block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Guideline for reporting metric block using RTCP XR . . . . . . 14 4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Using single metrics blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Measurement Information duplication . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Correlating RTCP XR with RTP data . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4. Consumption of XR block code points . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data . . . . . . . . 15 5. Guidelines for reporting metric block using RTCP XR . . . . . 12
5.4. Reducing Measurement information repetition . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Contain the single metrics in the Metric Block . . . . . . 12
5.5. Expanding the RTCP XR block namespace . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. Include the payload type and format parameters in the
6. An example of a metric block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Metric Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Application to RFC 5117 topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.3. Use RTCP SDES to correlate XR reports with non-RTP data . 13
7.1. Applicability to MCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4. Reduce Measurement information repetition across
7.2. Applicability to Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 metric blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. An example of a metric block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Application to RFC 5117 topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. Applicability to Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.2. Applicability to MCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As the delivery of multimedia services using the Real-Time Transport Multimedia services using the Real-Time Protocol (RTP) are seeing
Protocol (RTP) over IP network is gaining an increasing popularity, increased use. Standard methods for gathering RTP performance
uncertainties in the performance and availability of these services metrics from these applications are needed to manage uncertainties in
are driving the need to support new standard methods for gathering the behavior and availability of their services. Standards , such as
performance metrics from RTP applications. These rapidly emerging RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)[RFC3611] and other
standards, such as RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP RTCP extension to Sender Reports (SR), Receiver Reports (RR)
XR)[RFC3611] and other RTCP extension to Sender Reports (SR), [RFC3550] are being developed for the purpose of collecting and
Receiver Reports (RR) [RFC3550] are being developed for the purpose reporting performance metrics from endpoint devices that can be used
of collecting and reporting performance metrics from endpoint devices to correlate the metrics, provide end to end service visibility and
that can be used to correlate the metrics, provide end to end service measure and monitor Quality of Experience (QoE) [RFC6390].
visibility and measure and monitor Quality of Experience (QoE)
[RFC6390].
However the proliferation of RTP/RTCP specific metrics for transport However the proliferation of RTP/RTCP specific metrics for transport
and application quality monitoring has been identified as a potential and application quality monitoring has been identified as a potential
problem for interoperability when using RTP/RTCP to communicate all problem for interoperability when using RTP/RTCP to communicate all
the parameters of concern to a specific application. Given that the parameters of concern to a specific application. Given that
different applications layered on RTP may have some monitoring different applications layered on RTP may have some monitoring
requirements in common, these metrics should be satisfied by a common requirements in common, these metrics should be satisfied by a common
design. design.
The objective of this document is to define an extensible RTP The objective of this document is to define an extensible RTP
monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality monitoring framework to provide a small number of re-usable Quality
of Service (QoS)/QoE metrics which facilitate reduced implementation of Service (QoS)/QoE metrics which facilitate reduced implementation
costs and help maximize inter-operability. RTCP Guideline [RFC5968] costs and help maximize inter-operability. The "Guidelines for
has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968] has stated that,
preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611] where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the preferred
block. This memo assumes that any requirement for a new metric to be mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611] block. This
transported in RTCP will use a new RTCP XR block. memo assumes that any requirement for a new metric to be transported
in RTCP will use a new RTCP XR block.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo is informative and as such contains no normative This memo is informative and as such contains no normative
requirements. requirements.
In addition, the following terms are defined: In addition, the following terms are defined:
Transport level metrics Transport level metrics
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
de-jitter buffering, packet loss concealment, and the use of de-jitter buffering, packet loss concealment, and the use of
redundant streams (if any) for correction of error or loss. redundant streams (if any) for correction of error or loss.
Direct metrics Direct metrics
Metrics that can be directly measured or calculated and are not Metrics that can be directly measured or calculated and are not
dependent on other metrics. dependent on other metrics.
Composed metrics Composed metrics
Metrics that are not measured directly but rather are derived from Metrics that are not measured directly but rather are derived by
one or more other metrics. An example is a metric calculated algorithmically combining one or more measured metrics. An
based on derived metrics that have been measured. example is a metric derived based on direct metrics that have been
measured.
Interval metrics Interval metrics
It is referred to as the metrics of which the reported values Metrics measured over the course of a single reporting interval
apply to the most recent measurement interval duration between between two successive report blocks. This may be the most recent
successive metrics reports. RTCP reporting interval ( [RFC3550], section 6.2) or some other
interval signalled using an RTCP Measurement Information XR Block
[MEASI]. An example interval metric is the count of the number of
RTP packets lost over the course of the last RTCP reporting
interval.
Cumulative metrics Cumulative metrics
It is referred to as the metrics of which the reported values Metrics measured over several reporting intervals for accumulating
apply to the accumulation period characteristic of cumulative statistics. The time period over which measurements are
measurements. accumulated can be the complete RTP session, or some other
interval signalled using an RTCP Measurement Information XR Block
[MEASI]. An example cumulative metric is the total number of RTP
packets lost since the start of the RTP session.
Sampled metrics Sampled metrics
It is referred to as the metrics of which the reported values only Metrics measured at a particular time instant and sampled from the
apply to the value of a continuously measured or calculated metric values of a continuously measured or calculated metric within a
that has been sampled at any given instance of the interval. reporting interval (generally the value of some measurement as
taken at the end of the reporting interval). An example is the
inter-arrival jitter reported in RTCP SR and RR packets, which is
continually updated as each RTP data packet arrives, but only
reported based on a snapshot of the value which is sampled at the
instant the reporting interval ends.
3. RTP monitoring architecture 3. RTP monitoring architecture
There are many ways in which the performance of an RTP session can be There are many ways in which the performance of an RTP session can be
monitored. These include RTP-based mechanisms such as the RTP SNMP monitored. These include RTP-based mechanisms such as the RTP SNMP
MIB [RFC2959], or the SIP event package for RTCP summary reports MIB [RFC2959], or the SIP event package for RTCP summary reports
[RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as generic MIBs, NetFlow, [RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as generic MIBs, NetFlow,
IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide useful mechanisms for IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide useful mechanisms for
exporting data on the performance of an RTP session to non-RTP exporting data on the performance of an RTP session to non-RTP
network management systems. It is desirable to also perform in- network management systems. It is desirable to also perform in-
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
3.1. Overview 3.1. Overview
The RTP monitoring architecture comprises the following two key The RTP monitoring architecture comprises the following two key
functional components shown below: functional components shown below:
o RTP Monitor o RTP Monitor
o RTP Metric Block Structure o RTP Metric Block Structure
RTP Monitor is the functional component defined in the Real-time RTP Monitor is the functional component defined in the Real-time
Transport Protocol [RFC3550] that acts as a source of information Transport Protocol [RFC3550] . It acts as a repository of
gathered for monitoring purposes. It may gather such information information gathered for monitoring purposes and exchanges such
reported by RTCP XR or other RTCP extension and calculate statistics information with the other RTP monitors using RTP Metric Blocks.
from multiple source. According to the definition of monitor in the According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550],
RTP Protocol [RFC3550], the end system that runs an application the end system that runs an application program that sends or
program that sends or receives RTP data packets, an intermediate- receives RTP data packets, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP
system that forwards RTP packets to End-devices or a third party that packets to End-devices or a third party that observes the RTP and
observes the RTP and RTCP traffic but does not make itself visible to RTCP traffic but does not make itself visible to the RTP Session
the RTP Session participants (i.e., the third party monitor depicted participants can play the role of the RTP monitor within the RTP
in figure 1) can be envisioned to act as the monitor within the RTP monitoring architecture. The third party RTP monitor should be
monitoring architecture. Note that the third party monitor should be placed on the RTP/RTCP path between the sender, intermediate and the
placed on the RTP/RTCP paths between the sender, intermediate and the
receiver. receiver.
The RTP Metric Block exposes real time Application QoS/QoE metric The RTP monitor also exposes real time Application QoS/QoE metric
information in the appropriate report block format to the management information in the appropriate report block format (e.g.,RTCP XR or
system (i.e., report collector) within the RTP monitoring other non-RTP means) to the management system. Such information can
architecture. Such information can be formulated as: be formulated as various types of metrics, e.g., direct metrics/
composed metrics or interval metrics/ cumulative metrics/sampled
o The direct metrics metrics,etc. Both the RTCP or RTCP XR can be extended to convey
these metrics,e.g., the basic RTCP Reception Report (RR) [RFC3550]
o or the composed metrics that conveys reception statistics (i.e., transport level statistics)
or formulated as for multiple RTP media streams,the RTCP XRs [RFC3611] that supplement
the existing RTCP packets and provide more detailed feedback on
o The Interval metrics reception quality and RTCP NACK [RFC4585] that provides feedback on
the RTP sequence numbers for a subset of the lost packets or all the
o or cumulative metrics currently lost packets.
o or sampled metrics
Both the RTCP or RTCP XR can be extended to convey these metrics.
The details on transport protocols for metric blocks are described in
Section 3.2.
+-------------------+
| RTP Sender | 6 +----------+
| +-----------+ ||------------>|Management|
-------------->| Monitor |----| 6 | System |
| | | | | |----------->| |
| | +-----------+ | | -------->| |
| |+-----------------+| | | +-------/--+
| ||Application || | | -----------| |
| ||-Streaming video || | | | 1 | |6
| |---------|-VOIP || | | | +--------V------+
| | ||-Video conference|| | | --- Third Party |
| | ||-Telepresence || | | | Monitor |
| | ||-Ad insertion || | 6| +---------------+
5 | |+-----------------+| | |
| | +-------------------+ | |
| 1 | |
| | +Intermediate------------+ | | |------------------------+
| | | RTP System | | | | RTP Receiver >--4-| |
| | | +----------- | | | | +-----------+ |
| | | | -----------| -------| | | |
| | | | | | | | Monitor |<-- |
|----------- Monitor |<--------5------|----| |<------|
| | | | Report Block | +----/------+ ||
| | +----------+Transport Over | ||
| | RTCP XR or RTCP | |2 ||
| | +-----------------+ extension | +-------/---------+ ||
| | |Application | | | |Application | ||
| | |-Streaming video | | | |-Streaming video | ||
| | |-VOIP | | 1 | |-VOIP | 3|
---->-Video conference|--------------->|-Video conference ||
| |-Telepresence | | | |-Telepresence | ||
| |-Ad insertion | | | |-Ad insertion | ||
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ ||
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ ||
| |Transport | | | |Transport | ||
| |-IP/UDP/RTP | | | |-IP/UDP/RTP >---||
| |-IP/TCP/RTP | | | |-IP/TCP/RTP | |
| |-IP/TCP/RTSP/RTP | | | |-IP/TCP/RTSP/RTP | |
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
Figure 1: RTP Monitoring Architecture
1. RTP communication between real time applications.
2. Application level metrics collection.
3. Transport level metrics collection.
4. End System metrics collection.
5. Metrics Reporting over the RTP/RTCP paths
6. RTCP information Export to the network management system.
RTP may be used to multicast groups, both Any Source Multicast (ASM) RTP may be used to multicast groups, both Any Source Multicast (ASM)
and Source Specific Multicast (SSM). These groups can be monitored and Source Specific Multicast (SSM). These groups can be monitored
using RTCP. In the ASM case, the monitor is a member of the using RTCP. In the ASM case, the monitor is a member of the
multicast group and listens to RTCP XR reports from all members of multicast group and listens to RTCP XR reports from all members of
the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback target the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback target
that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it to that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it to
other members of the SSM group (see figure 1 of RFC5760). The other members of the SSM group (see figure 1 of [RFC5760] ). The
monitor will need to be co-located with the feedback target to monitor will need to be co-located with the feedback target to
receive all feedback from the receivers (this may also be an receive all feedback from the receivers (this may also be an
intermediate system). In both ASM and SSM scenarios, receivers can intermediate system). In both ASM and SSM scenarios, receivers can
send RTCP XR reports to enhance the reception quality reporting. send RTCP XR reports to enhance the reception quality reporting.
3.2. RTCP Metric Block Report and associated parameters 3.2. Location of RTP Monitors
The basic RTCP Reception Report (RR) [RFC3550] conveys reception
statistics (i.e., transport level statistics) in metric block report
format for multiple RTP media streams including
o the fraction of packet lost since the last report
o the cumulative number of packets lost
o the highest sequence number received
o an estimate of the inter-arrival jitter
o and information to allow senders to calculate the network round
trip time.
The RTCP XRs [RFC3611] supplement the existing RTCP packets and
provide more detailed feedback on reception quality in several
categories:
o Loss and duplicate Run Length Encoding (RLE) reports
o Packet-receipt times reports
o Round-trip time reports There are several possible locations from where RTP sessions can be
o Statistics Summary Reports monitored. These include end-systems that terminate RTP sessions,
middleboxes that are an active part of an RTP session, and third-
party devices that passively monitor an RTP session. Not every RTP
sessions will include monitoring, and those sessions that are
monitored will not all include each type of monitor. The performance
metrics collected by RTP monitors can be divided into end system
metrics, application level metrics, and transport level metrics.
Some of these metrics may be specific to the measurement point of the
RTP monitor, or depend on where the RTP monitors are located in the
network, while others are more general and can be collected in any
monitoring location.
There are also various other scenarios in which it is desirable to End-system monitoring is monitoring that is deployed on devices that
send RTCP Metric reports more frequently. For example, the Audio/ terminate RTP flows. Flows can be terminated in user equipment, such
Video Profile with Feedback [RFC4585] extends the standard Audio/ as phones, video conferencing systems, or IPTV set-top boxes.
Video Profile [RFC3551] to allow RTCP reports to be sent early Alternatively, they can be terminated in devices that gateway between
provided RTCP bandwidth allocation is respected. The following are RTP and other transport protocols. Transport and end system metrics,
four use cases but are not limited to: application level metrics that don't reflect end to end user
experience may be collected at all types of end system, but some
application level metrics (i.e.,quality of experience (QoE) metrics)
may only be applicable for user-facing end systems.
o RTCP NACK is used to provide feedback on the RTP sequence numbers RTP sessions can include middleboxes that are an active part of the
for a subset of the lost packets or all the currently lost packets system. These middleboxes include RTP mixers and translators, MCUs,
[RFC4585]. retransmission servers, etc. If the middlebox establishes separate
RTP sessions to the other participants, then it must act as an end
system in each of those separate RTP sessions for the purposes of
monitoring. If a single RTP session traverses the middlebox, then
the middlebox can be assigned an SSRC in that session which it can
use for it's reports. Transport level metrics may be collected at
such middlebox.
o RTCP is extended to convey requests for full intra-coded frames or Third-party monitors may be deployed that passively monitor RTP
select the reference picture, and signal changes in the desired sessions for network management purposes. Third-party monitors often
temporal/spatial trade-off and maximum media bit rate [RFC5104]. do not send reports into the RTP session being monitored, but instead
collect transport and end system metrics, application level metrics
that are reported via some network management application. In some
cases, however, third-party monitors can send reports to some or all
participants in the session being monitored. For example, in a media
streaming scenario, third-party monitors may be deployed that
passively monitor the session and send reception quality reports to
the media source, but not to the receivers.
o RTCP or RTCP XR is extended to provide feedback on Explicit 4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension
Congestion Notification (ECN) statistics information [ECN].
o RTCP XR is extended to provide feedback on multicast acquisition The following sections discuss four issues that have come up in the
statistics information and parameters [RFC6332]. past with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extensions.
3.3. RTP Sender/Receiver entities located in network nodes 4.1. Using compound metrics block
The location of the RTP Sender/Receiver entities may impact a set of A compound metrics block is designed to contain a large number of
meaningful metrics. For instance, application level metrics for QoE parameters from different classes for a specific application in a
related performance parameters are under most conditions measured at single block. For example, the RTCP Extended Reports (XRs) [RFC3611]
the user device that receives RTP data packets. However in some defines seven report block formats for network management and quality
cases, given the factors ( "measurement point location", "measurement monitoring. Some of these block types defined in the RTCP XRs
model location", "awareness of content information", etc [P.NAMS]) [RFC3611] are only specifically designed for conveying multicast
taken into account, such metrics may be measured in a network node inference of network characteristics (MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP)
instead of a user device. monitoring. However different applications layered on RTP may have
different monitoring requirements. Designing compound metrics block
only for specific applications may increase implementation cost and
minimize interoperability.
4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension 4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data
Issues that have come up in the past with reporting metric block Canonical End-Point Identifier SDES Item (CNAME), defined in the RTP
using RTCP XR extensions include (but are probably not limited to) Protocol [RFC3550], is an example of an existing tool that allows
the following: binding a Synchronization source (SSRC) that may change to a name
that is fixed within one RTP session. CNAME may be also fixed across
multiple RTP sessions from the same source. However there may be
situations where RTCP reports are sent to other participating
endpoints using non-RTP protocol in a session. For example, as
described in the SIP RTCP Summary Report Protocol [RFC6035], the data
contained in RTCP XR VoIP metrics reports [RFC3611] are forwarded to
a central collection server systems using SIP. In such case, there
is a large portfolio of quality parameters that can be associated
with real time application, e.g., VOIP application, but only a
minimal number of parameters are included on the RTCP-XR reports.
With these minimal number of RTCP statistics parameters mapped to
non-RTCP measurements, it is hard to provide accurate measures of
real time application quality,conduct detailed data analysis and
creates alerts timly to the users. Therefore correlation between
RTCP XR and non-RTP data should be provided.
o Using compound metrics block. A single report block 4.3. Measurement Information duplication
(i.e.,compound metrics block) is designed to contain a large
number of parameters in different classes for a specific
application. For example, the RTCP Extended Reports (XRs)
[RFC3611] defines seven report block formats for network
management and quality monitoring. Some of these block types
defined in the RTCP XRs [RFC3611] are only specifically designed
for conveying multicast inference of network characteristics
(MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP) monitoring. However different
applications layered on RTP may have different monitoring
requirements. Designing compound metrics block only for specific
applications may increase implementation cost and minimize
interoperability.
o Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data. Canonical End-Point We may set a measurement interval for the session and monitor RTP
Identifier SDES Item (CNAME), defined in the RTP Protocol packets within one or several consecutive report intervals. In such
[RFC3550], is an example of an existing tool that allows binding a case, the extra measurement information (e.g., extended sequence
Synchronization source (SSRC) that may change to a name that is number of 1st packet, measurement period) may be expected. However
fixed within one RTP session. CNAME may be also fixed across if we put such extra measurement information into each metric block,
multiple RTP sessions from the same source. However there may be there may be situations where an RTCP XR packet containing multiple
situations where RTCP reports are sent to other participating metric blocks, reports on the same streams from the same source. In
endpoints using non-RTP protocol in a session. For example, as other words, duplicated data for the measurement is provided multiple
described in the SIP RTCP Summary Report Protocol [RFC6035], the times, once in every metric block. Though this design ensures
data contained in RTCP XR VoIP metrics reports [RFC3611] are immunity to packet loss, it may bring more packetization complexity
forwarded to a central collection server systems using SIP. In and the processing overhead is not completely trivial in some cases.
such case, there is a large portfolio of quality parameters that Therefore compromise between processing overhead and reliability
can be associated with real time application, e.g., VOIP should be taken into account.
application, but only a minimal number of parameters are included
on the RTCP-XR reports. Therefore correlation between RTCP XR and
non-RTP data should be provided if administration or management
systems need to rely on the mapping RTCP statistics to non-RTCP
measurements to conducts data analysis and creates alerts to the
users. Without such correlation, it is hard to provide accurate
measures of real time application quality with a minimal number of
parameters included on the RTCP-XR reports in such case.
o Measurement Information duplication. Measurement information 4.4. Consumption of XR block code points
provides information relevant to a measurement reported in one or
more other block types. For example we may set a metric interval
for the session and monitor RTP packets within one or several
consecutive metric intervals. In such case, the extra measurement
information (e.g., extended sequence number of 1st packet,
measurement period) may be expected. However if we put such extra
measurement information into each metric block, there may be
situations where an RTCP XR packet containing multiple metric
blocks, reports on the same streams from the same source. In
other words, duplicated data for the measurement is provided
multiple times, once in every metric block. Though this design
ensures immunity to packet loss, it may bring more packetization
complexity and the processing overhead is not completely trivial
in some cases. Therefore compromise between processing overhead
and reliability should be taken into account.
o Consumption of XR block code points. The RTCP XR block namespace The RTCP XR block namespace is limited by the 8-bit block type field
is limited by the 8-bit block type field in the RTCP XR header. in the RTCP XR header. Space exhaustion may be a concern in the
Space exhaustion may be a concern in the future. We therefore may future. Anticipating the potential need to extend the block type
need a way to extend the block type space, so that new space, it is noted that Block Type 255 is reserved for future
specifications may continue to be developed. extensions in [RFC3611].
5. Guideline for reporting metric block using RTCP XR 5. Guidelines for reporting metric block using RTCP XR
5.1. Using single metrics blocks 5.1. Contain the single metrics in the Metric Block
Different applications using RTP for media transport certainly have Different applications using RTP for media transport certainly have
differing requirements for metrics transported in RTCP to support differing requirements for metrics transported in RTCP to support
their operation. For many applications, the basic metrics for their operation. For many applications, the basic metrics for
transport impairments provided in RTCP SR and RR packets [RFC3550] transport impairments provided in RTCP SR and RR packets [RFC3550]
(together with source identification provided in RTCP SDES packets) (together with source identification provided in RTCP SDES packets)
are sufficient. For other applications additional metrics may be are sufficient. For other applications additional metrics may be
required or at least sufficiently useful to justify the overheads, required or at least sufficiently useful to justify the overheads,
both of processing in endpoints and of increased session bandwidth. both of processing in endpoints and of increased session bandwidth.
For example an IPTV application using Forward Error Correction (FEC) For example an IPTV application using Forward Error Correction (FEC)
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 12, line 45
parameter of interest might be packet delay variation, and parameter of interest might be packet delay variation, and
specifically the metric "IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV)" defined by specifically the metric "IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV)" defined by
[Y1540]. See Section 6 for architectural considerations for a [Y1540]. See Section 6 for architectural considerations for a
metrics block, using as an example a metrics block to report packet metrics block, using as an example a metrics block to report packet
delay variation. Further, it is appropriate to not only define delay variation. Further, it is appropriate to not only define
report blocks separately, but also to do so in separate documents report blocks separately, but also to do so in separate documents
where possible. This makes it easier to evolve the reports (i.e., to where possible. This makes it easier to evolve the reports (i.e., to
update each type of report block separately), and also makes it update each type of report block separately), and also makes it
easier to require compliance with a particular report block. easier to require compliance with a particular report block.
5.2. Correlating RTCP XR with RTP data 5.2. Include the payload type and format parameters in the Metric Block
There are some classes of metrics that can only be interpreted with There are some classes of metrics that can only be interpreted with
knowledge of the media codec that is being used (audio MOS scores knowledge of the media codec that is being used (audio mean opinion
were the triggering example, but there may be others). In such cases scores (MOS) were the triggering example, but there may be others).
the correlation of RTCP XR with RTP data is needed. Report blocks In such cases the correlation of RTCP XR with RTP data is needed.
that require such correlation need to include the payload type of the Report blocks that require such correlation need to include the
reported media. In addition, it is necessary to signal the details payload type of the reported media. In addition, it is necessary to
and parameters of the payload format to which that payload type is signal the details and parameters of the payload format to which that
bound using some out-of-band means (e.g., as part of an SDP offer/ payload type is bound using some out-of-band means (e.g., as part of
answer exchange). an SDP offer/answer exchange).
5.3. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data 5.3. Use RTCP SDES to correlate XR reports with non-RTP data
There may be situations where more than one media transport protocol There may be situations where more than one media transport protocol
is used by one application to interconnect to the same session in the is used by one application to interconnect to the same session in the
gateway. For example, one RTCP XR Packet is sent to the gateway. For example, one RTCP XR Packet is sent to the
participating endpoints using non-RTP-based media transport (e.g., participating endpoints using non-RTP-based media transport (e.g.,
using SIP) in a VOIP session. One crucial factor lies in how to using SIP) in a VOIP session. One crucial factor lies in how to
handle their different identities that are corresponding to different handle their different identities that are corresponding to different
media transport. media transport.
This memo recommends an approach to facilitate the correlation of the This memo recommends an approach to facilitate the correlation of the
skipping to change at page 15, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
SSRC of measured RTP stream. In such case, the participant endpoint SSRC of measured RTP stream. In such case, the participant endpoint
uses the SSRC of source to bind the call identifier using SDES item uses the SSRC of source to bind the call identifier using SDES item
in the SDES RTCP packet and send such correlation to the network in the SDES RTCP packet and send such correlation to the network
management system. A flow measurement tool that is configured with management system. A flow measurement tool that is configured with
the 5-tuple and not call-aware then forward the RTCP XR reports along the 5-tuple and not call-aware then forward the RTCP XR reports along
with the SSRC of the measured RTP stream which is included in the XR with the SSRC of the measured RTP stream which is included in the XR
Block header and 5-tuple to the network management system. Network Block header and 5-tuple to the network management system. Network
management system can then correlate this report using SSRC with management system can then correlate this report using SSRC with
other diagnostic information such as call detail records. other diagnostic information such as call detail records.
5.4. Reducing Measurement information repetition 5.4. Reduce Measurement information repetition across metric blocks
When multiple metric blocks are carried in one RTCP XR packet, When multiple metric blocks are carried in one RTCP XR packet,
reporting on the same stream from the same source for the same time reporting on the same stream from the same source for the same time
period, RTCP should use the SSRC to identify and correlate the period, RTCP should use the SSRC to identify and correlate the
multiple metric blocks between metric blocks. This memo proposes to multiple metric blocks between metric blocks. This memo proposes to
define a new XR Block that will be used to convey the common time define a new XR Block (i.e., the Measurement information block
period and the number of packets sent during this period. If the [MEASI]) that will be used to convey the common time period and the
measurement interval for a metric is different from the RTCP number of packets sent during this period. If the measurement
reporting interval, then this measurement duration in the Measurement interval for a metric is different from the RTCP reporting interval,
information block [MI] should be used to specify the interval. When then this measurement duration in the Measurement information block
there may be multiple measurements information blocks with the same should be used to specify the interval. When there may be multiple
SSRC in one RTCP XR compound packet, the measurement information measurements information blocks with the same SSRC in one RTCP XR
block should be put in order and followed by all the metric blocks compound packet, the measurement information block should be put in
associated with this measurement information block. New RTCP XR order and followed by all the metric blocks associated with this
metric blocks that rely on the Measurement information block [MI] measurement information block. New RTCP XR metric blocks that rely
must specify the response in case the new RTCP XR metric block is on the Measurement information block [MEASI] must specify the
received without an associated measurement information block. In response in case the new RTCP XR metric block is received without an
most cases, it is expected that the correct response is to discard associated measurement information block. In most cases, it is
the received metric. In order to reduce measurement information expected that the correct response is to discard the received metric.
repetition in one RTCP XR compound packet containing multiple metric In order to reduce measurement information repetition in one RTCP XR
blocks, the measurement information shall be sent before the related compound packet containing multiple metric blocks, the measurement
metric blocks that are from the same reporting interval. Note that information shall be sent before the related metric blocks that are
for packet loss robustness if the report blocks for the same interval from the same reporting interval. Note that for packet loss
span over more than one RTCP packet then each must have the robustness if the report blocks for the same interval span over more
measurement identity information even though they will be the same. than one RTCP packet, then each must have the measurement identity
information even though they will be the same.
5.5. Expanding the RTCP XR block namespace
The consumption of XR block code points isn't a major issue. However
if XR block codes points is really close to run out of space, it
might be desirable to define new fields in the XR report block or
define one XR block type for vendor-specific extensions, with an
enterprise number included to identify the vendor making the
extension.
6. An example of a metric block 6. An example of a metric block
This section uses the example of an existing proposed metrics block This section uses the example of an existing proposed metrics block
to illustrate the application of the principles set out in to illustrate the application of the principles set out in
Section 5.1. Section 5.1.
The example [PDV] is a block to convey information about packet delay The example [PDV] is a block to convey information about packet delay
variation (PDV) only, consistent with the principle that a metrics variation (PDV) only, consistent with the principle that a metrics
block should address only one parameter of interest. One simple block should address only one parameter of interest. One simple
skipping to change at page 18, line 28 skipping to change at page 16, line 28
packets and should forward certain RTCP reports between clouds. In packets and should forward certain RTCP reports between clouds. In
this category, the RTP system (end system, mixer or translator) which this category, the RTP system (end system, mixer or translator) which
originates, terminates or forwards RTCP XR blocks is expected to originates, terminates or forwards RTCP XR blocks is expected to
handle RTCP, including RTCP XR, according to the RTP protocol handle RTCP, including RTCP XR, according to the RTP protocol
[RFC3550]. Provided this expectation is met, an RTP system using [RFC3550]. Provided this expectation is met, an RTP system using
RTCP XR is architecturally no different from an RTP system of the RTCP XR is architecturally no different from an RTP system of the
same class (end system, mixer, or translator) which does not use RTCP same class (end system, mixer, or translator) which does not use RTCP
XR. The second category relates to deployed system models used in XR. The second category relates to deployed system models used in
many H.323 [H323] video conferences. The topologies in this category many H.323 [H323] video conferences. The topologies in this category
are Topo-Video-Switch-MCU and Topo-RTCP-terminating-MCU. Such are Topo-Video-Switch-MCU and Topo-RTCP-terminating-MCU. Such
topologies based on systems do not behave according to the RTP topologies based on systems (e.g.,MCUs) do not behave according to
protocol [RFC3550]. the RTP protocol [RFC3550].
Considering the MCU and translator are two typical topologies in the
two categories mentioned above, this document will take them as two
typical examples to explain how RTCP XR report works in different
RFC5117 topologies.
7.1. Applicability to MCU
Topo-Video-Switch-MCU and Topo-RTCP-terminating-MCU, suffer from the Considering the translator and MCU are two typical intermediate-
difficulties described in [RFC5117]. These difficulties apply to systems in the two categories mentioned above, this document will
systems sending, and expecting to receive, RTCP XR blocks as much as take them as two typical examples to explain how RTCP XR report works
to systems using other RTCP packet types. For example, a participant in different RFC5117 topologies.
RTP end system may send media to a video switch MCU. If the media
stream is not selected for forwarding by the switch, neither RTCP RR
packets nor RTCP XR blocks referring to the end system's generated
stream will be received at the RTP end system. Strictly the RTP end
system can only conclude that its RTP has been lost in the network,
though an RTP end system complying with the robustness principle of
[RFC1122] should survive with essential functions (i.e.,media
distribution) unimpaired.
7.2. Applicability to Translators 7.1. Applicability to Translators
Section 7.2 of the RTP protocol [RFC3550] describes processing of Section 7.2 of the RTP protocol [RFC3550] describes processing of
RTCP by translators. RTCP XR is within the scope of the RTCP by translators. RTCP XR is within the scope of the
recommendations of the RTP protocol [RFC3550]. Some RTCP XR metrics recommendations of the RTP protocol [RFC3550]. Some RTCP XR metrics
blocks may usefully be measured at, and reported by, translators. As blocks may usefully be measured at, and reported by, translators. As
described in the RTP protocol [RFC3550] this creates a requirement described in the RTP protocol [RFC3550] this creates a requirement
for the translator to allocate an SSRC for the monitor collocated for the translator to allocate an SSRC for the monitor collocated
with itself so that the monitor may populate the SSRC in the RTCP XR with itself so that the monitor may populate the SSRC in the RTCP XR
packet header as packet sender SSRC and send it out(although the packet header as packet sender SSRC and send it out(although the
translator is not a Synchronisation Source in the sense of translator is not a Synchronisation Source in the sense of
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 10
In RTP sessions where one or more translators generate any RTCP In RTP sessions where one or more translators generate any RTCP
traffic towards their next-neighbour RTP system, other translators in traffic towards their next-neighbour RTP system, other translators in
the session have a choice as to whether they forward a translator's the session have a choice as to whether they forward a translator's
RTCP packets. Forwarding may provide additional information to other RTCP packets. Forwarding may provide additional information to other
RTP systems in the connection but increases RTCP bandwidth and may in RTP systems in the connection but increases RTCP bandwidth and may in
some cases present a security risk. RTP translators may have some cases present a security risk. RTP translators may have
forwarding behaviour based on local policy, which might differ forwarding behaviour based on local policy, which might differ
between different interfaces of the same translator. between different interfaces of the same translator.
7.2. Applicability to MCU
Topo-Video-Switch-MCU and Topo-RTCP-terminating-MCU, suffer from the
difficulties described in [RFC5117]. These difficulties apply to
systems sending, and expecting to receive, RTCP XR blocks as much as
to systems using other RTCP packet types. For example, a participant
RTP end system may send media to a video switch MCU. If the media
stream is not selected for forwarding by the switch, neither RTCP RR
packets nor RTCP XR blocks referring to the end system's generated
stream will be received at the RTP end system. Strictly the RTP end
system can only conclude that its RTP has been lost in the network,
though an RTP end system complying with the robustness principle of
[RFC1122] should survive with essential functions (i.e.,media
distribution) unimpaired.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
There is no IANA action in this document. There is no IANA action in this document.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document focuses on the RTCP reporting extension using RTCP XR This document focuses on the RTCP reporting extension using RTCP XR
and should not give rise to any new security vulnerabilities beyond and should not give rise to any new security vulnerabilities beyond
those described in RTCP XRs [RFC3611]. However it also describes the those described in RTCP XRs [RFC3611]. However it also describes the
architectural framework to be used for monitoring at RTP layer. The architectural framework to be used for monitoring at RTP layer. The
security issues with monitoring needs to be considered. security issues with monitoring needs to be considered.
In RTP sessions, a RTP system may use its own SSRC to send its In RTP sessions, a RTP system may use its own SSRC to send its
monitoring reports towards its next-neighbour RTP system. Other RTP monitoring reports towards its next-neighbour RTP system. Other RTP
system in the session may have a choice as to whether they forward system in the session may have a choice as to whether they forward
this RTP system's RTCP packets. This present a security issue since this RTP system's RTCP packets. This present a security issue since
the information in the report may be exposed by the other RTP system the information in the report may be exposed by the other RTP system
to any malicious node. Therefore if the information is considered as to any malicious node. Therefore if the information is considered as
sensitive, the monitoring report should be encrypted. sensitive, the monitoring report should be encrypted.
Also note that the third party monitors are not visible at the RTP
layer since they do not send any RTCP packets. In order to prevent
any sensitive information leakage, the monitoring from the third
party monitors should be prohibited unless the security is in place
to authenticate them.
10. Acknowledgement 10. Acknowledgement
The authors would also like to thank Colin Perkins, Charles Eckel, The authors would also like to thank Colin Perkins, Charles Eckel,
Graeme Gibbs, Debbie Greenstreet, Keith Drage, Dan Romascanu, Ali C. Robert Sparks, Salvatore Loreto, Graeme Gibbs, Debbie Greenstreet,
Begen, Roni Even, Magnus Westerlund for their valuable comments and Keith Drage, Dan Romascanu, Ali C. Begen, Roni Even, Magnus
suggestions on the early version of this document. Westerlund for their valuable comments and suggestions on the early
version of this document.
11. Informative References 11. Informative References
[ECN] Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
for RTP over UDP", ID draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07,
March 2012.
[G1020] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. G.1020, Performance parameter [G1020] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. G.1020, Performance parameter
definitions for quality of speech and other voiceband definitions for quality of speech and other voiceband
applications utilizing IP networks", July 2006. applications utilizing IP networks", July 2006.
[H323] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. H.323, Packet-based multimedia [H323] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. H.323, Packet-based multimedia
communications systems", June 2006. communications systems", June 2006.
[MI] Wu, Q., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting [MEASI] Wu, Q., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting
using SDES item and XR Block", using SDES item and XR Block",
ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06, ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06,
April 2012. April 2012.
[P.NAMS] ITU-T, "Non-intrusive parametric model for the Assessment [P.NAMS] ITU-T, "Non-intrusive parametric model for the Assessment
of performance of Multimedia Streaming", ITU-T of performance of Multimedia Streaming", ITU-T
Recommendation P.NAMS, November 2009. Recommendation P.NAMS, November 2009.
[PDV] Hunt, G., Clark, A., and Q. Wu, "RTCP XR Report Block for [PDV] Hunt, G., Clark, A., and Q. Wu, "RTCP XR Report Block for
Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting", Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting",
skipping to change at page 23, line 49 skipping to change at page 21, line 44
[RFC2959] Baugher, M., Strahm, B., and I. Suconick, "Real-Time [RFC2959] Baugher, M., Strahm, B., and I. Suconick, "Real-Time
Transport Protocol Management Information Base", RFC 2959, Transport Protocol Management Information Base", RFC 2959,
October 2000. October 2000.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C., "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP [RFC3393] Demichelis, C., "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002. Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne , H. and S. Casner, "Extended RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/AVPF)", RFC 3551, July 2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP [RFC3611] Friedman, T., "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP
XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003. XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003.
[RFC4585] Ott, J. and S. Wenger, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time [RFC4585] Ott, J. and S. Wenger, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time
Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/ Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
AVPF)", RFC 4585, July 2006. AVPF)", RFC 4585, July 2006.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
Quality Reporting", RFC 5104, February 2008.
[RFC5117] Westerlund, M., "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117, January 2008. [RFC5117] Westerlund, M., "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117, January 2008.
[RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010.
[RFC5968] Ott, J. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Extending the RTP [RFC5968] Ott, J. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Extending the RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP)", RFC 5968, September 2010. Control Protocol (RTCP)", RFC 5968, September 2010.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich, [RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010. Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.
[RFC6332] Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "Multicast Acquisition Report
Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", RFC 6332, July 2011.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", RFC 6390, October 2011. Performance Metric Development", RFC 6390, October 2011.
[Y1540] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. Y.1540, IP packet transfer and [Y1540] ITU-T, "ITU-T Rec. Y.1540, IP packet transfer and
availability performance parameters", November 2007. availability performance parameters", November 2007.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
publication as an RFC. publication as an RFC.
A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14
The following are the major changes compared to 13:
o Incorporate the key points in the section 3.2 into overview
section.
o Remove the figure 1 and use the description instead.
o Add description in the section 3.3 to discuss the possible
location of the monitors and the types of metric at that location.
o Add the description to make the definition of Interval metrics/
cumulative metrics/sampled metrics clear.
o Editorial Changes.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13
The following are the major changes compared to 12: The following are the major changes compared to 12:
o Editorial Changes. o Editorial Changes.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12
The following are the major changes compared to 11: The following are the major changes compared to 11:
o Editorial Changes based on Charles' Comments. o Editorial Changes based on Charles' Comments.
o Reference update. o Reference update.
o Add one new section 5.2 to discuss Correlating RTCP XR with RTP o Add one new section 5.2 to discuss Correlating RTCP XR with RTP
data. data.
o Add text in section 5.1 to highlight it is more appropriate to o Add text in section 5.1 to highlight it is more appropriate to
define each block in a separate draft. define each block in a separate draft.
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11
The following are the major changes compared to 10: The following are the major changes compared to 10:
o Editorial Changes. o Editorial Changes.
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10
The following are the major changes compared to 09: The following are the major changes compared to 09:
o Discuss what exist already for monitoring in section 3.1. o Discuss what exist already for monitoring in section 3.1.
o Provide benefit using RTCP XR based monitoring in section 3.1. o Provide benefit using RTCP XR based monitoring in section 3.1.
o add one new paragraph in section 3.1 to describe how monitoring o add one new paragraph in section 3.1 to describe how monitoring
architecture is applied to ASM/SSM. architecture is applied to ASM/SSM.
o Other Editorial Changes. o Other Editorial Changes.
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09
The following are the major changes compared to 07: The following are the major changes compared to 07:
o Rephrase application level metric definition. o Rephrase application level metric definition.
o Add one new section to clarify where to measure QoE related o Add one new section to clarify where to measure QoE related
parameters. parameters.
o Add text in section 5.3 to clarify the failure case when o Add text in section 5.3 to clarify the failure case when
measurement interval is not sent. measurement interval is not sent.
o Add text in section 5.3 to clarify how to deal with multiple o Add text in section 5.3 to clarify how to deal with multiple
measurements information blocks carried in the same packet. measurements information blocks carried in the same packet.
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08
The following are the major changes compared to 07: The following are the major changes compared to 07:
o Editorial change to the reference. o Editorial change to the reference.
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07
The following are the major changes compared to 06: The following are the major changes compared to 06:
o Clarify the XR block code points consumption issue in the section o Clarify the XR block code points consumption issue in the section
4 and new section 5.4. 4 and new section 5.4.
o Other editorial changes. o Other editorial changes.
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06
The following are the major changes compared to 05: The following are the major changes compared to 05:
o Some editorial changes. o Some editorial changes.
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05
The following are the major changes compared to 04: The following are the major changes compared to 04:
o Replace "chunk" with "new SDES item". o Replace "chunk" with "new SDES item".
o Add texts in security section to discussion potential security o Add texts in security section to discussion potential security
issues. issues.
o Add new sub-section 5.3 to discuss Reducing Measurement o Add new sub-section 5.3 to discuss Reducing Measurement
information repetition. information repetition.
o Other editorial changes. o Other editorial changes.
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04
The following are the major changes compared to 03: The following are the major changes compared to 03:
o Update section 5.2 to clarify using SDES packet to carry o Update section 5.2 to clarify using SDES packet to carry
correlation information. correlation information.
o Remove section 5.3 since additional identity information goes to o Remove section 5.3 since additional identity information goes to
SDES packet and using SSRC to identify each block is standard RTP SDES packet and using SSRC to identify each block is standard RTP
feature. feature.
o Swap the last two paragraphs in the section 4 since identity o Swap the last two paragraphs in the section 4 since identity
information duplication can not been 100% avoided. information duplication can not been 100% avoided.
o Other editorial changes. o Other editorial changes.
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03
The following are the major changes compared to 02: The following are the major changes compared to 02:
o Update bullet 2 in section 4 to explain the ill-effect of Identity o Update bullet 2 in section 4 to explain the ill-effect of Identity
Information duplication. Information duplication.
o Update bullet 3 in section 4 to explain why Correlating RTCP XR o Update bullet 3 in section 4 to explain why Correlating RTCP XR
with the non-RTP data is needed. with the non-RTP data is needed.
o Update section 5.2 to focus on how to reduce the identity o Update section 5.2 to focus on how to reduce the identity
information repetition information repetition
o Update section 5.3 to explain how to correlate identity o Update section 5.3 to explain how to correlate identity
information with the non-RTP data information with the non-RTP data
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02
The following are the major changes compared to 01: The following are the major changes compared to 01:
o Deleting first paragraph of Section 1. o Deleting first paragraph of Section 1.
o Deleting Section 3.1, since the interaction with the management o Deleting Section 3.1, since the interaction with the management
application is out of scope of this draft. application is out of scope of this draft.
o Separate identity information correlation from section 5.2 as new o Separate identity information correlation from section 5.2 as new
section 5.3. section 5.3.
o Remove figure 2 and related text from section 5.2. o Remove figure 2 and related text from section 5.2.
o Editorial changes in the section 4 and the first paragraph of o Editorial changes in the section 4 and the first paragraph of
section 7. section 7.
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01
The following are the major changes compared to 00: The following are the major changes compared to 00:
o Restructure the document by merging section 4 into section 3. o Restructure the document by merging section 4 into section 3.
o Remove section 4.1,section 5 that is out of scope of this o Remove section 4.1,section 5 that is out of scope of this
document. document.
o Remove the last bullet in section 6 and section 7.3 based on o Remove the last bullet in section 6 and section 7.3 based on
conclusion of last meeting. conclusion of last meeting.
skipping to change at page 28, line 30 skipping to change at page 26, line 44
o Update figure 1 and related text in section 3 according to the o Update figure 1 and related text in section 3 according to the
monitor definition in RFC3550. monitor definition in RFC3550.
o Revise section 9 to address monitor declaration issue. o Revise section 9 to address monitor declaration issue.
o Merge the first two bullet in section 6. o Merge the first two bullet in section 6.
o Add one new bullet to discuss metric block association in section o Add one new bullet to discuss metric block association in section
6. 6.
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00
The following are the major changes compared to The following are the major changes compared to
draft-hunt-avtcore-monarch-02: draft-hunt-avtcore-monarch-02:
o Move Geoff Hunt and Philip Arden to acknowledgement section. o Move Geoff Hunt and Philip Arden to acknowledgement section.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Qin Wu (editor) Qin Wu (editor)
Huawei Huawei
 End of changes. 63 change blocks. 
369 lines changed or deleted 300 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/