draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18.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: December 30, 2012 Unaffiliated Expires: February 25, 2013 Unaffiliated
P. Arden P. Arden
BT BT
June 28, 2012 August 24, 2012
Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17.txt draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18.txt
Abstract Abstract
This memo proposes an extensible RTP monitoring framework for This memo proposes an extensible RTP monitoring framework for
extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended
Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding media Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding media
transmission or reception quality. In this framework, a new XR block transmission or reception quality. In this framework, a new XR block
should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant
to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing
a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 December 30, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2013.
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 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
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 Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. RTP Monitoring Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Overview of the RTP Monitoring Framework . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Overview of the RTP Monitoring Framework . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Location of RTP Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Location of RTP Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension . . 10 4. Issues With Reporting Metric Block Using RTCP XR Extension . . 10
4.1. Using compound metrics block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Using compound metrics block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Measurement Information duplication . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Measurement Information duplication . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Consumption of XR block code points . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Consumption of XR block code points . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Guidelines for reporting metric block using RTCP XR . . . . . 12 5. Guidelines For Reporting Metric Block Using RTCP XR . . . . . 12
5.1. Contain the single metrics in the Metric Block . . . . . . 12 5.1. Contain the single metrics in the Metric Block . . . . . . 12
5.2. Include the payload type in the Metric Block . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Include the payload type in the Metric Block . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Use RTCP SDES to correlate XR reports with non-RTP data . 13 5.3. Use RTCP SDES to correlate XR reports with non-RTP data . 13
5.4. Reduce Measurement information repetition across 5.4. Reduce Measurement information repetition across
metric blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 metric blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. An example of a metric block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. An Example of a Metric Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Application to RFC 5117 topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Application To RFC 5117 Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Applicability to Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Applicability to Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Applicability to MCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Applicability to MCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multimedia services using the Real-Time Protocol (RTP) are seeing Multimedia services using the Real-Time Protocol (RTP) are seeing
increased use. Standard methods for gathering RTP performance increased use. Standard methods for gathering RTP performance
metrics from these applications are needed to manage uncertainties in metrics from these applications are needed to manage uncertainties in
the behavior and availability of their services. Standards , such as the behavior and availability of their services. Standards , such as
RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)[RFC3611] and other RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)[RFC3611] and other
RTCP extension to Sender Reports (SR), Receiver Reports (RR) RTCP extension to Sender Reports (SR), Receiver Reports (RR)
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
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
A set of metrics which characterise the three transport A set of metrics which characterise the three transport
impairments of packet loss, packet delay, and packet delay impairments of packet loss, packet delay, and packet delay
variation. These metrics should be usable by any application variation which is sometimes called jitter [RFC5481]. These
which uses RTP transport. metrics should be usable by any application which uses RTP
transport.
Application level metrics Application level metrics
Metrics relating to application specific parameters or QoE related Metrics relating to application specific parameters or QoE related
parameters. Application specific parameters are measured at the parameters. Application specific parameters are measured at the
application level and focus on quality of content rather than application level and focus on quality of content rather than
network performance. QoE related parameters reflect the end-to- network performance. QoE related parameters reflect the end-to-
end performance at the services level and are ususally measured at end performance at the services level and are ususally measured at
the user endpoint. One example of such metrics is the QoE Metric the user endpoint. One example of such metrics is the QoE Metric
specified in QoE metric reporting Block [QOE]. specified in QoE metric reporting Block [QOE].
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 9
taken at the end of the reporting interval). An example is the taken at the end of the reporting interval). An example is the
inter-arrival jitter reported in RTCP SR and RR packets, which is inter-arrival jitter reported in RTCP SR and RR packets, which is
continually updated as each RTP data packet arrives, but only continually updated as each RTP data packet arrives, but only
reported based on a snapshot of the value which is sampled at the reported based on a snapshot of the value which is sampled at the
instant the reporting interval ends. instant the reporting interval ends.
3. RTP Monitoring Framework 3. RTP Monitoring Framework
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 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) event package
[RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as generic MIBs, NetFlow, for RTCP summary reports [RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as
IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide useful mechanisms for generic MIBs, NetFlow, IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide
exporting data on the performance of an RTP session to non-RTP useful mechanisms for exporting data on the performance of an RTP
network management systems. It is desirable to also perform in- session to non-RTP network management systems. It is desirable to
session monitoring of RTP performance. RTCP provides the means to do also perform in-session monitoring of RTP performance. RTCP provides
this. In the following, we review the RTP Monitoring Framework, and the means to do this. In the following, we review the RTP Monitoring
give guidance for using and extending RTCP for monitoring RTP Framework, and give guidance for using and extending RTCP for
sessions. One major benefit of such framework is ease of integration monitoring RTP sessions. One major benefit of such framework is ease
with other RTP/RTCP mechanisms. of integration with other RTP/RTCP mechanisms.
3.1. Overview of the RTP Monitoring Framework 3.1. Overview of the RTP Monitoring Framework
The RTP monitoring Framework comprises the following two key The RTP monitoring Framework comprises the following two key
functional components shown below: functional components described below:
o RTP Monitor o RTP monitor
o RTP Metric Block o RTP Metric Block
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]. It acts as a repository of information Transport Protocol [RFC3550]. It acts as a repository of information
gathered for monitoring purposes. gathered for monitoring purposes.
According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550], According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550],
the end system that runs an application program that sends or the end system that runs an application program that sends or
receives RTP data packets, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP receives RTP data packets, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP
skipping to change at page 8, line 45 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
Figure 1: Example showing the components of the RTP monitoring Figure 1: Example showing the components of the RTP monitoring
framework framework
RTP may be used with multicast groups, both Any Source Multicast RTP may be used with multicast groups, both Any Source Multicast
(ASM) and Source Specific Multicast (SSM). These groups can be (ASM) and Source Specific Multicast (SSM). These groups can be
monitored using RTCP. In the ASM case, the RTP monitor is a member monitored using RTCP. In the ASM case, the RTP monitor is a member
of the multicast group and listens to RTCP reports from all members of the multicast group and listens to RTCP reports from all members
of the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback of the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback
target that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it target that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it
to other members of the SSM group (see figure 1 of [RFC5760] ). The to other members of the SSM group (see Figure 1 of [RFC5760] ). The
RTP monitor will need to be co-located with the feedback target to RTP 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 reports to enhance the reception quality reporting. send RTCP reports to enhance the reception quality reporting.
3.2. Location of RTP Monitors 3.2. Location of RTP Monitors
As shown in the Figure 1, there are several possible locations from As shown in Figure 1, there are several possible locations from where
where RTP sessions can be monitored. These include end-systems that RTP sessions can be monitored. These include end systems that
terminate RTP sessions, intermediate-systems that are an active part terminate RTP sessions, intermediate-systems that are an active part
of an RTP session, and third-party devices that passively monitor an of an RTP session, and third-party devices that passively monitor an
RTP session. Not every RTP sessions will include monitoring, and RTP session. Not every RTP sessions will include monitoring, and
those sessions that are monitored will not all include each type of those sessions that are monitored will not all include each type of
monitor. The performance metrics collected by RTP monitors can be monitor. The performance metrics collected by RTP monitors can be
divided into end system metrics, application level metrics, and divided into end system metrics, application level metrics, and
transport level metrics. Some of these metrics may be specific to transport level metrics. Some of these metrics may be specific to
the measurement point of the RTP monitor, or depend on where the RTP the measurement point of the RTP monitor, or depend on where the RTP
monitors are located in the network, while others are more general monitors are located in the network, while others are more general
and can be collected in any monitoring location. and can be collected in any monitoring location.
End-system monitoring is monitoring that is deployed on devices that End system monitoring is monitoring that is deployed on devices that
terminate RTP flows. Flows can be terminated in user equipment, such terminate RTP flows. Flows can be terminated in user equipment, such
as phones, video conferencing systems, or IPTV set-top boxes. as phones, video conferencing systems, or IPTV set-top boxes.
Alternatively, they can be terminated in devices that gateway between Alternatively, they can be terminated in devices that gateway between
RTP and other transport protocols. Transport and end system metrics, RTP and other transport protocols. Transport and end system metrics,
application level metrics that don't reflect end to end user application level metrics that don't reflect end to end user
experience may be collected at all types of end system, but some experience may be collected at all types of end system, but some
application level metrics (i.e.,quality of experience (QoE) metrics) application level metrics (i.e.,quality of experience (QoE) metrics)
may only be applicable for user-facing end systems. may only be applicable for user-facing end systems.
RTP sessions can include intermediate-systems that are an active part RTP sessions can include intermediate-systems that are an active part
of the system. These intermediate-systems include RTP mixers and of the system. These intermediate-systems include RTP mixers and
translators, MCUs, retransmission servers, etc. If the intermediate- translators, Multipoint Control Units (MCUs), retransmission servers,
system establishes separate RTP sessions to the other participants, etc. If the intermediate-system establishes separate RTP sessions to
then it must act as an end system in each of those separate RTP the other participants, then it must act as an end system in each of
sessions for the purposes of monitoring. If a single RTP session those separate RTP sessions for the purposes of monitoring. If a
traverses the intermediate-system, then the intermediate-system can single RTP session traverses the intermediate-system, then the
be assigned an SSRC in that session which it can use for it's intermediate-system can be assigned an Synchronization source (SSRC)
reports. Transport level metrics may be collected at such in that session which it can use for it's reports. Transport level
intermediate-system. metrics may be collected at such intermediate-system.
Third-party monitors may be deployed that passively monitor RTP Third-party monitors may be deployed that passively monitor RTP
sessions for network management purposes. Third-party monitors often sessions for network management purposes. Third-party monitors often
do not send reports into the RTP session being monitored, but instead do not send reports into the RTP session being monitored, but instead
collect transport and end system metrics, application level metrics collect transport level metrics, end system metrics and application
that are reported via some network management application. In some level metrics. In some cases, however, third-party monitors can send
cases, however, third-party monitors can send reports to some or all reports to some or all participants in the session being monitored.
participants in the session being monitored. For example, in a media For example, in a media streaming scenario, third-party monitors may
streaming scenario, third-party monitors may be deployed that be deployed that passively monitor the session and send reception
passively monitor the session and send reception quality reports to quality reports to the media source, but not to the receivers.
the media source, but not to the receivers.
4. Issues with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extension 4. Issues With Reporting Metric Block Using RTCP XR Extension
The following sections discuss four issues that have come up in the The following sections discuss four issues that have come up in the
past with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extensions. past with reporting metric block using RTCP XR extensions.
4.1. Using compound metrics block 4.1. Using compound metrics block
A compound metrics block is designed to contain a large number of A compound metrics block is designed to contain a large number of
parameters from different classes for a specific application in a parameters from different classes for a specific application in a
single block. For example, the RTCP Extended Reports (XRs) [RFC3611] single block. For example, the RTCP Extended Reports (XRs) [RFC3611]
defines seven report block formats for network management and quality defines seven report block formats for network management and quality
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 10, line 28
inference of network characteristics (MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP) inference of network characteristics (MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP)
monitoring. However different applications layered on RTP may have monitoring. However different applications layered on RTP may have
different monitoring requirements. Designing compound metrics block different monitoring requirements. Designing compound metrics block
only for specific applications may increase implementation cost and only for specific applications may increase implementation cost and
minimize interoperability. minimize interoperability.
4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data 4.2. Correlating RTCP XR with the non-RTP data
Canonical End-Point Identifier SDES Item (CNAME), defined in the RTP Canonical End-Point Identifier SDES Item (CNAME), defined in the RTP
Protocol [RFC3550], is an example of an existing tool that allows Protocol [RFC3550], is an example of an existing tool that allows
binding a Synchronization source (SSRC) that may change to a name binding an SSRC that may change to a name that is fixed within one
that is fixed within one RTP session. CNAME may be also fixed across RTP session. CNAME may be also fixed across multiple RTP sessions
multiple RTP sessions from the same source. However there may be from the same source. However there may be situations where RTCP
situations where RTCP reports are sent to other participating reports are sent to other participating endpoints using non-RTP
endpoints using non-RTP protocol in a session. For example, as protocol in a session. For example, as described in the SIP RTCP
described in the SIP RTCP Summary Report Protocol [RFC6035], the data Summary Report Protocol [RFC6035], the data contained in RTCP XR VoIP
contained in RTCP XR VoIP metrics reports [RFC3611] are forwarded to metrics reports [RFC3611] are forwarded to a central collection
a central collection server systems using SIP. In such case, there server systems using SIP. In such case, there is a large portfolio
is a large portfolio of quality parameters that can be associated of quality parameters that can be associated with real time
with real time application, e.g., VOIP application, but only a application, e.g., VOIP application, but only a minimal number of
minimal number of parameters are included on the RTCP-XR reports. parameters are included on the RTCP-XR reports. With these minimal
With these minimal number of RTCP statistics parameters mapped to number of RTCP statistics parameters mapped to non-RTCP measurements,
non-RTCP measurements, it is hard to provide accurate measures of it is hard to provide accurate measures of real time application
real time application quality, conduct detailed data analysis and quality, conduct detailed data analysis and creates alerts timely to
creates alerts timly to the users. Therefore correlation between the users. Therefore correlation between RTCP XR and non-RTP data
RTCP XR and non-RTP data should be provided. should be provided.
4.3. Measurement Information duplication 4.3. Measurement Information duplication
We may set a measurement interval for the session and monitor RTP We may set a measurement interval for the session and monitor RTP
packets within one or several consecutive report intervals. In such packets within one or several consecutive report intervals. In such
case, the extra measurement information (e.g., extended sequence case, the extra measurement information (e.g., extended sequence
number of 1st packet, measurement period) may be expected. However number of 1st packet, measurement period) may be expected. However
if we put such extra measurement information into each metric block, if we put such extra measurement information into each metric block,
there may be situations where an RTCP XR packet containing multiple there may be situations where an RTCP XR packet containing multiple
metric blocks, reports on the same streams from the same source. In metric blocks, reports on the same streams from the same source. In
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
should be taken into account. should be taken into account.
4.4. Consumption of XR block code points 4.4. Consumption of XR block code points
The RTCP XR block namespace is limited by the 8-bit block type field The RTCP XR block namespace is limited by the 8-bit block type field
in the RTCP XR header. Space exhaustion may be a concern in the in the RTCP XR header. Space exhaustion may be a concern in the
future. Anticipating the potential need to extend the block type future. Anticipating the potential need to extend the block type
space, it is noted that Block Type 255 is reserved for future space, it is noted that Block Type 255 is reserved for future
extensions in [RFC3611]. extensions in [RFC3611].
5. Guidelines for reporting metric block using RTCP XR 5. Guidelines For Reporting Metric Block Using RTCP XR
5.1. Contain the single metrics in the Metric Block 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 overhead, required or at least sufficiently useful to justify the overhead,
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 14
signal the details and parameters of the payload format to which that signal the details and parameters of the payload format to which that
payload type is bound using some out-of-band means (e.g., as part of payload type is bound using some out-of-band means (e.g., as part of
an SDP offer/answer exchange). an SDP offer/answer exchange).
5.3. Use RTCP SDES to correlate XR reports with 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
RTCP Session with other session-related non-RTP data. That is to say RTCP Session with other session-related non-RTP data. That is to say
if there is a need to correlate RTP sessions with non-RTP sessions, if there is a need to correlate RTP sessions with non-RTP sessions,
then the correlation information needed should be conveyed in a new then the correlation information needed should be conveyed in a new
RTCP Source Description (SDES) item, since such correlation RTCP Source Description (SDES) item, since such correlation
information describes the source, rather than providing a quality information describes the source, rather than providing a quality
report. An example use case is for a participant endpoint may convey report. An example use case is for a participant endpoint may convey
a call identifier or a global call identifier associated with the a call identifier or a global call identifier associated with the
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 to bind the call identifier using SDES item in the SDES
in the SDES RTCP packet and send such correlation to the network RTCP packet and send such correlation to the network management
management system. A flow measurement tool that is configured with system. A flow measurement tool that is configured with the 5-tuple
the 5-tuple and not call-aware then forward the RTCP XR reports along and not call-aware then forwards the RTCP XR reports along with the
with the SSRC of the measured RTP stream which is included in the XR SSRC of the measured RTP stream which is included in the XR Block
Block header and 5-tuple to the network management system. Network 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. Reduce Measurement information repetition across metric blocks 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. Measurement Identity multiple metric blocks between metric blocks. "Measurement Identity
and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block" and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block" [MEASI]
[MEASI]enables an RTCP sender to convey the common time period and enables an RTCP sender to convey the common time period and the
the number of packets sent during this period. If the measurement number of packets sent during this period. If the measurement
interval for a metric is different from the RTCP reporting interval, interval for a metric is different from the RTCP reporting interval,
then this measurement duration in the Measurement information block then this measurement duration in the Measurement information block
should be used to specify the interval. When there may be multiple should be used to specify the interval. When there may be multiple
measurements information blocks with the same SSRC in one RTCP XR measurements information blocks with the same SSRC in one RTCP XR
compound packet, the measurement information block should be put in compound packet, the measurement information block should be put in
order and followed by all the metric blocks associated with this order and followed by all the metric blocks associated with this
measurement information block. New RTCP XR metric blocks that rely measurement information block. New RTCP XR metric blocks that rely
on the Measurement information block [MEASI] must specify the on the Measurement information block [MEASI] must specify the
response in case the new RTCP XR metric block is received without an response in case the new RTCP XR metric block is received without an
associated measurement information block. In most cases, it is associated measurement information block. In most cases, it is
expected that the correct response is to discard the received metric. expected that the correct response is to discard the received metric.
In order to reduce measurement information repetition in one RTCP XR In order to reduce measurement information repetition in one RTCP XR
compound packet containing multiple metric blocks, the measurement compound packet containing multiple metric blocks, the measurement
information shall be sent before the related metric blocks that are information shall be sent before the related metric blocks that are
from the same reporting interval. Note that for packet loss from the same reporting interval. Note that for packet loss
robustness if the report blocks for the same interval span over more robustness if the report blocks for the same interval span over more
than one RTCP packet, then each must have the measurement identity than one RTCP packet, then each must have the measurement identity
information even though they will be the same. information even though they will be the same.
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.
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
metric of PDV is available in the RTCP RR packet as the "interarrival metric of PDV is available in the RTCP RR packet as the "interarrival
jitter" field. There are other PDV metrics with a certain similarity jitter" field. There are other PDV metrics with a certain similarity
in metric structure which may be more useful to certain applications. in metric structure which may be more useful to certain applications.
Two such metrics are the IPDV metric ([Y1540], [RFC3393]) and the Two such metrics are the IPDV metric ([Y1540], [RFC3393]) and the
mean absolute packet delay variation 2 (MAPDV2) metric [G1020]. Use mean absolute packet delay variation 2 (MAPDV2) metric [G1020]. Use
of these metrics is consistent with the principle in Section 5 of of these metrics is consistent with the principle in Section 5 of
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
require inclusion in this framework. The first option is extensible require inclusion in this framework. The first option is extensible
but only by use of additional RTCP XR blocks, which may consume the but only by use of additional RTCP XR blocks, which may consume the
limited namespace for RTCP XR blocks at an unacceptable rate. The limited namespace for RTCP XR blocks at an unacceptable rate. The
second option is not extensible, so could be rejected on that basis, second option is not extensible, so could be rejected on that basis,
but in any case a single application is quite unlikely to require but in any case a single application is quite unlikely to require
transport of more than one metric for PDV. Hence the third option transport of more than one metric for PDV. Hence the third option
was chosen. This implies the creation of a subsidiary namespace to was chosen. This implies the creation of a subsidiary namespace to
enumerate the PDV metrics which may be transported by this block, as enumerate the PDV metrics which may be transported by this block, as
discussed further in [PDV]. discussed further in [PDV].
7. Application to RFC 5117 topologies 7. Application To RFC 5117 Topologies
The topologies specified in [RFC5117] fall into two categories. The The topologies specified in [RFC5117] fall into two categories. The
first category relates to the RTP system model utilizing multicast first category relates to the RTP system model utilizing multicast
and/or unicast. The topologies in this category are specifically and/or unicast. The topologies in this category are specifically
Topo-Point-to-Point, Topo- Multicast, Topo-Translator (both variants, Topo-Point-to-Point, Topo- Multicast, Topo-Translator (both variants,
Topo-Trn-Translator and Topo-Media-Translator, and combinations of Topo-Trn-Translator and Topo-Media-Translator, and combinations of
the two), and Topo-Mixer. These topologies use RTP end systems, RTP the two), and Topo-Mixer. These topologies use RTP end systems, RTP
mixers and RTP translators defined in the RTP protocol [RFC3550]. mixers and RTP translators defined in the RTP protocol [RFC3550].
For purposes of reporting connection quality to other RTP systems, For purposes of reporting connection quality to other RTP systems,
RTP mixers and RTP end systems are very similar. Mixers RTP mixers and RTP end systems are very similar. Mixers
skipping to change at page 19, line 19 skipping to change at page 19, line 19
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, encyption of the monitoring report is recommended.
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,
Robert Sparks, Salvatore Loreto, Graeme Gibbs, Debbie Greenstreet, Robert Sparks, Salvatore Loreto, Graeme Gibbs, Debbie Greenstreet,
Keith Drage, Dan Romascanu, Ali C. Begen, Roni Even, Magnus Keith Drage, Dan Romascanu, Ali C. Begen, Roni Even, Magnus
Westerlund for their valuable comments and suggestions on the early Westerlund,Meral Shirazipour,Tina Tsou for their valuable comments
version of this document. and suggestions on the early version of this document.
11. Informative References 11. Informative References
[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.
[MEASI] 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-07, June 2012. ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-09, July 2012.
[P.NAMS] ITU-T, "Non-intrusive parametric model for the Assessment
of performance of Multimedia Streaming", ITU-T
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",
ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-03, May 2012. ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-03, May 2012.
[QOE] Hunt, G., Clark, A., Wu, Q., Schott, R., and G. Zorn, [QOE] Hunt, G., Clark, A., Wu, Q., Schott, R., and G. Zorn,
"RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting", "RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting",
ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01, May 2012. ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02, July 2012.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989. Communication Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989.
[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.
skipping to change at page 21, line 52 skipping to change at page 21, line 48
[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.
[RFC5117] Westerlund, M., "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117, January 2008. [RFC5117] Westerlund, M., "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117, January 2008.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control [RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010. 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.
skipping to change at page 23, line 10 skipping to change at page 23, line 10
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-17 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18
The following are the major changes compared to 17:
o Some Editorial changes based on Gen-Art review and Secdir Review.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17
The following are the major changes compared to 16: The following are the major changes compared to 16:
o Some Editorial changes. o Some Editorial changes.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16
The following are the major changes compared to 15: The following are the major changes compared to 15:
o A few modification to the figure 1. o A few modification to the figure 1.
o Change RTCP XR reports into RTCP reports in the section 3.1. o Change RTCP XR reports into RTCP reports in the section 3.1.
o References Update. o References Update.
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15
The following are the major changes compared to 14: The following are the major changes compared to 14:
o Add figure 1 in section 3 to describe RTP monitoring framework. o Add figure 1 in section 3 to describe RTP monitoring framework.
o Change the title as Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring o Change the title as Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring
Framework. Framework.
o Other editorial change to get in line with the title change in the o Other editorial change to get in line with the title change in the
section 3. section 3.
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14
The following are the major changes compared to 13: The following are the major changes compared to 13:
o Incorporate the key points in the section 3.2 into overview o Incorporate the key points in the section 3.2 into overview
section. section.
o Remove the figure 1 and use the description instead. o Remove the figure 1 and use the description instead.
o Add description in the section 3.3 to discuss the possible o Add description in the section 3.3 to discuss the possible
location of the monitors and the types of metric at that location. location of the monitors and the types of metric at that location.
o Add the description to make the definition of Interval metrics/ o Add the description to make the definition of Interval metrics/
cumulative metrics/sampled metrics clear. cumulative metrics/sampled metrics clear.
o Editorial Changes. o Editorial Changes.
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 A.6. 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.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 A.7. 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.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 A.8. 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.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 A.9. 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.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 A.10. 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.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 A.11. 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.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 A.12. 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.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 A.13. 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.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 A.14. 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.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 A.15. 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.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 A.16. 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.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 A.17. 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.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 A.18. 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 27, line 27 skipping to change at page 27, line 30
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.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 A.19. 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. 50 change blocks. 
120 lines changed or deleted 125 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/