draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19.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: February 25, 2013 Unaffiliated Expires: March 15, 2013 Unaffiliated
P. Arden P. Arden
BT BT
August 24, 2012 September 11, 2012
Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18.txt draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19.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 February 25, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 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 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
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-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.20. 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 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
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
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, jitter. These metrics
variation which is sometimes called jitter [RFC5481]. These should be usable by any application 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 usually 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].
End System metrics End System metrics
Metrics relating to the way a terminal deals with transport Metrics relating to the way a terminal deals with transport
impairments affecting the incident RTP stream. These may include impairments affecting the incident RTP stream. These may include
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.
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
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, Multipoint Control Units (MCUs), retransmission servers, translators, Multipoint Control Units (MCUs), retransmission servers,
etc. If the intermediate-system establishes separate RTP sessions to etc. If the intermediate-system establishes separate RTP sessions to
the other participants, then it must act as an end system in each of 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 those separate RTP sessions for the purposes of monitoring. If a
single RTP session traverses the intermediate-system, then the single RTP session traverses the intermediate-system, then the
intermediate-system can be assigned an Synchronization source (SSRC) intermediate-system can be assigned an Synchronization source (SSRC)
in that session which it can use for it's reports. Transport level in that session which it can use for its reports. Transport level
metrics may be collected at such 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 level metrics, end system metrics and application collect transport level metrics, end system metrics and application
level metrics. In some cases, however, third-party monitors can send level metrics. In some cases, however, third-party monitors can send
reports to some or all participants in the session being monitored. reports to some or all participants in the session being monitored.
For example, in a media streaming scenario, third-party monitors may For example, in a media streaming scenario, third-party monitors may
be deployed that passively monitor the session and send reception be deployed that passively monitor the session and send reception
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, encyption of the monitoring report is recommended. sensitive, encryption 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,Meral Shirazipour,Tina Tsou for their valuable comments Westerlund,Meral Shirazipour,Tina Tsou for their valuable comments
and suggestions on the early 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-09, July 2012. ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-10,
August 2012.
[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-05, August 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-02, July 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,
skipping to change at page 21, line 48 skipping to change at page 21, line 49
[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-18 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19
The following are the major changes compared to 18:
o Editorial changes based on Meral Shirazipour's second Gen-Art
review.
o Transport level metrics definition simplifying based on Robert's
comment.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18
The following are the major changes compared to 17: The following are the major changes compared to 17:
o Some Editorial changes based on Gen-Art review and Secdir Review. o Some Editorial changes based on Gen-Art review and Secdir Review.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 A.3. 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.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 A.4. 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.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 A.5. 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.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 A.6. 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.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 A.7. 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.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 A.8. 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.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 A.9. 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.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 A.10. 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.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 A.11. 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.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 A.12. 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.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 A.13. 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.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 A.14. 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.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 A.15. 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.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 A.16. 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.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 A.17. 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.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 A.18. 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.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 A.19. 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 30 skipping to change at page 27, 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.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 A.20. 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. 31 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 61 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/