draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-20.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: March 15, 2013 Unaffiliated Expires: March 18, 2013 Unaffiliated
P. Arden P. Arden
BT BT
September 11, 2012 September 14, 2012
Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19.txt draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-20.txt
Abstract Abstract
This memo proposes an extensible RTP monitoring framework for This memo proposes an extensible Real-Time Protocol (RTP) monitoring
extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended framework for extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP
Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding media Extended Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding
transmission or reception quality. In this framework, a new XR block media transmission or reception quality. In this framework, a new XR
should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant block should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics
to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing relevant to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than
a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all containing a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage
those parameters of concern to a specific application. Applications of all those parameters of concern to a specific application.
may then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which covers their Applications may then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which
set of concerns. Where possible, a specific block should be designed covers their set of concerns. Where possible, a specific block
to be re-usable across more than one application, for example, for should be designed to be re-usable across more than one application,
all of voice, streaming audio and video. for example, for all of voice, streaming audio and video.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 March 15, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 18, 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 11 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
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 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 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-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.20. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.20. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A.21. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
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)
[RFC3550] are being developed for the purpose of collecting and [RFC3550] are being developed for the purpose of collecting and
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
measure and monitor Quality of Experience (QoE) [RFC6390]. 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 describe an extensible RTP In the Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390], guidelines for
Considering New Performance Metric Development are provided. The
objective of this document is to describe 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 of Service (QoS) / QoE metrics which facilitate reduced
implementation costs and help maximize inter-operability. The implementation costs and help maximize inter-operability. The
"Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968] "Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)" [RFC5968]
has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the has stated that, where RTCP is to be extended with a new metric, the
preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611] preferred mechanism is by the addition of a new RTCP XR [RFC3611]
block. This memo assumes that any requirement for a new metric to be block. This memo assumes that any requirement for a new metric to be
transported in RTCP will use a new RTCP XR block. transported in RTCP will use a new RTCP XR block and all the
guidelines from RFC 5968 must apply on top of the guidelines in this
document. .
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 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
should be usable by any application which uses RTP transport. 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 usually 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_BLOCK].
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.
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 by Metrics that are not measured directly but rather are derived by
algorithmically combining one or more measured metrics. An algorithmically combining one or more measured metrics [RFC6390].
example is a metric derived based on direct metrics that have been An example is a metric derived based on direct metrics that have
measured. been measured.
Interval metrics Interval metrics
Metrics measured over the course of a single reporting interval Metrics measured over the course of a single reporting interval
between two successive report blocks. This may be the most recent between two successive report blocks. This may be the most recent
RTCP reporting interval ([RFC3550], section 6.2) or some other RTCP reporting interval ([RFC3550], section 6.2) or some other
interval signalled using an RTCP Measurement Information XR Block interval signalled using an RTCP Measurement Information XR Block
[MEASI]. An example interval metric is the count of the number of [MEASI]. An example interval metric is the count of the number of
RTP packets lost over the course of the last RTCP reporting RTP packets lost over the course of the last RTCP reporting
interval. interval.
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
reporting interval (generally the value of some measurement as reporting interval (generally the value of some measurement as
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 MIB
MIB [RFC2959], or the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) event package module [RFC2959], or the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) event
for RTCP summary reports [RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as package for RTCP summary reports [RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms
generic MIBs, NetFlow, IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide such as generic MIBs, NetFlow [RFC3954], IPFIX [RFC5101][RFC5102],
useful mechanisms for exporting data on the performance of an RTP and so on. Together, these provide useful mechanisms for exporting
session to non-RTP network management systems. It is desirable to data on the performance of an RTP session to non-RTP network
also perform in-session monitoring of RTP performance. RTCP provides management systems. It is desirable to also perform in-session
the means to do this. In the following, we review the RTP Monitoring monitoring of RTP performance. RTCP provides the means to do this.
Framework, and give guidance for using and extending RTCP for In the following, we review the RTP Monitoring Framework, and give
monitoring RTP sessions. One major benefit of such framework is ease guidance for using and extending RTCP for monitoring RTP sessions.
of integration with other RTP/RTCP mechanisms. One major benefit of such framework is ease 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 described below: functional components described below:
o RTP monitor o Monitor
o RTP Metric Block o RTP Metric Block
RTP Monitor is the functional component defined in the Real-time 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
packets to End-devices or a third party that observes the RTP and packets to End-devices or a third party that observes the RTP and
RTCP traffic but does not make itself visible to the RTP Session RTCP traffic but does not make itself visible to the RTP Session
participants can play the role of the RTP monitor within the RTP participants can play the role of the monitor within the RTP
monitoring Framework. As shown in Figure 1, the third party RTP monitoring Framework. As shown in Figure 1, the third party monitor
monitor can be a passive monitor that sees the RTP/RTCP stream pass can be a passive monitor that sees the RTP/RTCP stream pass it, or a
it, or a system that gets sent RTCP reports but not RTP and uses that system that gets sent RTCP reports but not RTP and uses that to
to collect information. The third party RTP monitor should be placed collect information. The third party monitor should be placed on the
on the RTP/RTCP path between the sender, intermediate and the RTP/RTCP path between the sender, intermediate and the receiver.
receiver.
The RTP Metric Block (MB) conveys real time Application QoS/QoE The RTP Metric Block (MB) conveys real time Application QoS/QoE
metric information and is used by the RTP monitor to exchange with metric information and is used by the monitor to exchange with other
other RTP monitors in the appropriate report block format. The monitors in the appropriate report block format. The information
information contained in the RTP MBs is collected by RTP monitors and contained in the RTP MBs is collected by monitors and can be
can be formulated as various types of metrics, e.g., direct metrics/ formulated as various types of metrics, e.g., direct metrics/composed
composed metrics or interval metrics/ cumulative metrics/sampled metrics or interval metrics/ cumulative metrics/sampled metrics, etc.
metrics, etc. Both the RTCP or RTCP XR can be extended to transport Both the RTCP or RTCP XR can be extended to transport these metrics,
these metrics, e.g., the basic RTCP Reception Report (RR) [RFC3550] e.g., the basic RTCP Reception Report (RR) [RFC3550] that conveys
that conveys reception statistics (i.e., transport level statistics) reception statistics (i.e., transport level statistics) for multiple
for multiple RTP media streams, the RTCP XRs [RFC3611] that RTP media streams, the RTCP XRs [RFC3611] that supplement the
supplement the existing RTCP packets and provide more detailed existing RTCP packets and provide more detailed feedback on reception
feedback on reception quality and RTCP NACK [RFC4585] that provides quality, and RTCP NACK [RFC4585] that provides feedback on the RTP
feedback on the RTP sequence numbers for a subset of the lost packets sequence numbers for a subset of the lost packets or all the
or all the currently lost packets. Ultimately the metric information currently lost packets. Ultimately the metric information collected
collected by RTP monitors within the RTP monitoring framework may go by monitors within the RTP monitoring framework may go to the network
to the network management tools beyond the RTP monitoring framework, management tools beyond the RTP monitoring framework, e.g., as shown
e.g., as shown Figure 1, the RTP monitors may export the metric Figure 1, the monitors may export the metric information derived from
information derived from the RTP monitoring framework to the the RTP monitoring framework to the management system using non-RTP
management system using non-RTP means. means.
+-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
|Third Party| |Management| |Third Party| |Management|
|RTP Monitor| >>>>>>>>| System |<<<<< | Monitor | >>>>>>>>| System |<<<<<
+-----------+ ^ +----------+ ^ +-----------+ ^ +----------+ ^
: ^ ^ ^ : ^ ^ ^
: | ^ ^ : | ^ ^
+---------------+ : | +-------------+ +-------------+ +---------------+ : | +-------------+ +-------------+
| +-----------+ | : | |+-----------+| |+-----------+| | +-----------+ | : | |+-----------+| |+-----------+|
| |RTP Monitor| |..:...|.......||RTP Monitor||........||RTP Monitor|| | | Monitor | |..:...|.......|| Monitor ||........|| Monitor ||
| +-----------+ | | |+-----------+| |+-----------+| | +-----------+ | | |+-----------+| |+-----------+|
| |------+------>| |------->| | | |------+------>| |------->| |
| RTP Sender | |RTP Mixer or | |RTP Receiver | | RTP Sender | |RTP Mixer or | |RTP Receiver |
| | |Translator | | | | | |Translator | | |
+---------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +---------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
----> RTP media traffic ----> RTP media traffic
..... RTCP control channel ..... RTCP control channel
>>>>> Non-RTP/RTCP management flows >>>>> Non-RTP/RTCP management flows
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 monitor is a member of
of the multicast group and listens to RTCP reports from all members the multicast group and listens to RTCP reports from all members of
of the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback target
target that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it to
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
RTP 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 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 Monitors
As shown in Figure 1, there are several possible locations from where As shown in Figure 1, there are several possible locations from 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 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 monitor, or depend on where the monitors
monitors are located in the network, while others are more general are located in the network, while others are more general and can be
and can be collected in any monitoring location. 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.
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, encryption of the monitoring report is recommended. sensitive, the monitoring reports SHOULD be secured to the same
extent as the RTP flows that they measure. If encryption is used and
the encrypted monitoring report is received by the RTP system that
deploy the third party monitor,the RTP system may decrypt the monitor
report for the third party monitor based on local policy(e.g.,third-
party monitors is allowed to access to the metric) and forward it to
the third party monitor, otherwise, the third party monitor SHOULD
discard the received encrypted monitoring report.
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,Barry Leiba,Benoit Claise,Russ
and suggestions on the early version of this document. Housley,Stephen Farrell for their valuable comments 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-10, ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-10,
August 2012. 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-05, August 2012. ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-pdv-05, August 2012.
[QOE] Hunt, G., Clark, A., Wu, Q., Schott, R., and G. Zorn, [QOE_BLOCK]
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,
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.
[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.
[RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version
9", RFC 3954, October 2004.
[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.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., , S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. Meyer,
"Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, January 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 [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,
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-19 A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-20
The following are the major changes compared to 19:
o Editorial changes based on IESG Review.
o Some new text in the security section to clarify encryption issue
for third party monitoring.
o Some new text in introduction section to clarify the relationship
with RFC5968 and RFC6390.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-19
The following are the major changes compared to 18: The following are the major changes compared to 18:
o Editorial changes based on Meral Shirazipour's second Gen-Art o Editorial changes based on Meral Shirazipour's second Gen-Art
review. review.
o Transport level metrics definition simplifying based on Robert's o Transport level metrics definition simplifying based on Robert's
comment. comment.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-18 A.3. 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.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17 A.4. 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.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-16 A.5. 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.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-15 A.6. 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.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-14 A.7. 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.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 A.8. 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.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12 A.9. 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.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-11 A.10. 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.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 A.11. 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.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 A.12. 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.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-08 A.13. 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.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-07 A.14. 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.14. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-06 A.15. 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.15. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-05 A.16. 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.16. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-04 A.17. 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.17. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-03 A.18. 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.18. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-02 A.19. 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.19. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-01 A.20. 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 44 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
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.20. draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00 A.21. 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. 47 change blocks. 
119 lines changed or deleted 156 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/