[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-clark-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 7266

Network Working Group                                           A. Clark
Internet-Draft                                                  Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Q. Wu
Expires: April 21, 2013                                           Huawei
                                                               R. Schott
                                                                      DT
                                                                 G. Zorn
                                                             Network Zen
                                                        October 18, 2012


 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric
                               Reporting
                   draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03

Abstract

   This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
   (XR) Block including two new segment types and associated SDP
   parameters that allow the reporting of QoE metrics for use in a range
   of RTP applications.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  QoE Metrics Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Performance Metrics Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.4.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  QoE Metrics Block  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Metric Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Definition of Fields in QoE Metrics Block  . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.1.  Single Stream per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  Multi-Channel audio per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  SDP Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  New RTCP XR SDP Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.3.  Contact information for registrations  . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.4.  New registry of calculation algorithms for single
           stream segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.5.  New registry of calculation algorithms for
           multi-channel audio segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix A.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.1.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.2.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.3.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.4.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16









Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


1.  Introduction

1.1.  QoE Metrics Report Block

   This document defines a new block type to augment those defined in
   [RFC3611], for use in a range of RTP applications.

   The new block type provides information on multimedia quality using
   one of several standard metrics.

   The metrics belong to the class of application level metrics defined
   in [MONARCH].

1.2.  RTCP and RTCP XR Reports

   The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550].  [RFC3611]
   defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended
   Report (XR).  This draft defines a new Extended Report block for use
   with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].

1.3.  Performance Metrics Framework

   The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the
   definition and specification of performance metrics.  The RTP
   Monitoring Architectures [MONARCH] provides guideline for reporting
   block format using RTCP XR.  The XR Block described in this document
   are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and [MONARCH].

1.4.  Applicability

   The QoE Metrics Report Block can be used in any application of RTP
   for which QoE measurement algorithms are defined.

   The factors that affect real-time AV application quality can be split
   into two categories.  The first category consists of transport-
   dependent factors such as packet loss, delay and jitter (which also
   translates into losses in the playback buffer).  The factors in the
   second category are application-specific factors that affect real
   time application (e.g., video) quality and are sensitivity to network
   errors.  These factors can be but not limited to video codec and loss
   recovery technique, coding bit rate, packetization scheme, and
   content characteristics.

   Compared with application-specific factors, the transport-dependent
   factors sometimes are not sufficient to measure real time data
   quality, since the ability to analyze the real time data in the
   application layer provides quantifiable measurements for subscriber
   Quality of Experience (QoE) that may not be captured in the



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   transmission layers or from the RTP layer down.  In a typical
   scenario, monitoring of the transmission layers can produce
   statistics suggesting that quality is not an issue, such as the fact
   that network jitter is not excessive.  However, problems may occur in
   the service layers leading to poor subscriber QoE.  Therefore
   monitoring using only network-level measurements may be insufficient
   when application layer content quality is required.

   In order to provide accurate measures of real time application
   quality when transporting real time contents across a network, the
   synthentical multimedia quality Metrics is highly required which can
   be conveyed in the RTCP XR packets[RFC3611] and may have the
   following three benefits:

   o  Tuning the content encoder algorithm to satisfy real time data
      quality requirements.
   o  Determining which system techniques to use in a given situation
      and when to switch from one technique to another as system
      parameters change.
   o  Verifying the continued correct operation of an existing system.


2.  Terminology

2.1.  Standards Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   The terminology used is

      Numeric formats S X:Y

         where S indicates a two's complement signed representation, X
         the number of bits prior to the decimal place and Y the number
         of bits after the decimal place.
         Hence 8:8 represents an unsigned number in the range 0.0 to
         255.996 with a granularity of 0.0039.  S7:8 would represent the
         range -127.996 to +127.996. 0:16 represents a proper binary
         fraction with range
         0.0 to 1 - 1/65536 = 0.9999847
         though note that use of flag values at the top of the numeric
         range slightly reduces this upper limit.  For example, if the
         16- bit values 0xfffe and 0xffff are used as flags for "over-
         range" and "unavailable" conditions, a 0:16 quantity has range





Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


         0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542


3.  QoE Metrics Block

   This block reports the multimedia application performance or quality
   beyond the information carried in the standard RTCP packet format.
   Information is recorded about multimedia application QoE metric which
   provides a measure that is indicative of the user's view of a
   service.  Multimedia application QoE metric is commonly expressed as
   a MOS ("Mean Opinion Score"), MOS is on a scale from 1 to 5, in which
   5 represents excellent and 1 represents unacceptable.  MOS scores are
   usually obtained using subjective testing or using objective
   algorithm.  However Subjective testing to estimate the multimedia
   quality may be not suitable for measuring the multimedia quality
   since the results may vary from test to test.  Therefore using
   objective algorithm to calculate MOS scores is recommended.  ITU-T
   recommendations define the methodologies for assessment of the
   performance of multimedia stream
   [G.107][P.564][G.1082][P.1201][P.1202] and provides a method to
   evaluate QoE estimation algorithms and objective model for video and
   audio.  Hence this document recommends vendors and implementers to
   use these International Telecommunication Union (ITU)-specified
   methodologies to measure parameters when possible.

      Editor's note: P.NAMS and P.NBAMS are replaced with P.1201 and
      P.1202.  However P.1201 is further splitted into P.1201.1 and
      P.1201.2 and P.1202 is futher splitted into P.1202.1 and P.1202.2.
      So shall we reference parent document P.1201 and P.1202 or
      reference derived documents P.1201.1,P.1201.2, P.1202.1,P.1202.2?


3.1.  Metric Block Structure

   The report block contents are dependent upon a series of flag bits
   carried in the first part of the header.  Not all parameters need to
   be reported in each block.  Flags indicate which are and which are
   not reported.  The fields corresponding to unreported parameters MUST
   be present, but are set to zero.  The receiver MUST ignore any QoE
   Metrics Block with a non-zero value in any field flagged as
   unreported.  The encoding of QoE metrics block payload consists of a
   series of 32 bit units called segments that describe MOS Type, MoS
   algorithm and MoS value.

      Editor's note: MOS values for narrowband, wideband, super wideband
      and fullband codecs; these MOS values occupy the same range.  For
      video application,MoS values for SD resolution, HD resolution
      video also occupy the same ranges and hence the QoE block needs to



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


      indicate what the MOS reference is.
      Editor's Note: If we add MoS reference concept, 32 bit segment is
      not sufficient.  Therefore it was suggested to expand 32 bit
      segment into 48 bit segment to support MoS reference feature.

   The QoE Metrics Block has the following format:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     BT=QMB    | I |  Reserved |       Block Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SSRC of source                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Segment  1                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Segment 2                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ..................
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Segment n                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.2.  Definition of Fields in QoE Metrics Block

   Block type (BT): 8 bits

      The QoE Metrics Block is identified by the constant <QMB>.

   Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits

      This field is used to indicate whether the QoE metrics are
      Interval or Cumulative metrics, that is, whether the reported
      values applies to the most recent measurement interval duration
      between successive metrics reports (I=10) (the Interval Duration)
      or to the accumulation period characteristic of cumulative
      measurements (I=11) (the Cumulative Duration) or is a sampled
      instantaneous value (I=01) (Sampled Value).

   Reserved.: 6 bits

      This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
      such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
      MUST be ignored by the receiver.







Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   Block Length: 16 bits

      The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one.  For
      the QoE Metrics Block, the block length is variable length.

   SSRC of source: 32 bits

      As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611].

   Segment i: 32 bits

      There are two segment types defined in this document: single
      stream per SSRC segment, multi-channel audio per SSRC segment.
      Multi-channel audio per SSRC segment is used to deal with the case
      where Multi-channel audios are carried in one RTP stream while
      single stream per SSRC segment is used to deal with the case where
      each media stream is identified by SSRC and sent in separate RTP
      stream.  The left two bits of the section determine its type.  If
      the leftmost bit of the segment is zero, then it is single stream
      segment.  If the leftmost bit is one, then it is multi-channel
      audio segment.  Note that two segment types can not be present in
      the same metric block.


3.2.1.  Single Stream per SSRC Segment

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |S|  MT   |CAlg |    PT       |Rsv. |         MOS Value         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   +----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
   | Editor's Note: If we add   | Editor's Note: Shall we need to      |
   | MoS reference concept, we  | support MoS Scaling concept in the   |
   | should give a definition   | future draft?  One point on the list |
   | of MoS reference which     | is MoS Scaling concept is implicitly |
   | covers both audio          | used within the industry when        |
   | application and video      | quoting MOS scores for codecs and    |
   | application.               | measurements.                        |
   +----------------------------+--------------------------------------+

   Segment Type (S): 1 bit

      This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
      report block.  A zero identifies this as a single stream segment.
      Single stream means there is only one media stream carried in one
      RTP stream.  The single stream segment can be used to report the
      MoS value associated with this media stream identified by SSRC.
      If there are multiple media streams and they want to use the



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


      single stream per SSRC segment to report the MOS value, they
      should be carried in the separate RTP streams with different SSRC.
      In this case, multiple QoE Metrics Blocks are required to report
      the MOS value corresponding to each media stream using single
      stream segment.

   MoS Type (MT): 4 bits

      This field is used to indicate the MOS type to be reported.  The
      MOS type is defined as follows:

         0000 MOS-LQ - Listening Quality MoS.
         0001 MOS-CQ - Conversation Quality MoS.
         0010 MOS-A - Audio Quality MOS.
         0010 MOS-V - Video Quality MOS.
         0011 MOS-AV - Audio-Video Quality MOS.
         0100~1111 - Reserved for future definitions.

      MoS-LQ measures the quality of audio for listening purposes only
      while MoS-CQ measures the quality of audio for conversation
      purpose only.  MoS-A,MoS-V and MoS-AV measures the quality of
      audio application, the quality of video application and Audio-
      Video application respectively.  Both MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ are
      commonly used in VoIP applications.  MOS-LQ uses either wideband
      audio codec or narrowband audio codec, or both and does not take
      into account any of bidirectional effects, such as delay and echo.
      MOS-CQ uses narrowband codec and takes into account listening
      quality in each direction, as well as the bidirectional effects.

   Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits

         000 - ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
         001 - G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
         010 - ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] (Voice)
         011 - TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
         100 - ITU-T P.1201 [P.1201] (Multimedia)
         101 - ITU-T P.1202 [P.1202] (Video)
         110~111 - Reserved for future extension.

      G.107 and P.564 and ETSI TS101 329-5 specify three Calculation
      algorithms or MoS algorithms that are used to estimate speech
      quality or conversation quality.  P.NAMS and P.NBAMS specify two
      MoS algorithms that are used to estimate multimedia quality
      including video quality, audio quality and audio-video quality.
      If MoS type is MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ, the MoS value can be calculated
      based on ITU-T G.107[G.107], ITU-T P.564 [P.564]or ETSI TS 101
      329-5 [ETSI], if the Mos type is MoS-V or MoS-AV, the Mos value
      can be calculated based on ITU-T P.NAMS [P.1201]or ITU-T P.NBAMS



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


      [P.1202].  If new MOS types are defined, they can be added by an
      update to this document.  If the receiver does not understand the
      MOS type defined in this document it should discard this report.
      If MoS Type does not match the MoS algorithm in the report (e.g.,
      specify a voice MOS algorithm for a video quality MOS), the
      receiver should also discard this report.

   Payload Type (PT): 7 bits

      QoE metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use.  This
      field identifies the format of the RTP payload.  For RTP sessions
      where multiple payload formats can be negotiated or the payload
      format changes during the mid-session), the value of this field
      will be used to indicate what payload format was in use for the
      reporting interval.

   Rsd.:3 bits

      This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
      such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
      MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   MOS Value: 14 bits

      The estimated mean opinion score for multimedia application
      quality is defined as including the effects of delay,loss,
      discard,jitter and other effects that would affect multimedia
      quality .  It is expressed in numeric format 6:8 with the value in
      the range 0.0 to 63.996.  The valid the measured value ranges from
      0.0 to 50.0, corresponding to MoS x 10 as for MoS.  If the
      measured value is over ranged, the value 0xFFFE SHOULD be reported
      to indicate an over-range measurement.  If the measurement is
      unavailable, the value 0xFFFF SHOULD be reported.  Values other
      than 0xFFFE,0xFFFF and the valid range defined above MUST NOT be
      sent and MUST be ignored by the receiving system.


3.2.2.  Multi-Channel audio per SSRC Segment

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |S|  MT   |CAlg |     PT      |CHID |         MOS Value         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Segement Type (S): 1 bit

      This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
      report block.  A one identifies this as a multi-channel audio
      segment.



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   Media Type (M): 1bit

      A zero identifies this as a multi-channel per SSRC segment.

   MoS Type (MT): 4 bits

      As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.  If the value of
      this field is not corresponding to MoS-CQ or MoS-LQ, the receiver
      using multi-channel segment should discard this invalid segment
      with the wrong MoS Type.

   Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits

         000 - ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
         001 - G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
         010 - ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E, [ ETSI] (Voice)
         011 - TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
         100~111 - Reserved for future extension.

   Payload Type (PT): 7 bits

      As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.

   Channel Identifier (CHID): 3 bits

      If multiple channels of audio are carried in one RTP stream, each
      channel of audio will be viewed as a independent channel(e.g.,
      left channel audio, right channel audio).  This field is used to
      identify each channel carried in the same media stream.  The
      default Channel mapping follows static ordering rule described in
      the section 4.1 of [RFC3551].  However there are some payload
      formats that use different channel mappings, e.g., AC-3 audio over
      RTP [RFC4184] only follow AC-3 channel order scheme defined in
      [ATSC].  Enhanced AC-3 Audio over RTP [RFC4598] uses dynamic
      channel transform mechanism.  In order that the appropriate
      channel mapping can be determined, QoE reports need to be tied to
      an RTP payload format, i.e., including the payload type of the
      reported media according to [MONARCH] and using Payload Type to
      determine the appropriate channel mapping.

   Rsd.:3 bits

      This field is reserved for future definition.  In the absence of
      such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
      MUST be ignored by the receiver.






Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   MOS Value: 14 bits

      As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.



4.  SDP Signaling

   One new parameter is defined for the report block defined in this
   document to be used with Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]
   using the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234].  It has the
   following syntax within the "rtcp-xr" attribute [RFC3611]:

         xr-format = qoe-metrics
            qoe-metrics = "QoE metrics"

   Refer to Section 5.1 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611] for a detailed description
   and the full syntax of the "rtcp-xr" attribute.


5.  IANA Considerations

   New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration.  For
   general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to
   [RFC3611].

5.1.  New RTCP XR Block Type value

   This document assigns the block type value MMQ in the IANA "RTCP XR
   Block Type Registry" to the "QoE Metrics Block".

   [Note to RFC Editor: please replace MMQ with the IANA provided RTCP
   XR block type for this block.]

5.2.  New RTCP XR SDP Parameter

   This document also registers a new parameter "qoe-metrics" in the
   "RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry".

5.3.  Contact information for registrations

   The contact information for the registrations is:

                    Qin Wu
                    sunseawq@huawei.com
                    101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
                    Nanjing, JiangSu 210012 China




Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


5.4.  New registry of calculation algorithms for single stream segment

   This document creates a new registry for single stream per SSRC
   segment defined in the section 3.2.1 to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric
   block - multimedia application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-
   registry of the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)
   Block Type Registry".  This registry applies to the multimedia
   session where each type of media are sent in a separate RTP stream.
   Specially this registry also applies to the layered video session
   where each layer video are sent in a separate RTP stream.  Policies
   for this new registry are as follows:

   o  The information required to support this assignment is an
      unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
      measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
      metric.  This should include the units of measurement, how values
      of the metric are reported in the one 16-bit fields "MoS Value".
   o  The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
      described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
   o  Entries in the registry are integers.  The valid range is 0 to 7
      corresponding to the 3-bit field "CAlg" in the block.  Values are
      to be recorded in decimal.

   o  Initial assignments are as follows:

      1.  ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
      2.  G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
      3.  ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] (Voice)
      4.  TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
      5.  ITU-T P.1201 [P.1201] (Multimedia)
      6.  ITU-T P.1202 [P.1202] (Video)


5.5.  New registry of calculation algorithms for multi-channel audio
      segment

   This document creates a new registry for multi-channel audio per SSRC
   segment defined in the section 3.2.2 to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric
   block - multi-channel application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-
   registry of the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)
   Block Type Registry" if multi-channel voice data are carried in the
   same RTP stream.  Policies for this new registry are as follows:

   o  The information required to support this assignment is an
      unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
      measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
      metric.  This should include the units of measurement, how values
      of the metric are reported in the one 16-bit fields "MoS Value".



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   o  The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
      described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
   o  Entries in the registry are integers.  The valid range is 0 to 7
      corresponding to the 3-bit field "CAlg" in the block.  Values are
      to be recorded in decimal.
   o  Initial assignments are as follows:

      1.  ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
      2.  G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
      3.  ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ETSI] (Voice)
      4.  TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)



6.  Security Considerations

   The new RTCP XR report blocks proposed in this document introduces no
   new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].


7.  Authors

   This draft merges ideas from two drafts addressing the QoE metric
   Reporting issue.  The authors of these drafts are listed below (in
   alphabetical order):
      Alan Clark < alan.d.clark@telchemy.com >
      Geoff Hunt < r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com >
      Martin Kastner < martin.kastner@telchemy.com >
      Kai Lee < leekai@ctbri.com.cn >
      Roland Schott < roland.schott@telekom.de >
      Qin Wu < sunseawq@huawei.com >
      Glen Zorn < gwz@net-zen.net >


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bill Ver Steeg, David R Oran, Ali
   Begen,Colin Perkins, Roni Even,Youqing Yang, Wenxiao Yu and Yinliang
   Hu for their valuable comments and suggestions on this document.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [ATSC]     U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), "ATSC
              Standard: Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), Revision B",
              ATSC Doc A/52B, June 2005.



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
              Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,
              November 2003.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
              Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

   [ETSI]     ETSI, "Quality of Service (QoS) measurement
              methodologies", ETSI TS 101 329-5 V1.1.1, November 2000.

   [G.107]    ITU-T, "The E Model, a computational model for use in
              transmission planning", ITU-T Recommendation G.107,
              April 2009.

   [G.1082]   ITU-T, "Measurement-based methods for improving the
              robustness of IPTV performance", ITU-T
              Recommendation G.1082, April 2009.

   [MONARCH]  Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP",
              ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-22, September 2012.

   [P.1201]   ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual
              media streaming quality", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201,
              October 2012.

   [P.1202]   ITU-T, "non-intrusive bit-stream model for assessment of
              performance of multimedia streaming", ITU-T
              Recommendation P.1202, October 2012.

   [P.564]    ITU-T, "Conformance testing for narrowband Voice over IP



Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


              transmission quality assessment models", ITU-T
              Recommendation P.564, July 2006.

   [RFC4184]  Link, B., Hager, T., and J. Flaks, "RTP Payload Format for
              AC-3 Audio", RFC 4184, October 2005.

   [RFC4598]  Link, B., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload
              Format for Enhanced AC-3 (E-AC-3) Audio", RFC 4598,
              July 2006.

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric
              Development", RFC 6390, October 2011.

   [TTC]      TTC 201.01 (Japan), "A method for speech quality
              assessment for Voice over IP".


Appendix A.  Change Log

A.1.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03

   The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
   o  Add one new reference to support TTC JJ201.01.
   o  Update two references P.NAMS and P.NBAMS.
   o  Other Editorial changes based on comments applied to PDV and Delay
      drafts.

A.2.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02

   The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
   o  Remove leftmost second bit since it is ueeless.
   o  Change 13bits MoS value field into 14 bits to increase MoS
      precision.
   o  Fix some typo and make some editorial changes.

A.3.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01

   The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
   o  Remove layered support from the QoE metric draft.
   o  Allocate 7 bits in the block header for payload type to indicate
      what type of payload format is in use and add associated
      definition of payload type.
   o  Clarify using Payload Type to determine the appropriate channel
      mapping in the definition of Channel Identifier.







Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks           October 2012


A.4.  draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00

   The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
   o  Allocate one more bit in the single stream per SSC segment to get
      alignment with the other two segment type.


Authors' Addresses

   Alan Clark
   Telchemy Incorporated
   2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
   Duluth, GA  30097
   USA

   Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com


   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: sunseawq@huawei.com


   Roland Schott
   Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
   Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Email: Roland.Schott@telekom.de


   Glen Zorn
   Network Zen
   77/440 Soi Phoomjit, Rama IV Road
   Phra Khanong, Khlong Toie
   Bangkok  10110
   Thailand

   Phone: +66 (0) 87 502 4274
   Email: gwz@net-zen.net






Clark, et al.            Expires April 21, 2013                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/