draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02.txt   draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-03.txt 
Audio/Video Transport Working Group V. Singh Audio/Video Transport Working Group V. Singh
Internet-Draft callstats.io Internet-Draft callstats.io
Intended status: Standards Track C. Perkins Intended status: Standards Track C. Perkins
Expires: December 29, 2016 University of Glasgow Expires: February 5, 2017 University of Glasgow
A. Clark A. Clark
Telchemy Telchemy
R. Huang R. Huang
Huawei Huawei
June 27, 2016 August 4, 2016
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent
Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric
draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-02 draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics (XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics
independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of
RTP applications. RTP applications.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Definition of Fields in Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . 5 3.2. Definition of Fields in Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . 5
3.3. Derived Metrics Based on the Reported Metrics . . . . . . 7 3.3. Derived Metrics Based on the Reported Metrics . . . . . . 7
4. Considerations for Voice-over-IP Applications . . . . . . . . 8 4. Considerations for Voice-over-IP Applications . . . . . . . . 8
5. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Offer/Answer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Offer/Answer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Contact Information for Registrations . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. Contact Information for Registrations . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the Template from RFC 6390 13 Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the Template from RFC 6390 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Burst-Gap Discard Metrics Block 1.1. Burst-Gap Discard Metrics Block
This document defines a new block type that extends the metrics This document defines a new block type that extends the metrics
defined in [RFC7003]. The new block type reports the proportion of defined in [RFC7003]. The new block type reports the proportion of
packets discarded in a burst by the dejitter buffer at the receiver. packets discarded in a burst by the de-jitter buffer at the receiver.
The number of packets discarded depends on the dejitter buffer The number of packets discarded depends on the de-jitter buffer
algorithm implemented by the endpoint. algorithm implemented by the endpoint.
The new report block defined in this document is different from the The new report block defined in this document is different from the
one defined in [RFC7003]. The metrics in [RFC7003] depends on the one defined in [RFC7003]. The metrics in [RFC7003] depends on the
metrics in the burst-gap loss metric defined in [RFC6958]. metrics in the burst-gap loss metric defined in [RFC6958].
Consequently, an endpoint using [RFC7003] MUST report it along with Consequently, an endpoint that sends a Burst/Gap Discard Metrics
[RFC6958] for it to be useful. The combined usage is useful when an Block [RFC7003] also needs to send a Burst/Gap Loss Metrics Block
endpoint observes correlated packet losses and discard. However, [RFC6958]. The combined usage is useful when an endpoint observes
when the burst of packet losses and discards do not occur correlated packet losses and discard. However, when the burst of
simultaneously, the application may prefer a concise report block packet losses and discards do not occur simultaneously, the
that just reports the burst-gap of discarded packets. The report application could prefer to send a concise report block that just
block in this document provides the complete information and does not reports the burst-gap of discarded packets. The report block in this
require additional report blocks. That is, this block reports: the document provides the complete information and does not require
total number of packets discarded, the total burst duration, and the additional report blocks. That is, this block reports: the total
total number of bursts, all of these metrics are missing in number of packets discarded, the total burst duration, and the total
[RFC7003]. number of bursts, all of these metrics are missing in [RFC7003].
This block provides information on transient network issues. Burst/ This block provides information on transient network issues. Burst/
gap metrics are typically used in cumulative reports; however, they gap metrics are typically used in cumulative reports; however, they
may also be used in interval reports (see the Interval Metric flag in can also be used in interval reports (see the Interval Metric flag in
Section 3.2). The variation in the number of packet discards in a Section 3.2). The variation in the number of packet discards in a
burst affects the user experience. Based on the metrics reported in burst affects the user experience. Based on the metrics reported in
the block, the sending endpoint may change the packetization the block, the sending endpoint can change the packetization
interval, vary the bitrate, etc. The report may additionally be used interval, vary the bitrate, etc. The report can additionally be used
for diagnostics [RFC6792]. The metric belongs to the class of for diagnostics [RFC6792]. The metric belongs to the class of
transport-related end-system metrics defined in [RFC6792]. transport-related end-system metrics defined in [RFC6792].
The definitions of "burst", "gap", "loss", and "discard" are The definitions of "burst", "gap", "loss", and "discard" are
consistent with the definitions in [RFC3611]. To accommodate a range consistent with the definitions in [RFC3611]. To accommodate a range
of dejitter buffer algorithms and packet discard logic that may be of de-jitter buffer algorithms and packet discard logic that can be
used by implementors, the method used to distinguish between bursts used by implementers, the method used to distinguish between bursts
and gaps use an equivalent method to that defined in Section 4.7.2 of and gaps use an equivalent method to that defined in Section 4.7.2 of
[RFC3611]. Note that reporting the specific dejitter buffer [RFC3611]. Note that reporting the specific de-jitter buffer
algorithm and/or the packet discard logic is out of the scope of this algorithm and/or the packet discard logic is out of the scope of this
document. document.
1.2. RTCP and RTCP Extended Reports 1.2. RTCP and RTCP Extended Reports
The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611] The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611]
defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended
Report (XR). This document defines a new Extended Report block for Report (XR). This document defines a new Extended Report block for
use with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611]. use with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the
definition and specification of performance metrics. The RTP definition and specification of performance metrics. The RTP
Monitoring Framework [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting Monitoring Framework [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting
block format using RTCP XR. The metrics block described in this block format using RTCP XR. The metrics block described in this
document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and
[RFC6792]. [RFC6792].
1.4. Applicability 1.4. Applicability
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications that These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications that
contain dejitter buffers [RFC5481] at the receiving end to smooth contain de-jitter buffers at the receiver to smooth variation in
variation in packet-arrival time and don't use stream repair means, packet-arrival time and don't use stream repair means, e.g., Forward
e.g., Forward Error Correction (FEC) Error Correction (FEC) [I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme] and/or
[I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme] and/or retransmission retransmission [RFC4588].
[RFC4588].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
In addition, the following terms are defined: In addition, the following terms are defined:
Received, Lost, and Discarded Received, Lost, and Discarded
A packet shall be regarded as "lost" if it fails to arrive within A packet is regarded as "lost" if it fails to arrive within an
an implementation-specific time window. A packet that arrives implementation-specific time window. A packet that arrives within
within this time window but is too early to be played out, too this time window but is too early to be played out, too late to be
late to be played out, or thrown away before playout due to packet played out, or thrown away before play-out due to packet
duplication or redundancy shall be regarded as discarded. A duplication or redundancy is be recorded as discarded. A packet
packet shall not be regarded as discarded if it arrives within SHALL NOT be regarded as discarded if it arrives within this time
this time window but is dropped during decoding by some higher- window but is dropped during decoding by some higher-layer
layer decoder, e.g., due to a decoding error. A packet shall be decoder, e.g., due to a decoding error. Each packet is classified
classified as one of received (or OK), discarded, or lost. The as one of received (or OK), discarded, or lost. The metric
metric "cumulative number of packets lost" defined in [RFC3550] "cumulative number of packets lost" defined in [RFC3550] reports a
reports a count of packets lost from the media stream (single count of packets lost from the media stream (single
synchronization source (SSRC) within a single RTP session). synchronization source (SSRC) within a single RTP session).
Similarly, the metric "number of packets discarded" defined in Similarly, the metric "number of packets discarded" defined in
[RFC7002] reports a count of packets discarded from the media [RFC7002] reports a count of packets discarded from the media
stream (single SSRC within a single RTP session) arriving at the stream (single SSRC within a single RTP session) arriving at the
receiver. Another metric, defined in [RFC5725], is available to receiver. Another metric, defined in [RFC5725], is available to
report on packets that are not recovered by any repair techniques report on packets that are not recovered by any repair techniques
that may be in use. Note that the term "discard" defined here that are in use. Note that the term "discard" defined here builds
builds on the "discard" definition in [RFC3611] but extends the on the "discard" definition in [RFC3611] but extends the concept
concept to take into account packet duplication and reports to take into account packet duplication and reports different
different types of discard counts [RFC7002]. types of discard counts [RFC7002].
Bursts and Gaps Bursts and Gaps
The terms "burst" and "gap" are used in a manner consistent with The terms "burst" and "gap" are used in a manner consistent with
that of RTCP XR [RFC3611]. RTCP XR views an RTP stream as being that of RTCP XR [RFC3611]. RTCP XR views an RTP stream as being
divided into bursts, which are periods during which the discard divided into bursts, which are periods during which the discard
rate is high enough to cause noticeable quality degradation rate is high enough to cause noticeable quality degradation
(generally over 5 percent discard rate), and gaps, which are (generally over 5 percent discard rate), and gaps, which are
periods during which discarded packets are infrequent and hence periods during which discarded packets are infrequent and hence
quality is generally acceptable. [RFC3611] RECOMMENDS a Gmin quality is generally acceptable.
value of 16.
3. Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block 3. Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block
Metrics in this block report on burst/gap discard in the stream Metrics in this block report on burst/gap discard in the stream
arriving at the RTP system. Measurements of these metrics are made arriving at the RTP system. Measurements of these metrics are made
at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metrics at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metrics
block use the synchronization source (SSRC) to refer to the separate block use the synchronization source (SSRC) to refer to the separate
auxiliary Measurement Information Block [RFC6776], which describes auxiliary Measurement Information Block [RFC6776], which describes
measurement periods in use (see [RFC6776], Section 4.2). measurement periods in use (see [RFC6776], Section 4.2).
skipping to change at page 6, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 20
This field is used to indicate whether the burst/gap discard This field is used to indicate whether the burst/gap discard
metrics are Sampled, Interval, or Cumulative metrics [RFC6792]: metrics are Sampled, Interval, or Cumulative metrics [RFC6792]:
I=10: Interval Duration - the reported value applies to the I=10: Interval Duration - the reported value applies to the
most recent measurement interval duration between successive most recent measurement interval duration between successive
metrics reports. metrics reports.
I=11: Cumulative Duration - the reported value applies to the I=11: Cumulative Duration - the reported value applies to the
accumulation period characteristic of cumulative measurements. accumulation period characteristic of cumulative measurements.
I=01: Sampled Value - the reported value is a sampled
instantaneous value.
In this document, burst/gap discard metrics can only be measured In this document, burst/gap discard metrics can only be measured
over definite intervals and cannot be sampled. Also, the value over definite intervals and cannot be sampled. Also, the value
I=00 is reserved for future use. Senders MUST NOT use the values I=00 is reserved for future use. Senders MUST NOT use the values
I=00 or I=01. If a block is received with I=00 or I=01, the I=00 or I=01. If a block is received with I=00 or I=01, the
receiver MUST discard the block. receiver MUST discard the block.
Reserved (resv): 6 bits Reserved (resv): 6 bits
These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders and These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders and
ignored by receivers (see [RFC6709], Section 4.2). ignored by receivers (see [RFC6709], Section 4.2).
skipping to change at page 6, line 50 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
5. The block MUST be discarded if the block length is set to a 5. The block MUST be discarded if the block length is set to a
different value. different value.
SSRC of Source: 32 bits SSRC of Source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611].
Threshold: 8 bits Threshold: 8 bits
The Threshold is equivalent to Gmin in [RFC3611], i.e., the number The Threshold is equivalent to Gmin in [RFC3611], i.e., the number
of successive packets that must not be discarded prior to and of successive packets that have to be received prior to, and
following a discard packet in order for this discarded packet to following, a discarded packet in order for that discarded packet
be regarded as part of a gap. Note that the Threshold is set in to be regarded as part of a gap. Note that the Threshold is set
accordance with the Gmin calculation defined in Section 4.7.2 of in accordance with the Gmin calculation defined in Section 4.7.2
[RFC3611]. of [RFC3611].
Sum of Burst Durations (ms): 24 bits Sum of Burst Durations (ms): 24 bits
The total duration of bursts of discarded packets in the period of The total duration of bursts of discarded packets in the period of
the report (Interval or Cumulative). the report (Interval or Cumulative).
The measured value is an unsigned value. If the measured value The measured value is an unsigned value. If the measured value
exceeds 0xFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFE MUST be reported to indicate exceeds 0xFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFE MUST be reported to indicate
an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the
value 0xFFFFFF MUST be reported. value 0xFFFFFF MUST be reported.
Packets Discarded in Bursts: 24 bits Packets Discarded in Bursts: 24 bits
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
RTCP XR views a call as being divided into bursts, which are periods RTCP XR views a call as being divided into bursts, which are periods
during which the discard rate is high enough to cause noticeable call during which the discard rate is high enough to cause noticeable call
quality degradation (generally over 5 percent discard rate) and gaps, quality degradation (generally over 5 percent discard rate) and gaps,
which are periods during which discarded packets are infrequent and which are periods during which discarded packets are infrequent and
hence call quality is generally acceptable. hence call quality is generally acceptable.
If voice activity detection is used, the burst and gap duration is If voice activity detection is used, the burst and gap duration is
determined as if silence packets had been sent, i.e., a period of determined as if silence packets had been sent, i.e., a period of
silence in excess of Gmin packets will terminate a burst condition. silence in excess of Gmin packets will terminate a burst condition.
The recommended value for the threshold Gmin in [RFC3611] results in The RECOMMENDED value for the threshold Gmin in [RFC3611] results in
a burst being a period of time during which the call quality is a burst being a period of time during which the call quality is
degraded to a similar extent to a typical pulse code modulation (PCM) degraded to a similar extent to a typical pulse code modulation (PCM)
severely errored second. severely errored second.
5. SDP Signaling 5. SDP Signaling
[RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol)
[RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks MAY be used [RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks can be used
without prior signaling. without prior signaling.
5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension 5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension
This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] attribute "rtcp-xr" defined This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] attribute "rtcp-xr" defined
in [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to in [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to
signal the use of the report block defined in this document. The signal the use of the report block defined in this document. The
ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows. ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows.
xr-format =/ xr-ind-bgd-block xr-format =/ xr-ind-bgd-block
skipping to change at page 10, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 46
This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to
confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611] confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611]
does not apply. However the gap indicated within this block could be does not apply. However the gap indicated within this block could be
used to detect the timing of other events on the path between the used to detect the timing of other events on the path between the
sender and receiver. For example, a competing multimedia stream sender and receiver. For example, a competing multimedia stream
might cause a discard burst for the duration of the stream, allowing might cause a discard burst for the duration of the stream, allowing
the receiver of this block to know when the competing stream was the receiver of this block to know when the competing stream was
active. This risk is not a significant threat since the only active. This risk is not a significant threat since the only
information leaked is the timing of the discard, not the cause. information leaked is the timing of the discard, not the cause.
Where this is a concern, the implementation should apply encryption Where this is a concern, the implementation SHOULD apply encryption
and authentication to this report block. For example, this can be and authentication to this report block. For example, this can be
achieved by using the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF) achieved by using the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)
profile together with the Secure RTP profile, as defined in profile together with the Secure RTP profile, as defined in
[RFC3711]; an appropriate combination of those two profiles ("SAVPF") [RFC3711]; an appropriate combination of those two profiles ("SAVPF")
is specified in [RFC5124]. Besides this, it is believed that this is specified in [RFC5124]. Besides this, it is believed that this
RTCP XR block introduces no new security considerations beyond those RTCP XR block introduces no new security considerations beyond those
described in [RFC3611]. described in [RFC3611].
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
Qin Wu, Rachel Huang, and Alan Clark wrote RFC7003, which this Qin Wu, Rachel Huang, and Alan Clark wrote RFC7003, which this
document extends. document extends.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Paul Kyzivat, Jan Novak, Dan The authors would like to thank Ben Campbell, Stephen Farrell, Paul
Romascanu for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this Kyzivat, Shucheng LIU, Jan Novak, and Dan Romascanu for providing
draft. valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 48 skipping to change at page 11, line 39
Singh, V., Begen, A., Zanaty, M., and G. Mandyam, "RTP Singh, V., Begen, A., Zanaty, M., and G. Mandyam, "RTP
Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction
(FEC)", draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-02 (work in (FEC)", draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-02 (work in
progress), March 2016. progress), March 2016.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R. [RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 55 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/