draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05.txt   draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-06.txt 
Audio/Video Transport Working Group G. Hunt Audio/Video Transport Working Group A. Clark
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated Internet-Draft Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track A. Clark Intended status: Standards Track G. Zorn
Expires: January 11, 2013 Telchemy Expires: February 25, 2013 Network Zen
G. Zorn
Network Zen
Q. Wu Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
July 10, 2012 August 24, 2012
RTCP XR Report Block for Discard Count metric Reporting RTCP XR Report Block for Discard Count metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-05.txt draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block that allows the This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block that allows the
reporting of a simple discard count metric for use in a range of RTP reporting of a simple discard count metric for use in a range of RTP
applications. applications.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
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 January 11, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Discard Count Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Discard Count Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Discard Count Metric Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Discard Count Metric Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Definition of Fields in Discard Count Metric Report 3.2. Definition of Fields in Discard Count Metric Report
Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Contact information for registrations . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Contact information for registrations . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Discard Count Report Block 1.1. Discard Count Report Block
This document defines a new block type to augment those defined in 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 [RFC3611] for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block type
supports the reporting of the number of packets which are received supports the reporting of the number of packets which are received
correctly but are never played out, typically because they arrive too correctly but are never played out, typically because they arrive too
late to be played out (buffer underflow) or too early (buffer late to be played out (buffer underflow) or too early (buffer
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
Monitoring Architectures [MONARCH] provides guideline for reporting Monitoring Architectures [MONARCH] provides guideline 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 are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and document are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and
[MONARCH]. [MONARCH].
1.4. Applicability 1.4. Applicability
This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP
applications which use a jitter buffer. applications which use a jitter buffer.
In case of Discard count metric block sent together with Burst gap
discard metric block defined in [BGDISCARD] to the media sender or
RTP based network management system, information carried in the
discard count metric block and Burst gap discard metric block allows
them calculate the some bust gap summary statistics,e.g., gap discard
rate.
In case of replication being kept "on", reporting duplicate packets
discards allows the media sender or network management system
determine what proportion of lost packets are being concealed by the
process and calculate the actual loss rate which is helpful to know
that there are some network issues that need to be investigated.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Standards Language 2.1. Standards Language
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:
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
00: Report packet discarded or being thrown away before playout 00: Report packet discarded or being thrown away before playout
due to packets duplication. due to packets duplication.
01: Report packet discarded due to too early to be played out. 01: Report packet discarded due to too early to be played out.
10: Report packet discarded due to too late to be played out. 10: Report packet discarded due to too late to be played out.
11: Report the total number of discarded packets due to both 11: Report the total number of discarded packets due to both
early and late to be played out. early and late to be played out.
An endpoint MAY send only one of the discard types (early, late, An endpoint MAY report only one of the above four discard types
duplication packets discard) in one RTCP report or choose to blocks in an compound RTCP report in a reporting interval. It MAY
report early (DT=1) and late (DT=2), duplication packets discard also report a combination of discard types in a compound RTCP
(DT=0) in separate block. It MAY also send the combined early and report but not all combinations are valid. The endpoint MAY
late discard type (DT=2) in one RTCP compound packet, but not any report duplicate packet discard (DT=0) block with any other
other combination of the three Discard Types. The endpoint MUST discard (DT=1, 2, or 3) block. Additionally, an endpoint MUST NOT
not report the the total number of discarded packets covering all report combined discard (DT=3) block with early discard (DT=1) or
three discard types. Instead, two separate report blocks should late discard (DT=2) report block.
be used to carry duplication packets discard and the combined
early and late discard respectively. Note that duplicating RTP packets is for robustness or error
resilience but disrupts RTCP statitics. In order to tackle this,
the mechanism described in [RTPDUP] can be used which will not
cause breakage of RTP streams or RTCP rules.
Reserved (resv): 4 bits Reserved (resv): 4 bits
These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to zero by senders These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to zero by senders
and MUST be ignored by receivers. and MUST be ignored by receivers.
block length: 16 bits block length: 16 bits
The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one. For The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one. For
the Discard Count block, the block length is equal to 2. the Discard Count block, the block length is equal to 2.
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
China China
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no
new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
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. does not apply.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Contributors
Geoff Hunt wrote the initial draft of this document.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and contributions The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and contributions
made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob Biskner, Kevin made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob Biskner, Kevin
Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim Frauenthal, Albert Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim Frauenthal, Albert
Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones, Rajesh Kumar, Keith Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones, Rajesh Kumar, Keith
Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin Perkins, Mike Ramalho, Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin Perkins, Mike Ramalho,
Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor, and Hideaki Yamada,Kevin Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor, and Hideaki Yamada,Kevin
Gross, Varun Singh,Claire Bi, Roni Even, Dan Romascanu. Gross, Varun Singh,Claire Bi, Roni Even, Dan Romascanu.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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", March 1997. Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[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., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", November 2003. Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", November 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", July 2006. Description Protocol", July 2006.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[BGDISCARD]
Hunt, G., "RTCP XR Report Block for Burst Gap Discard
metric Reporting",
ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-05,
July 2012.
[MEASI] Hunt, G., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting [MEASI] Hunt, G., "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-06, ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06,
April 2012. April 2012.
[MONARCH] Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP", [MONARCH] Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP",
ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12, April 2012. ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-12, April 2012.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, [RFC4588] Rey, J., "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 49
[RFC5109] Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error [RFC5109] Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, July 2006. Correction", RFC 5109, July 2006.
[RFC5725] Begen, A., "RTCP XR Report Block for Post-Repair Loss [RFC5725] Begen, A., "RTCP XR Report Block for Post-Repair Loss
metric Reporting", RFC 5725, February 2010. metric Reporting", RFC 5725, February 2010.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric
Development", RFC 6390, October 2011. Development", RFC 6390, October 2011.
Authors' Addresses [RTPDUP] Begen, A. and C. Perkins, "Duplicating RTP Streams",
ID draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-00, July 2012.
Geoff Hunt
Unaffiliated
Email: r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com Authors' Addresses
Alan Clark Alan Clark
Telchemy Incorporated Telchemy Incorporated
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280 2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
Duluth, GA 30097 Duluth, GA 30097
USA USA
Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
Glen Zorn Glen Zorn
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 67 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/