draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17.txt   rfc7266.txt 
Network Working Group A. Clark Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Clark
Internet-Draft Telchemy Request for Comments: 7266 Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu Category: Standards Track Q. Wu
Expires: August 31, 2014 Huawei ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei
R. Schott R. Schott
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
G. Zorn G. Zorn
Network Zen Network Zen
February 27, 2014 June 2014
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for MOS Metric RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Reporting Blocks for Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-17
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) Block including two new segment types and associated SDP (XR) Block including two new segment types and associated Session
parameters that allow the reporting of mean opinion score (MOS) Description Protocol (SDP) parameters that allow the reporting of
Metrics for use in a range of RTP applications. mean opinion score (MOS) Metrics for use in a range of RTP
applications.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2014. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7266.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 ....................................................3
1.1. MOS Metrics Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. MOS Metrics Report Block ...................................3
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports ...................................3
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Performance Metrics Framework ..............................3
1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Applicability ..............................................3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology .....................................................4
2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Standards Language .........................................4
3. MoS Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. MOS Metrics Block ...............................................5
3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Report Block Structure .....................................6
3.2. Definition of Fields in MoS Metrics Block . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Definition of Fields in MOS Metrics Block ..................6
3.2.1. Single Channel audio/video per SSRC Segment . . . . . 8 3.2.1. Single-Channel Audio/Video per SSRC Segment .........7
3.2.2. Multi-Channel audio per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Multi-Channel Audio per SSRC Segment ................9
4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. SDP Signaling ..................................................10
4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. SDP "rtcp-xr-attrib" Attribute Extension ..................10
4.2. Offer/Answer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Offer/Answer Usage ........................................12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value ..............................14
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter .................................14
5.3. The SDP calgextmap Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. The SDP "calgextmap" Attribute ............................14
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4. New Registry of Calculation Algorithms ....................15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Security Considerations ........................................16
7. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Contributors ...................................................16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Acknowledgements ...............................................17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References .....................................................17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References ......................................17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References ....................................18
Appendix A. Metrics represented using RFC6390 Template . . . . . 20 Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the RFC 6390 Template .......20
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.1. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.2. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.3. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.4. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.5. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.6. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.7. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.8. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.9. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.10. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.11. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.12. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. MOS Metrics Report Block 1.1. MOS Metrics 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. [RFC3611], for use in a range of RTP applications.
The new block type provides information on media quality using one of The new block type provides information on media quality using one of
several standard metrics (i.e. Mean Opinion Score(MOS)). several standard metrics (e.g., mean opinion score (MOS)).
The metrics belong to the class of application level metrics defined The metrics belong to the class of application-level metrics defined
in [RFC6792]. in [RFC6792].
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports 1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports
The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. RFC3611 The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. RFC 3611
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].
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework 1.3. Performance Metrics Framework
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 Architectures [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting Monitoring Architectures document [RFC6792] provides guidelines for
block format using RTCP XR. The XR block type described in this reporting block format using RTCP XR. The XR block type described in
document are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and this document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and
[RFC6792]. [RFC6792].
1.4. Applicability 1.4. Applicability
The MOS Metrics Report Block can be used in any application of RTP The MOS Metrics Report Block can be used in any application of RTP
for which QoE (Quality of Experience) measurement algorithms are for which QoE (Quality-of-Experience) measurement algorithms are
defined. defined.
The factors that affect real-time audio/video application quality can The factors that affect real-time audio/video application quality can
be split into two categories. The first category consists of be split into two categories. The first category consists of
transport-specific factors such as packet loss, delay and jitter transport-specific factors such as packet loss, delay, and jitter
(which also translates into losses in the playback buffer). The (which also translates into losses in the playback buffer). The
factors in the second category consists of content and codec related factors in the second category consists of content- and codec-related
factors such as codec type and loss recovery technique, coding bit factors such as codec type and loss recovery technique, coding bit
rate, packetization scheme, and content characteristics rate, packetization scheme, and content characteristics
Transport-specific factors may be insufficient to infer real time Transport-specific factors may be insufficient to infer real-time
media quality as codec related parameters and the interaction between media quality as codec related parameters and the interaction between
transport problems and application layer protocols can have a transport problems and application-layer protocols can have a
substantial effect on observed media quality. Media quality may be substantial effect on observed media quality. Media quality may be
measured using algorithm that directly compare input and output media measured using algorithms that directly compare input and output
streams, or may be estimated using algorithms that model the media streams, or it may be estimated using algorithms that model the
interaction between media quality, protocol and encoded content. interaction between media quality, protocol, and encoded content.
Media quality is commonly expressed in terms of Mean Opinion Score Media quality is commonly expressed in terms of MOS; however, it is
(MOS) however is also represented by a range of indexes and other also represented by a range of indexes and other scores.
scores.
The measurement of media quality has a number of applications: The measurement of media quality has a number of applications:
o Detecting problems with media delivery or encoding that is o Detecting problems with media delivery or encoding that is
impacting user perceived quality. impacting user-perceived quality.
o Tuning the content encoder algorithm to satisfy real time data
o Tuning the content encoder algorithm to satisfy real-time data
quality requirements. quality requirements.
o Determining which system techniques to use in a given situation o Determining which system techniques to use in a given situation
and when to switch from one technique to another as system and when to switch from one technique to another as system
parameters change (for example as discussed in [P.1082]). parameters change (for example, as discussed in [G.1082]).
o Pre-qualifying a network to assess its ability to deliver an
acceptable end-user perceived quality level. o Prequalifying a network to assess its ability to deliver an
acceptable end-user-perceived quality level.
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].
The terminology used is Notable terminology used is the following.
Numeric formats X:Y Numeric formats X:Y
where X the number of bits prior to the decimal place and Y the where X the number of bits prior to the decimal place and Y the
number of bits after the decimal place. number of bits after the decimal place.
Hence 8:8 represents an unsigned number in the range 0.0 to
Hence, 8:8 represents an unsigned number in the range 0.0 to
255.996 with a granularity of 0.0039. 0:16 represents a proper 255.996 with a granularity of 0.0039. 0:16 represents a proper
binary fraction with range binary fraction with range 0.0 to 1 - 1/65536 = 0.9999847,
0.0 to 1 - 1/65536 = 0.9999847
though note that use of flag values at the top of the numeric though note that use of flag values at the top of the numeric
range slightly reduces this upper limit. For example, if the range slightly reduces this upper limit. For example, if the
16- bit values 0xfffe and 0xffff are used as flags for "over- 16-bit values 0XFFFE and 0XFFFF are used as flags for "over-
range" and "unavailable" conditions, a 0:16 quantity has range range" and "unavailable" conditions, a 0:16 quantity has range
0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542 0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542.
3. MoS Metrics Block Calculation Algorithm
Multimedia application MOS Metric is commonly expressed as a MOS Calculation Algorithm is used in this document to mean the MOS
("Mean Opinion Score"), MOS is usually on a scale from 1 to 5, in or QoE estimation algorithm.
which 5 represents excellent and 1 represents unacceptable however
can use other ranges (for example 0 to 10 ) . The term "MOS score" 3. MOS Metrics Block
originates from subjective testing, and is used to refer to the Mean
of a number of individual Opinion Scores. There is therefore a well A multimedia application MOS Metric is commonly expressed as a MOS.
understood relationship between MOS and user experience, hence the The MOS is usually on a scale from 1 to 5, in which 5 represents
industry commonly uses MOS as the scale for objective test results. excellent and 1 represents unacceptable; however, it can use other
Subjective tests can be used for measuring live network traffic ranges (for example, 0 to 10 ). The term "MOS" originates from
however the use of objective or algorithmic measurement techniques subjective testing and is used to refer to the mean of a number of
individual opinion scores. Therefore, there is a well-understood
relationship between MOS and user experience; hence, the industry
commonly uses MOS as the scale for objective test results.
Subjective tests can be used for measuring live network traffic;
however, the use of objective or algorithmic measurement techniques
allows much larger scale measurements to be made. Within the scope allows much larger scale measurements to be made. Within the scope
of this document, MOS scores are obtained using objective or of this document, mean opinion scores are obtained using objective or
estimation algorithms. ITU-T or ITU-R recommendations (e.g., estimation algorithms. ITU-T or ITU-R recommendations (e.g.,
[BS.1387-1],[G.107],[G.107.1],[P.862],[P.862.1],[P.862.2],[P.863],[P. [BS.1387-1], [G.107], [G.107.1], [P.862], [P.862.1], [P.862.2],
564],[G.1082],[P.1201.1],[P.1201.2],[P.1202.1],[P.1202.2]) define [P.863], [P.564], [G.1082], [P.1201.1], [P.1201.2], [P.1202.1],
methodologies for assessment of the performance of audio and video [P.1202.2]) define methodologies for assessment of the performance of
streams. Other international and national standards organizations audio and video streams. Other international and national standards
such as EBU, ETSI, IEC and IEEE also define QoE algorithms and organizations such as EBU, ETSI, IEC, and IEEE also define QoE
methodologies, and the intent of this document is not to restrict its algorithms and methodologies, and the intent of this document is not
use to ITU recommendations but to suggest that ITU recommendations be to restrict its use to ITU recommendations but to suggest that ITU
used where they are defined. recommendations be used where they are defined.
This block reports the media quality in the form of a MOS range This block reports the media quality in the form of a MOS range
(e.g., 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100, as specified by the calculation (e.g., 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100, as specified by the calculation
algorithm) however does not report the MoS score that include algorithm); however, it does not report the MOS that includes
parameters outside the scope of the RTP stream, for example signaling parameters outside the scope of the RTP stream, for example,
performance, mean time to repair (MTTR) or other factors that may signaling performance, mean time to repair (MTTR), or other factors
affect the overall user experience. that may affect the overall user experience.
The MOS Metric reported in this block gives a numerical indication of The MOS Metric reported in this block gives a numerical indication of
the perceived quality of the received media stream, which is the perceived quality of the received media stream, which is
typically measured at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances typically measured at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances
of this Metrics Block refer by Synchronization source (SSRC) to the of this Metrics Block refer by synchronization source (SSRC) to the
separate auxiliary Measurement Information block [RFC6776] which separate auxiliary Measurement Information block [RFC6776] which
describes measurement periods in use (see RFC6776 section 4.2). describes measurement periods in use (see RFC 6776, Section 4.2).
This Metrics Block relies on the measurement period in the This Metrics Block relies on the measurement period in the
Measurement Information block indicating the span of the report. Measurement Information block indicating the span of the report.
Senders MUST send this block in the same compound RTCP packet as the Senders MUST send this block in the same compound RTCP packet as the
measurement information block. Receivers MUST verify that the Measurement Information block. Receivers MUST verify that the
measurement period is received in the same compound RTCP packet as measurement period is received in the same compound RTCP packet as
this Metrics Block. If not, this Metrics Block MUST be discarded. this Metrics Block. If not, this Metrics Block MUST be discarded.
3.1. Report Block Structure 3.1. Report Block Structure
The MOS Metrics Block has the following format: The MOS Metrics Block has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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=MMB | I | Reserved | Block Length | | BT=29 | I | Reserved | Block Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of source | | SSRC of source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment 1 | | Segment 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment 2 | | Segment 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.................. ..................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment n | | Segment n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2. Definition of Fields in MoS Metrics Block 3.2. Definition of Fields in MOS Metrics Block
Block type (BT): 8 bits Block type (BT): 8 bits
The MOS Metrics Block is identified by the constant <MMB>. The MOS Metrics Block is identified by the constant 29.
Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits
This field is used to indicate whether the MOS Metrics are This field is used to indicate whether the MOS Metrics are
Sampled, Interval or Cumulative [RFC6792]: Sampled, Interval, or Cumulative [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
metrics reports. successive 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 I=01: Sampled Value - the reported value is a sampled
instantaneous value. instantaneous value.
I=00: Reserved I=00: Reserved
In this document, MOS Metrics MAY be reported for intervals or for In this document, MOS Metrics MAY be reported for intervals or for
the duration of the media stream (cumulative). The value I=01, the duration of the media stream (cumulative). The value I=01,
indicating a sampled value, MUST NOT be sent, and MUST be indicating a sampled value, MUST NOT be sent and MUST be discarded
discarded when received. when received.
Reserved: 6 bits Reserved: 6 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of 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 such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
ignored by the receiver (See RFC6709 section 4.2). ignored by the receiver (see RFC 6709, Section 4.2).
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 MOS Metrics Block, the block length is variable length. the MOS Metrics Block, the block length is variable length.
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].
Segment i: 32 bits Segment i: 32 bits
There are two segment types defined in this document: single There are two segment types defined in this document: single-
stream Audio/Video per SSRC segment, multi-channel audio per SSRC channel audio/video per SSRC segment and multi-channel audio per
segment. Multi-channel audio per SSRC segment is used to deal SSRC segment. Multi-channel audio per SSRC segment is used to
with the case where Multi-channel audios are carried in one RTP deal with the case where multi-channel audio streams are carried
stream while single channel Audio/Video per SSRC segment is used in one RTP stream while a single-channel audio/video per SSRC
to deal with the case where each media stream is identified by segment is used to deal with the case where each media stream is
SSRC and sent in separate RTP stream. The leftmost bit of the identified by SSRC and sent in separate RTP streams. The leftmost
segment determines its type. If the leftmost bit of the segment bit of the segment determines its type. If the leftmost bit of
is zero, then it is single channel segment. If the leftmost bit the segment is zero, then it is a single-channel segment. If the
is one, then it is multi-channel audio segment. Note that two leftmost bit is one, then it is a multi-channel audio segment.
segment types can not be present in the same metric block. Note that two segment types cannot be present in the same metric
block.
3.2.1. Single Channel audio/video per SSRC Segment 3.2.1. Single-Channel Audio/Video per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| CAID | PT | MOS Value | |S| CAID | PT | MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segment Type (S): 1 bit Segment Type (S): 1 bit
This field is used to identify the segment type used in this This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
report block. A zero identifies this as a single channel Audio/ report block. A zero identifies this as a single-channel
Video per SSRC segment. Single channel means there is only one audio/video per SSRC segment. Single channel means there is only
media stream carried in one RTP stream. The single channel Audio/ one media stream carried in one RTP stream. The single-channel
Video per SSRC segment can be used to report the MOS value audio/video per SSRC segment can be used to report the MOS value
associated with the media stream identified by SSRC. If there are associated with the media stream identified by SSRC. If there are
multiple media streams and they want to use the single channel multiple media streams and they want to use the single-channel
Audio/Video per SSRC segment to report the MOS value, they should audio/video per SSRC segment to report the MOS value, they should
be carried in the separate RTP streams with each identified by be carried in the separate RTP streams with each identified by
different SSRC. In this case, multiple MOS Metrics Blocks are different SSRC. In this case, multiple MOS Metrics Blocks are
required to report the MOS value corresponding to each media required to report the MOS value corresponding to each media
stream using single channel Audio/Video per SSRC segment in the stream using single-channel audio/video per SSRC segment in the
same RTCP XR packet. same RTCP XR packet.
Calculation Algorithm ID (CAID) : 8 bits Calculation Algorithm ID (CAID) : 8 bits
The 8-bit CAID is the session specific reference to the The 8-bit CAID is the session specific reference to the
calculation algorithm and associated qualifiers indicated in SDP calculation algorithm and associated qualifiers indicated in SDP
(see Section 4.1) and used to compute the MOS score for this (see Section 4.1) and used to compute the MOS score for this
segment. segment.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits Payload Type (PT): 7 bits
MOS Metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use. This MOS Metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use. This
field identifies the RTP payload type in use during the reporting field identifies the RTP payload type in use during the reporting
interval. The binding between RTP payload types and RTP payload interval. The binding between RTP payload types and RTP payload
formats is configured via a signalling protocol, for example an formats is configured via a signaling protocol, for example, an
SDP offer/answer exchange. If the RTP payload type used is SDP offer/answer exchange. If the RTP payload type used is
changed during an RTP session, separate reports SHOULD be sent for changed during an RTP session, separate reports SHOULD be sent for
each RTP payload type, with corresponding measurement information each RTP payload type, with corresponding measurement information
blocks indicating the time period to which they relate. blocks indicating the time period to which they relate.
Note that the use of this Report Block with MPEG Transport streams Note that the use of this Report Block with MPEG Transport streams
carried over RTP is undefined as each MPEG Transport stream may carried over RTP is undefined as each MPEG Transport stream may
use distinct audio or video codecs and the indication of the use distinct audio or video codecs and the indication of the
encoding of these is within the MPEG Transport stream and does not encoding of these is within the MPEG Transport stream and does not
use RTP payloads. use RTP payloads.
MOS Value: 16 bits MOS Value: 16 bits
The estimated Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for multimedia application The estimated mean opinion score (MOS) for multimedia application
performance is defined as including the effects of delay, loss, performance is estimated using an algorithm that includes the
discard, jitter and other effects that would affect media quality. impact of delay, loss, jitter and other impairments that affect
This is a unsigned fixed-point 7:9 value representing the MOS, media quality. This is an unsigned fixed-point 7:9 value
allowing the MOS score up to 127 in the integer part. MOS ranges representing the MOS, allowing the MOS score up to 127 in the
are defined as part of the specification of the MOS estimation integer part. MOS ranges are defined as part of the specification
algorithm (Calculation Algorithm in this document), and are of the MOS estimation algorithm (Calculation Algorithm in this
normally ranges like 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100. Two values are document), and are normally ranges like 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100. Two
reserved: A value of 0xFFFE indicates out of range and a value of values are reserved: a value of 0xFFFE indicates that the
0xFFFF indicates that the measurement is unavailable. Values measurement is out of range and a value of 0xFFFF indicates that
outside of the range defined by the Calculation Algorithm, other the measurement is unavailable. Values outside of the range
than the two reserved values, MUST NOT be sent and MUST be ignored defined by the Calculation Algorithm, other than the two reserved
by the receiving system. values, MUST NOT be sent and MUST be ignored by the receiving
system.
3.2.2. Multi-Channel audio per SSRC Segment 3.2.2. Multi-Channel Audio per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| CAID | PT |CHID | MOS Value | |S| CAID | PT |CHID | MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segment Type (S): 1 bit Segment Type (S): 1 bit
This field is used to identify the segment type used in this This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
report block. A one identifies this as a multi-channel audio report block. A one identifies this as a multi-channel audio
segment. segment.
Calculation Algorithm ID (CAID) : 8 bits Calculation Algorithm ID (CAID) : 8 bits
The 8-bit CAID is the session specific reference to the The 8-bit CAID is the session specific reference to the
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
(see Section 4.1) and used to compute the MOS score for this (see Section 4.1) and used to compute the MOS score for this
segment. segment.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits Payload Type (PT): 7 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document
Channel Identifier (CHID): 3 bits Channel Identifier (CHID): 3 bits
If multiple channels of audio are carried in one RTP stream, each If multiple channels of audio are carried in one RTP stream, each
channel of audio will be viewed as a independent channel(e.g., channel of audio will be viewed as an independent channel (e.g.,
left channel audio, right channel audio). This field is used to left channel audio, right channel audio). This field is used to
identify each channel carried in the same media stream. The identify each channel carried in the same media stream. The
default Channel mapping follows static ordering rule described in default channel mapping follows static ordering rule described in
the section 4.1 of [RFC3551]. However there are some payload Section 4.1 of [RFC3551]. However, there are some payload formats
formats that use different channel mappings, e.g., AC-3 audio over that use different channel mappings, e.g., AC-3 audio over RTP
RTP [RFC4184] only follow AC-3 channel order scheme defined in [RFC4184] only follow AC-3 channel order scheme defined in [ATSC].
[ATSC]. Enhanced AC-3 Audio over RTP [RFC4598] uses dynamic Enhanced AC-3 audio over RTP [RFC4598] uses a dynamic channel
channel transform mechanism. In order that the appropriate transform mechanism. In order for the appropriate channel mapping
channel mapping can be determined, MOS metrics reports need to be to be determined, MOS metrics reports need to be tied to an RTP
tied to an RTP payload format, i.e., including the payload type of payload format. The reports should include the payload type of
the reported media according to [RFC6792] and using Payload Type the reported media according to [RFC6792], so that it can be used
to determine the appropriate channel mapping. to determine the appropriate channel mapping.
MOS Value: 13 bits MOS Value: 13 bits
The estimated Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for multimedia application The estimated MOS for multimedia application performance is
performance is defined as including the effects of delay, loss, defined as including the effects of delay, loss, discard, jitter
discard, jitter and other effects that would affect media quality. and other effects that would affect media quality. This is an
This is a unsigned fixed-point 7:6 value representing the MOS, unsigned fixed-point 7:6 value representing the MOS, allowing the
allowing the MOS score up to 127 in the integer part. MOS ranges MOS score up to 127 in the integer part. MOS ranges are defined
are defined as part of the specification of the MOS estimation as part of the specification of the MOS estimation algorithm
algorithm (Calculation Algorithm in this document), and are (Calculation Algorithm in this document), and are normally ranges
normally ranges like 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100. Two values are like 1-5, 0-10, or 0-100. Two values are reserved: a value of
reserved: A value of 0x1FFE indicates out of range and a value of 0x1FFE indicates out of range and a value of 0x1FFF indicates that
0x1FFF indicates that the measurement is unavailable. Values the measurement is unavailable. Values outside of the range
outside of the range defined by the Calculation Algorithm, other defined by the Calculation Algorithm, other than the two reserved
than the two reserved values, MUST NOT be sent and MUST be ignored values, MUST NOT be sent and MUST be ignored by the receiving
by the receiving system. system.
4. SDP Signaling 4. SDP Signaling
[RFC3611]defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC3611] defines the use of SDP [RFC4566] for signaling the use of
[RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. However XR blocks MAY XR blocks. However, XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling
be used without prior signaling (see section 5 of RFC3611). (see Section 5 of RFC 3611).
4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension 4.1. SDP "rtcp-xr-attrib" 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. Within signal the use of the report block defined in this document. Within
the "xr-format", the syntax element "calgextmap" is an attribute as the "xr-format", the syntax element "calgextmap" is an attribute as
defined in [RFC4566] and used to signal the mapping of the local defined in [RFC4566] and used to signal the mapping of the local
identifier (CAID) in the segment extension defined in section 3.2 to identifier (CAID) in the segment extension defined in Section 3.2 to
the calculation algorithm. Specific extensionattributes are defined the calculation algorithm. Specific extension attributes are defined
by the specification that defines a specific extension name; there by the specification that defines a specific extension name: there
might be several. might be several. The ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows.
xr-format =/ xr-mos-block xr-format =/ xr-mos-block
xr-mos-block = "mos-metric" ["=" calgextmap *("," calgextmap)] xr-mos-block = "mos-metric" ["=" calgextmap *("," calgextmap)]
calgextmap = mapentry "=" extensionname [SP extentionattributes] calgextmap = mapentry "=" extensionname [SP extentionattributes]
direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive" direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive"
mapentry = "calg:" 1*3 DIGIT ["/" direction] mapentry = "calg:" 1*3DIGIT [ "/" direction ]
; Values in the range 1-255 are valid ; Values in the range 1-255 are valid
; if needed, 0 can be used to indicate that ; if needed, 0 can be used to indicate that
; an algorithm is rejected ; an algorithm is rejected
extensionname = "P564";ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] extensionname = "P564";ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564]
/ "G107";ITU-T G.107 [G.107] / "G107";ITU-T G.107 [G.107]
/ "G107_1";ITU-T G.107.1 [G.107.1] / "G107_1";ITU-T G.107.1 [G.107.1]
/ "TS101_329";ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] / "TS101_329";ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI]
/"JJ201_1 ";TTC JJ201.1 [TTC] /"JJ201_1 ";TTC JJ201.1 [TTC]
/"P1201_1";ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.1] /"P1201_1";ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.1]
/"P1201_2";ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.2] /"P1201_2";ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.2]
skipping to change at page 12, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
/"P.862.2";ITU-T P.862.2 [P.862.2] /"P.862.2";ITU-T P.862.2 [P.862.2]
/"P.863"; ITU-T P.863 [P.863] /"P.863"; ITU-T P.863 [P.863]
/ non-ws-string / non-ws-string
extensionattributes = mosref extensionattributes = mosref
/attributes-ext /attributes-ext
mosref = "mosref=" ("l"; lower resolution mosref = "mosref=" ("l"; lower resolution
/"m"; middle resolution /"m"; middle resolution
/ "h";higher resolution / "h";higher resolution
/ non-ws-string) / non-ws-string)
attributes-ext = non-ws-string attributes-ext = non-ws-string
SP = <Define in RFC5234> SP = <Defined in RFC 5234>
non-ws-string = 1*(%x21-FF) non-ws-string = 1*(%x21-FF)
Each local identifier (CAID)of calculation algorithm used in the Each local identifier (CAID) of calculation algorithm used in the
segment defined in the section 3.2 is mapped to a string using an segment defined in Section 3.2 is mapped to a string using an
attribute of the form: attribute of the form:
a=calg:<value> ["/"<direction>] <name> [<extensionattributes>] a=calg:<value> [ "/"<direction> ] <name> [<extensionattributes>]
where <name> is a calculation algorithm name, as above, <value> is where <name> is a calculation algorithm name, as above, <value> is
the local identifier (CAID)of the calculation algorithm associated the local identifier (CAID) of the calculation algorithm associated
with the segment defined in this document and is an integer in the with the segment defined in this document and is an integer in the
valid range inclusive. valid range, inclusive.
Example: Example:
a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:1=G107,calg:2=P1202_1 a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:1=G107,calg:2=P1202_1
A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the valid range, and each ID in this A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the valid range, and each ID in this
range MUST be unique and used only once for each stream or each range MUST be unique and used only once for each stream or each
channel in the stream. channel in the stream.
The mapping MUST be provided per media stream (in the media-level The mapping MUST be provided per media stream (in the media-level
section(s) of SDP, i.e., after an "m=" line). section(s) of SDP, i.e., after an "m=" line).
The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution The syntax element "mosref" is referred to the media resolution
relative reference and has three valules 'l','m','h'.(e.g., relative reference and has three values 'l','m','h'. (e.g.,
Narrowband (3.4kHz) Speech and Standard Definition (SD) or lower narrowband (3.4 kHz) speech and Standard Definition (SD) or lower
Resolution Video have 'l' resolution, Super Wideband (>14kHz) Speech resolution video have 'l' resolution, super-wideband (>14 kHz) speech
or higher and High Definition (HD) or higher Resolution Video have or higher and High Definition (HD) or higher resolution video have
'h' Resolution, Wideband speech(7khz) and Video with resolution 'h' resolution, wideband speech (7 kHz) and video with resolution
between SD and HD has 'm' resolution). The MOS score reported in the between SD and HD has 'm' resolution). The MOS reported in the MOS
MOS metrics block might vary with the MOS reference; For example, MOS metrics block might vary with the MOS reference; for example, MOS
values for narrowband, wideband, super wideband codecs occupy the values for narrowband, wideband, super-wideband codecs occupy the
same range but SHOULD be reported in different value. For video same range but SHOULD be reported in different value. For video
application, MOS scores for SD resolution, HD resolution video also application, MOS scores for SD resolution, HD resolution video also
occupy the same ranges and SHOULD be reported in different value. occupy the same ranges and SHOULD be reported in different value.
4.2. Offer/Answer Usage 4.2. Offer/Answer Usage
When SDP is used in offer-answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage When SDP is used in offer/answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage
defined in [RFC3611] applies. In the offer answer context, the defined in [RFC3611] applies. In the offer/answer context, the
signaling described above might be used in three ways: signaling described above might be used in three ways:
o asymmetric behavior (segment extensions sent in only one o asymmetric behavior (segment extensions sent in only one
direction), direction),
o the offer of mutually exclusive alternatives, or o the offer of mutually exclusive alternatives, or
o the offer of more segments than can be sent in a single session. o the offer of more segments than can be sent in a single session.
A direction attribute MAY be included in a calgextmap; without it, A direction attribute MAY be included in a "calgextmap"; without it,
the direction implicitly inherits, of course, from the RTCP stream the direction implicitly inherits, of course, from the RTCP stream
direction. direction.
Segment extensions, with their directions, MAY be signaled for an Segment extensions, with their directions, MAY be signaled for an
"inactive" stream. An extension direction MUST be compatible with "inactive" stream. An extension direction MUST be compatible with
the stream direction. If a segment extension in the SDP offer is the stream direction. If a segment extension in the SDP offer is
marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to receive it, the marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to receive it, the
extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP answer. An extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP answer. An
answerer that has no desire to receive the extension or does not answerer that has no desire to receive the extension or does not
understand the extension SHOULD NOT include it in the SDP answer. understand the extension SHOULD NOT include it in the SDP answer.
skipping to change at page 14, line 6 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
the answerer desires to send it, the extension MUST be marked as the answerer desires to send it, the extension MUST be marked as
"sendonly" in the SDP answer. An answerer that has no desire to, or "sendonly" in the SDP answer. An answerer that has no desire to, or
is unable to, send the extension SHOULD NOT include it in the SDP is unable to, send the extension SHOULD NOT include it in the SDP
answer. answer.
If a segment extension is offered as "sendrecv", explicitly or If a segment extension is offered as "sendrecv", explicitly or
implicitly, and asymmetric behavior is desired, the SDP MAY be implicitly, and asymmetric behavior is desired, the SDP MAY be
modified to modify or add direction qualifiers for that segment modified to modify or add direction qualifiers for that segment
extension. extension.
A mosref attribute and MOS type attribute MAY be included in an A "mosref" attribute and "MOS Type" attribute MAY be included in a
calgextmap; without it, the mosref and most type attribute implicitly calgextmap; if not present, the "mosref" and "MOS Type" MUST be as
inherits, of course, from the name attribute (e.g., P.1201.1 defined in the QoE estimation algorithm referenced by the name
[P.1201.1] indicates lower resolution used while P.1201.2 [P.1201.2] attribute (e.g., P.1201.1 [P.1201.1] indicates lower resolution used
indicates higher resolution used) or payload type carried in the while P.1201.2 [P.1201.2] indicates higher resolution used) or
segment extension (e.g.,EVRC-WB [RFC5188] indicates using Wideband payload type carried in the segment extension (e.g., EVRC-WB
Codec). However not all payload types or MOS algorithm names [RFC5188] indicates using Wideband Codec). However, not all payload
indicate resolution to be used and MOS type to be used. If an types or MOS algorithm names indicate resolution to be used and MOS
answerer receives an offer with an mosref attribute value it doesn't type to be used. If an answerer receives an offer with a "mosref"
support (e.g.,the answerer only supports "l" and receives "h"from attribute value it doesn't support (e.g.,the answerer only supports
offerer), the answer SHOULD reject the mosref attribute value offered "l" and receives "h" from offerer), the answer SHOULD reject the
by the offerer. mosref attribute value offered by the offerer.
If the answerer wishes to reject a mosref attribute offered by the If the answerer wishes to reject a "mosref" attribute offered by the
offerer, it sets identifiers associated with segment extensions in offerer, it sets identifiers associated with segment extensions in
the answer to the value in the range 4096-4351. The rejected answer the answer to the value in the range 4096-4351. The rejected answer
MUST contain 'mosref ' attribute whose value is the value of the SDP MUST contain a "mosref" attribute whose value is the value of the SDP
offer. offer.
Local identifiers in the valid range inclusive in an offer or answer Local identifiers in the valid range (inclusive) in an offer or
must not be used more than once per media section. A session update answer must not be used more than once per media section. A session
MAY change the direction qualifiers of segment extensions under use. update MAY change the direction qualifiers of segment extensions
A session update MAY add or remove segment extension(s). Identifiers under use. A session update MAY add or remove segment extension(s).
values in the valid range MUST NOT be altered (remapped). Identifier values in the valid range MUST NOT be altered (remapped).
If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then
multiple segment extensions with the same identifier in the multiple segment extensions with the same identifier in the
(unusable) range 4096-4351 MAY be offered; the answerer SHOULD select (unusable) range 4096-4351 MAY be offered; the answerer SHOULD select
at most one of the offered extensions with the same identifier, and at most one of the offered extensions with the same identifier, and
remap it to a free identifier in the valid range, for that extension remap it to a free identifier in the valid range for that extension
to be usable. Note that two segment types defined in section 3 are to be usable. Note that the two segment types defined in Section 3
also two exclusive alternatives. are also exclusive alternatives.
If more segment extensions are offered in the valid range, the If more segment extensions are offered in the valid range, the
answerer SHOULD choose those that are desired, and place the offered answerer SHOULD choose those that are desired and place the offered
identifier value "as is" in the SDP answer. identifier value "as is" in the SDP answer.
Similarly, if more segment extensions are offered than can be fit in Similarly, if more segment extensions are offered than can be fit in
the valid range, identifiers in the range 4096-4351 MAY be offered; the valid range, identifiers in the range 4096-4351 MAY be offered;
the answerer SHOULD choose those that are desired, and remap them to the answerer SHOULD choose those that are desired and remap them to a
a free identifier in the valid range. free identifier in the valid range.
Note that the range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is Note that the range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is
deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid
identifiers in future. Segment extensions with an identifier outside identifiers in the future. Segment extensions with an identifier
the valid range cannot, of course, be used. outside the valid range cannot, of course, be used.
Example (port numbers, RTP profiles, payload IDs and rtpmaps, etc. Example:
all omitted for brevity):
Note - port numbers, RTP profiles, payload IDs and rtpmaps, etc.,
have all been omitted for brevity.
The offer: The offer:
a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:4906=P1201_l,calg:4906=P1202_l, calg: a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:4906=P1201_l,calg:4906=P1202_l, calg:
4907=G107 4907=G107
The answerer is interested in transmission P.1202.1 on lower The answerer is interested in transmission P.1202.1 on a lower
resolution application, but doesn't support P.1201.1 on lower resolution application, but it doesn't support P.1201.1 on a lower
resolution application at all. It is interested in transmission resolution application at all. It is interested in transmission
G.107. It therefore adjusts the declarations: G.107. Therefore, it adjusts the declarations:
a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:1=P1202_l,calg:2=G107 a=rtcp-xr:mos-metric=calg:1=P1202_l,calg:2=G107
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For
general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to
[RFC3611]. [RFC3611].
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value 5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value
This document assigns the block type value MMB in the IANA " RTP This document assigns the block type value 29 in the IANA "RTP
Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" to Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" to
the "MOS Metrics Block". the "MOS Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace MMB with the IANA provided RTCP
XR block type for this block.]
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter 5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter
This document also registers a new parameter "mos-metric" in the " This document also registers a new parameter "mos-metric" in the "RTP
RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry". Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry".
5.3. The SDP calgextmap Attribute 5.3. The SDP "calgextmap" Attribute
This section contains the information required by [RFC4566] for an This section contains the information required by [RFC4566] for an
SDP attribute. SDP attribute.
o contact name, email address: RAI Area Directors o contact name, email address: RAI Area Directors
<rai-ads@tools.ietf.org> <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>
o attribute name (as it will appear in SDP): calgextmap o attribute name (as it will appear in SDP): calgextmap
o long-form attribute name in English: calculation algorithm map o long-form attribute name in English: calculation algorithm map
definition definition
o type of attribute (session level, media level, or both): both o type of attribute (session level, media level, or both): both
o whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute: o whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute:
not subject to the charset attribute not subject to the charset attribute
o a one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute: This o a one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute: This
attribute defines the mapping from the local identifier (CAID) in attribute defines the mapping from the local identifier (CAID) in
the segment extension defined in section 3.2 into the calculation the segment extension defined in Section 3.2 into the calculation
algorithm name as documented in specifications and appropriately algorithm name as documented in specifications and appropriately
registered. registered.
o a specification of appropriate attribute values for this o a specification of appropriate attribute values for this
attribute: see RFC xxxx. attribute: see RFC 7266.
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms 5.4. New Registry of Calculation Algorithms
This document creates a new registry to be called "RTCP XR MOS Metric This document creates a new registry called "RTCP XR MOS Metric block
block - multimedia application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub- - multimedia application Calculation Algorithm" as a subregistry of
registry of the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type
Block Type Registry". This registry applies to the multimedia Registry". This registry applies to the multimedia session where
session where each type of media are sent in a separate RTP stream each type of medium is sent in a separate RTP stream and also applies
and also applies to the session where Multi-channel audios are to the session where multi-channel audios are carried in one RTP
carried in one RTP stream. Policies for this new registry are as stream. Policies for this new registry are as follows:
follows:
o The information required to support this assignment is an o The information required to support this assignment is an
unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
metric. metric.
o The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as o The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226]. described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
o Entries in the registry are identified by entry name and mapped to o Entries in the registry are identified by entry name and mapped to
the local identifier (CAID) in the segment extension defined in the local identifier (CAID) in the segment extension defined in
section 3.2. Section 3.2.
o Registration Template o Registration Template
The following information must be provided with each registration: The following information must be provided with each registration:
* Name: A string uniquely and unambiguously identifying the * Name: A string uniquely and unambiguously identifying the
Calculation algorithm for use in protocols. calculation algorithm for use in protocols.
* Name Description: A valid Description of the Calculation
algorithm name. * Name Description: A valid Description of the calculation
* Reference: The reference which defines the calculation algorithm Name.
algorithm corresponding to the Name and Name Description.
* Reference: The reference that defines the calculation algorithm
corresponding to the Name and Name Description.
* Type: The media type to which the calculation algorithm is * Type: The media type to which the calculation algorithm is
applied applied
o Initial assignments are as follows: o Initial assignments are as follows:
Name Name Description Reference Type Name Name Description Reference Type
========= =================================== ========== ==== ========= ================================ ========== ====
P564 ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] Voice P564 ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] voice
G107 ITU-T G.107 [G.107] Voice G107 ITU-T G.107 [G.107] voice
TS101_329 ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ETSI] Voice TS101_329 ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ETSI] voice
JJ201_1 TTC JJ201.1 [TTC] Voice JJ201_1 TTC JJ201.1 [TTC] voice
G107_1 ITU-T G.107.1 [G.107.1] Voice G107_1 ITU-T G.107.1 [G.107.1] voice
P862 ITU-T P.862 [P.862] Voice P862 ITU-T P.862 [P.862] voice
P862_2 ITU-T P.862.2 [P.862.2] Voice P862_2 ITU-T P.862.2 [P.862.2] voice
P863 ITU-T P.863 [P.863] Voice P863 ITU-T P.863 [P.863] voice
P1201_1 ITU-T P.1201.1 [P.1201.1] Multimedia P1201_1 ITU-T P.1201.1 [P.1201.1] multimedia
P1201_2 ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.2] Multimedia P1201_2 ITU-T P.1201.2 [P.1201.2] multimedia
P1202_1 ITU-T P.1202.1 [P.1202.1] Video P1202_1 ITU-T P.1202.1 [P.1202.1] video
P1202_2 ITU-T P.1202.2 [P.1202.2] Video P1202_2 ITU-T P.1202.2 [P.1202.2] video
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The new RTCP XR report blocks proposed in this document introduces no The new RTCP XR blocks proposed in this document introduce no new
new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
7. Authors 7. Contributors
This draft merges ideas from two drafts addressing the MOS Metric This document merges ideas from two documents addressing the MOS
Reporting issue. The authors of these drafts are listed below (in Metric Reporting issue. The authors of these documents are listed
alphabetical order): below (in alphabetical order):
Alan Clark < alan.d.clark@telchemy.com > Alan Clark <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com>
Geoff Hunt < r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com > Geoff Hunt <r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com>
Martin Kastner < martin.kastner@telchemy.com > Martin Kastner <martin.kastner@telchemy.com>
Qin Wu < sunseawq@huawei.com > Kai Lee <leekai@ctbri.com.cn>
Roland Schott < roland.schott@telekom.de > Roland Schott <roland.schott@telekom.de>
Glen Zorn < gwz@net-zen.net > Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Kai Lee < leekai@ctbri.com.cn > Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
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, Bill Ver Steeg, David R Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor, Bill Ver Steeg, David R.
Oran, Ted Lemon,Benoit Claise, Pete Resnick, Ali Begen and Hideaki Oran, Ted Lemon, Benoit Claise, Pete Resnick, Ali Begen, and Hideaki
Yamada. Yamada.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[ATSC] U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), "ATSC [ATSC] Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc., "Digital
Standard: Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), Revision B", Audio Compression Standard (AC-3, E-AC-3) Revision B",
ATSC Doc A/52B, June 2005. ATSC Document A/52B, June 2005.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 3551, and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC
July 2003. 3551, July 2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC
November 2003. 3611, November 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
2008.
[RFC6776] Wu, Q., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting [RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and
using SDES item and XR Block", RFC 6776, October 2012. Information Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES)
Item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776,
October 2012.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[BS.1387-1] [BS.1387-1] ITU-R, "Method for objective measurements of perceived
ITU-R, "Method for objective measurements of perceived audio quality", ITU-R Recommendation BS.1387-1,
audio quality", ITU-R Recommendation BS.1387-1, 2001. 1998-2001.
[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 [ETSI] ETSI, "TIPHON Release 3; Technology Compliance
transmission planning", ITU-T Recommendation G.107, Specification; Part 5: Quality of Service (QoS)
April 2009. measurement methodologies", ETSI TS 101 329-5 V1.1.1,
November 2000.
[G.107.1] ITU-T, "Wideband E-model", ITU-T Recommendation G.107.1, [G.107] ITU-T, "The E Model, a computational model for use in
December 2011. transmission planning", ITU-T Recommendation G.107,
February 2014.
[G.1082] ITU-T, "Measurement-based methods for improving the [G.107.1] ITU-T, "Wideband E-model", ITU-T Recommendation G.107.1,
robustness of IPTV performance", ITU-T December 2011.
Recommendation G.1082, April 2009.
[P.1201.1] [G.1082] ITU-T, "Measurement-based methods for improving the
ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual robustness of IPTV performance", ITU-T Recommendation
media streaming quality - lower resolution application G.1082, April 2009.
area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.1, October 2012.
[P.1201.2] [P.1201.1] ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of
ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual audiovisual media streaming quality - Lower resolution
media streaming quality - higher resolution application application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.1,
area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.2, October 2012. October 2012.
[P.1202.1] [P.1201.2] ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of
ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of audiovisual media streaming quality - Higher resolution
video media streaming quality - lower resolution application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201.2,
application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1202.1, October 2012.
October 2012.
[P.1202.2] [P.1202.1] ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of
ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of video media streaming quality - Lower resolution
video media streaming quality - higher resolution application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1202.1,
application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1202.2, October 2012.
May 2013.
[P.564] ITU-T, "Conformance testing for narrowband Voice over IP [P.1202.2] ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive bitstream assessment of
transmission quality assessment models", ITU-T video media streaming quality - Higher resolution
Recommendation P.564, July 2006. application area", ITU-T Recommendation P.1202.2, May
2013.
[P.862] ITU-T, "Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ): An [P.564] ITU-T, "Conformance testing for narrowband Voice over IP
objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment transmission quality assessment models", ITU-T
of narrow-band telephone networks and speech codecs", Recommendation P.564, November 2007.
ITU-T Recommendation P.862, Febuary 2001.
[P.862.1] ITU-T, "Mapping function for transforming P.862 raw result [P.862] ITU-T, "Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ):
scores to MOS-LQO", ITU-T Recommendation P.862.1, An objective method for end-to-end speech quality
November 2003. assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech
codecs", ITU-T Recommendation P.862, February 2001.
[P.862.2] ITU-T, "Wideband extension to Recommendation P.862 for the [P.862.1] ITU-T, "Mapping function for transforming P.862 raw
assessment of wideband telephone networks and speech result scores to MOS-LQO", ITU-T Recommendation P.862.1,
codecs", ITU-T Recommendation P.862.2, November 2007. November 2003.
[P.863] ITU-T, "Perceptual objective listening quality [P.862.2] ITU-T, "Wideband extension to Recommendation P.862 for
assessment", ITU-T Recommendation P.863, January 2011. the assessment of wideband telephone networks and speech
codecs", ITU-T Recommendation P.862.2, November 2007.
[RFC4184] Link, B., Hager, T., and J. Flaks, "RTP Payload Format for [P.863] ITU-T, "Perceptual objective listening quality
AC-3 Audio", RFC 4184, October 2005. assessment", ITU-T Recommendation P.863, January 2011.
[RFC4598] Link, B., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload [RFC4184] Link, B., Hager, T., and J. Flaks, "RTP Payload Format
Format for Enhanced AC-3 (E-AC-3) Audio", RFC 4598, for AC-3 Audio", RFC 4184, October 2005.
July 2006.
[RFC5188] Desineni, H. and Q. Xie, "RTP Payload Format for the [RFC4598] Link, B., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload
Enhanced Variable Rate Wideband Codec (EVRC-WB) and the Format for Enhanced AC-3 (E-AC-3) Audio", RFC 4598, July
Media Subtype Updates for EVRC-B Codec", RFC 5188, 2006.
February 2008.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric [RFC5188] Desineni, H. and Q. Xie, "RTP Payload Format for the
Development", RFC 6390, October 2011. Enhanced Variable Rate Wideband Codec (EVRC-WB) and the
Media Subtype Updates for EVRC-B Codec", RFC 5188,
February 2008.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP", RFC 6792, [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
November 2012. Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
[TTC] TTC 201.01 (Japan), "A method for speech quality [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use
assessment for Voice over IP". of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, November
2012.
Appendix A. Metrics represented using RFC6390 Template [TTC] Telecommunication Technology Committee, "A Method for
Speech Quality Assessment for IP Telephony", TTC
JJ-201.01 (Japan), November 2013,
<http://www.ttc.or.jp/jp/document_list/pdf/j/STD/
JJ-201.01v7.pdf>.
RFC EDITOR NOTE: please change XXXX in [RFCXXXX] by the new RFC Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the Template from RFC 6390
number, when assigned.
a. MOS Value Metric a. MOS Value Metric
* Metric Name: MOS in RTP * Metric Name: MOS in RTP
* Metric Description: The estimated Mean Opinion Score for * Metric Description: The estimated mean opinion score for
multimedia application performance of RTP stream is defined as multimedia application performance of the RTP stream is defined
including the effects of delay,loss, discard,jitter and other as including the effects of delay, loss, discard, jitter, and
effects that would affect audio or video quality. others on audio or video quality.
* Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3.2.1, MOS * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2.1, MOS
value definition [RFCXXXX]. value definition.
* Units of Measurement: See section 3.2.1, MOS value definition * Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2.1, MOS value definition.
[RFCXXXX].
* Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See * Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
section 3, 2nd paragraph [RFCXXXX]. Section 3, second paragraph.
* Measurement Timing: See section 3, 3rd paragraph [RFCXXXX] for * Measurement Timing: See Section 3, third paragraph for
measurement timing and section 3.1 [RFCXXXX] for Interval measurement timing and Section 3.1 for Interval Metric flag.
Metric flag.
* Use and applications: See section 1.4 [RFCXXXX]. * Use and applications: See Section 1.4.
* Reporting model: See RFC3611. * Reporting model: See RFC 3611.
b. Segment Type Metric b. Segment Type Metric
* Metric Name: Segment Type in RTP * Metric Name: Segment Type in RTP
* Metric Description: It is used to identify the segment type of * Metric Description: It is used to identify the segment type of
RTP stream used in this report block. For more details, see RTP stream used in this report block. For more details, see
section 3.2.1, Segment type definition. Section 3.2.1, Segment type definition.
* Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3.2.1, * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2.1,
Segment Type definition [RFCXXXX]. Segment Type definition.
* Units of Measurement: See section 3.2.1, Segment Type * Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2.1, Segment Type
definition [RFCXXXX]. definition.
* Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See * Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
section 3, 2nd paragraph [RFCXXXX]. Section 3, second paragraph.
* Measurement Timing: See section 3, 3rd paragraph [RFCXXXX] for * Measurement Timing: See Section 3, third paragraph for
measurement timing and section 3.1 [RFCXXXX] for Interval measurement timing and Section 3.1 for Interval Metric flag.
Metric flag.
* Use and applications: See section 1.4 [RFCXXXX]. * Use and applications: See Section 1.4.
* Reporting model: See RFC3611. * Reporting model: See RFC 3611.
c. Calculation Algorithm Identifier Metric c. Calculation Algorithm Identifier Metric
* Metric Name: RTP Stream Calculation Algorithm Identifier * Metric Name: RTP Stream Calculation Algorithm Identifier
* Metric Description: It is the local identifier of RTP Stream * Metric Description: It is the local identifier of RTP Stream
calculation Algorithm associated with this segment in the calculation Algorithm associated with this segment in the range
range 1-255 inclusive. 1-255 (inclusive).
* Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3.2.1, * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2.1,
Calculation Algorithm ID definition [RFCXXXX]. Calculation Algorithm ID definition.
* Units of Measurement: See section 3.2.1, Calg Algorithm ID * Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2.1, Calg Algorithm ID
definition[RFCXXXX]. definition.
* Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See * Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
section 3, 2nd paragraph [RFCXXXX]. Section 3, second paragraph.
* Measurement Timing: See section 3, 3rd paragraph [RFCXXXX] for * Measurement Timing: See Section 3, third paragraph for
measurement timing and section 3.1 [RFCXXXX] for Interval measurement timing and Section 3.1 for Interval Metric flag.
Metric flag.
* Use and applications: See section 1.4 [RFCXXXX]. * Use and applications: See Section 1.4.
* Reporting model: See RFC3611. * Reporting model: See RFC 3611.
d. Payload Type Metric d. Payload Type Metric
* Metric Name: RTP Payload Type * Metric Name: RTP Payload Type
* Metric Description: It is used to identify the format of the * Metric Description: It is used to identify the format of the
RTP payload. For more details, see section 3.2.1, payload RTP payload. For more details, see Section 3.2.1, payload type
type definition. definition.
* Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3.2.1, * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2.1,
Payload type definition [RFCXXXX]. Payload type definition.
* Units of Measurement: See section 3.2.1, payload type * Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2.1, Payload type
definition[RFCXXXX]. definition.
* Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See * Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
section 3, 2nd paragraph [RFCXXXX]. Section 3, second paragraph.
* Measurement Timing: See section 3, 3rd paragraph [RFCXXXX] for * Measurement Timing: See Section 3, third paragraph for
measurement timing and section 3.1 [RFCXXXX] for Interval measurement timing and Section 3.1 for Interval Metric flag.
Metric flag.
* Use and applications: See section 1.4 [RFCXXXX]. * Use and applications: See Section 1.4.
* Reporting model: See RFC3611. * Reporting model: See RFC 3611.
e. Channel Identifier Metric e. Channel Identifier Metric
* Metric Name: Audio Channel Identifier in RTP * Metric Name: Audio Channel Identifier in RTP
* Metric Description: It is used to identify each audio channel
carried in the same RTP stream. For more details, see section
3.2.2, channel identifier definition.
* Method of Measurement or Calculation: See section 3.2.2,
Channel Identifier definition [RFCXXXX].
* Units of Measurement: See section 3.2.2, channel identifier
definition[RFCXXXX].
* Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
section 3, 2nd paragraph [RFCXXXX].
* Measurement Timing: See section 3, 3rd paragraph [RFCXXXX] for
measurement timing and section 3.1 [RFCXXXX] for Interval
Metric flag.
* Use and applications: See section 1.4 [RFCXXXX].
* Reporting model: See RFC3611.
Appendix B. Change Log
B.1. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-15
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Some Editorial Changes.
B.2. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-14
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Add some texts to address IESG review comments.
B.3. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-10
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Replace QoE metrics with MoS metrics.
B.4. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Address comments recieved from WGLC, PM-DIR Review and SDP review.
o Change an existing SDP attribute 'extmap' to new SDP attribute
'calgextmap' and add new SDP attribute registry.
o Add Reference to G.107.1, P.862.1, P.862.2 and P.863 for new
calculation algorithms.
o Add MoS type attribute to distinguish different MoS type.
o Other Editorial changes.
B.5. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Remove mostype attribute from SDP extension since it can inferred
from payload type.
o Clarify mosref attribute usage in the O/A.
B.6. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-07
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Some editorial changes to get in line with burst gap related
draft.
o Add an appendix to apply RFC6390 template.
B.7. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-06
The following are the major changes compared to previous two
versions:
o A few Contact information update.
o A few Acknowledgement section update.
B.8. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-04
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Split two references P.NAMS and P.NBAMS into four references.
o SDP signaling update.
o Add one example to explain User QoE evaluation for video stream
B.9. 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.
B.10. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02 * Metric Description: It is used to identify each audio channel
carried in the same RTP stream. For more details, see Section
3.2.2, channel identifier definition.
The following are the major changes compared to previous version: * Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2.2,
o Remove leftmost second bit since it is ueeless. Channel Identifier definition.
o Change 13bits MoS value field into 14 bits to increase MoS
precision.
o Fix some typo and make some editorial changes.
B.11. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01 * Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2.2, Channel Identifier
definition.
The following are the major changes compared to previous version: * Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See
o Remove layered support from the QoE Metric draft. Section 3, second paragraph.
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 * Measurement Timing: See Section 3, third paragraph for
mapping in the definition of Channel Identifier. measurement timing and Section 3.1 for Interval Metric flag.
B.12. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 * Use and applications: See Section 1.4.
The following are the major changes compared to previous version: * Reporting model: See RFC 3611.
o Allocate one more bit in the single channel per SSC segment to get
alignment with the other two segment type.
Authors' Addresses 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
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
Roland Schott Roland Schott
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 3-7 Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 3-7
Darmstadt 64295 Darmstadt 64295
Germany Germany
Email: Roland.Schott@telekom.de EMail: Roland.Schott@telekom.de
Glen Zorn Glen Zorn
Network Zen Network Zen
77/440 Soi Phoomjit, Rama IV Road 77/440 Soi Phoomjit, Rama IV Road
Phra Khanong, Khlong Toie Phra Khanong, Khlong Toie
Bangkok 10110 Bangkok 10110
Thailand Thailand
Phone: +66 (0) 87 502 4274 Phone: +66 (0) 87 502 4274
Email: gwz@net-zen.net EMail: gwz@net-zen.net
 End of changes. 181 change blocks. 
561 lines changed or deleted 480 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/