RTCP XR Report Block for Discard metric Reporting
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-discard-00.txt

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009.

Abstract

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 applications.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
    1.1.  Discard Report Block
    1.2.  RTCP and RTCP XR Reports
    1.3.  Performance Metrics Framework
    1.4.  Applicability
2.  Definitions
3.  Discard Metric Report Block
    3.1.  Report Block Structure
    3.2.  Definition of Fields in Discard Metric Report Block
4.  SDP Signaling
5.  IANA Considerations
6.  Security Considerations
7.  Contributors
8.  References
    8.1.  Normative References
    8.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Discard Report Block

This draft defines a new block type to augment those defined in [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.) for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block type supports the reporting of the number of packets which are received correctly but are never played out, typically because they arrive too late to be played out (buffer underflow) or too early (buffer overflow). The metric is applicable both to systems which use packet loss repair techniques (such as forward error correction [RFC5109] (Li, A., “RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction,” December 2007.) or retransmission [RFC4588] (Rey, J., “RTP Retransmission Payload Format,” July 2006.)) and to those which do not.

This metric is useful for identifying the existence, and characterising the severity, of a packet transport problem which may affect users' perception of a service delivered over RTP.

The metric belongs to the class of transport-related terminal metrics defined in [MONARCH] (work in progress).

Instances of this Metrics Block refer by tag to the separate auxiliary Measurement Identity block [MEASIDENT] (Hunt, G., “RTCP XR Measurement Identifier Block,” August 2008.) which contains information such as the SSRC of the measured stream, and RTP sequence numbers and time intervals indicating the span of the report.

The Measurement Identity block provides extended sequence numbers for the beginning and end of both Interval and Cumulative reporting periods. This allows systems receiving the report to calculate the number of packets expected.

1.2.  RTCP and RTCP XR Reports

The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550] (Schulzrinne, H., “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” July 2003.). [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.) defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended Report (XR). This draft defines a new Extended Report block that MUST be used as defined in [RFC3550] (Schulzrinne, H., “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” July 2003.) and [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.).

1.3.  Performance Metrics Framework

The Performance Metrics Framework [PMOLFRAME] (Clark, A., “Framework for Performance Metric Development,” July 2008.) provides guidance on the definition and specification of performance metrics. Metrics described in this draft either reference external definitions or define metrics generally in accordance with the guidelines in [PMOLFRAME] (Clark, A., “Framework for Performance Metric Development,” July 2008.).

1.4.  Applicability

This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP applications which use a jitter buffer.

2.  Definitions

Received, Lost and Discarded

A packet shall be regarded as lost if it fails to arrive within an implementation-specific time window. A packet that arrives within this time window but is too early or late to be played out shall be regarded as discarded. A packet shall be classified as one of received (or OK), discarded or lost. The Discard Metric counts only discarded packets. The metric "cumulative number of packets lost" defined in [RFC3550] (Schulzrinne, H., “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” July 2003.) reports a count of lost packets in the primary media stream. Another metric defined in [POSTREPAIRLOSS] (Hunt, G., “RTCP XR Report Block for Post-Repair Loss metric Reporting,” October 2008.) is available to report on packets which are not recovered by any repair techniques which may be in use. If Voice Activity Detection is used then the proportion of packets lost and discarded shall be determined based on transmitted packets, i.e. packets that contained silence and were not transmitted shall not be considered, because they do not form part of the RTP sequence.

3.  Discard Metric Report Block

3.1.  Report Block Structure

    0               1               2               3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     BT=ND     |I| tag | resv  |       block length=1          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   number of packets discarded                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.2.  Definition of Fields in Discard Metric Report Block

block type (BT): 8 bits

A Discard Metric Report Block is identified by the constant ND.

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

Interval Metric flag (I): 1 bit

This field is used to indicate whether the Discard metric is an Interval or a Cumulative metric, that is, whether the reported value applies to the most recent measurement interval duration between successive metrics reports (I=1) (the Interval Duration) or to the accumulation period characteristic of cumulative measurements (I=0) (the Cumulative Duration). Numerical values for both these intervals are provided in the Measurement Identifier block referenced by the tag field below.

Measurement Identifier association (tag): 3 bits

This field is used to identify the Measurement Identifier block [MEASIDENT] (Hunt, G., “RTCP XR Measurement Identifier Block,” August 2008.) which describes this measurement. The relevant Measurement Identifier block has the same tag value as the Discard Metric block. Note that there may be more than one Measurement Identifier block per RTCP packet.

Reserved (resv): 4 bits

These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to zero by senders and MUST be ignored by receivers.

block length: 16 bits

The length of this report block in 32-bit words minus one. For the Discard Metric block, the block length is equal to 1.

Number of packets lost: 32 bits

Number of packets discarded over the period (Interval or Cumulative) covered by this report.

If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFFFE SHOULD be reported to indicate an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFFFF SHOULD be reported.

Note that the number of packets expected in the period covered by the metric (whether interval or cumulative) is available from the difference between a pair of extended sequence numbers in the Measurement Identity block, so need not be repeated in this block.

4.  SDP Signaling

[RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.) defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC4566] (Handley, M., “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” July 2006.) for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling.

This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] (Handley, M., “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” July 2006.) attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.) by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to signal the use of the report block defined in this document.

rtcp-xr-attrib = "a=" "rtcp-xr" ":" [xr-format *(SP xr-format)] CRLF

(defined in RFC3611)

xr-format = xr-format / xr-pd-block

xr-pd-block = "xr-pd"

5.  IANA Considerations

This document creates a new block type within the IANA "RTCP XR Block Type Registry" called the Discard Metric Block, and a new parameter xr-pd within the "RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry".

6.  Security Considerations

It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.). This block does not provide per-packet statistics so the risk to confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611] (Friedman, T., “RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),” November 2003.) does not apply.

7.  Contributors

The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and contributions made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob Biskner, Kevin Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim Frauenthal, Albert Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones, Rajesh Kumar, Keith Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin Perkins, Mike Ramalho, Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor, and Hideaki Yamada.

8.  References

8.1. Normative References

8.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.