Audio/Video Transport Working Group | V. Singh |
Internet-Draft | callstats.io |
Intended status: Standards Track | C. Perkins |
Expires: September 22, 2016 | University of Glasgow |
A. Clark | |
Telchemy | |
R. Huang | |
Huawei | |
March 21, 2016 |
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metric
draft-ietf-xrblock-independent-burst-gap-discard-01
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) block that allows the reporting of burst and gap discard metrics independently of the burst and gap loss metrics for use in a range of RTP applications.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document defines a new block type that extends the metrics defined in [RFC7003]. The new block type reports the proportion of packets discarded in a burst by the dejitter buffer at the receiver. The number of packets discarded depends on the dejitter buffer algorithm implemented by the endpoint.
The new report block defined in this document is different from the one defined in [RFC7003]. The metrics in [RFC7003] depends on the metrics in the burst-gap loss metric defined in [RFC6958]. Consequently, an endpoint using [RFC7003] MUST report it along with [RFC6958] for it to be useful. The combined usage is useful when an endpoint observes correlated packet losses and discard. However, when the burst of packet losses and discards do not occur simultaneously, the application may prefer a concise report block that just reports the burst-gap of discarded packets. The report block in this document provides the complete information and does not require additional report blocks. That is, this block reports: the total number of packets discarded, the total burst duration, and the total number of bursts, all of these metrics are missing in [RFC7003].
This block provides information on transient network issues. Burst/gap metrics are typically used in cumulative reports; however, they may also be used in interval reports (see the Interval Metric flag in Section 3.2). The variation in the number of packet discards in a burst affects the user experience. Based on the metrics reported in the block, the sending endpoint may change the packetization interval, vary the bitrate, etc. The report may additionally be used for diagnostics [RFC6792]. The metric belongs to the class of transport-related end-system metrics defined in [RFC6792].
The definitions of "burst", "gap", "loss", and "discard" are consistent with the definitions in [RFC3611]. To accommodate a range of dejitter buffer algorithms and packet discard logic that may be used by implementors, the method used to distinguish between bursts and gaps shall use an equivalent method to that defined in Section 4.7.2 of [RFC3611]. Note that reporting the specific dejitter buffer algorithm and/or the packet discard logic is out of the scope of this document.
The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611] defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended Report (XR). This document defines a new Extended Report block for use with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the definition and specification of performance metrics. The RTP Monitoring Framework [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting block format using RTCP XR. The metrics block described in this document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and [RFC6792].
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications that contain dejitter buffers [RFC5481] at the receiving end to smooth variation in packet-arrival time and don't use stream repair means, e.g., Forward Error Correction (FEC) [I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme] and/or retransmission [RFC4588].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
In addition, the following terms are defined:
Metrics in this block report on burst/gap discard in the stream arriving at the RTP system. Measurements of these metrics are made at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metrics block use the synchronization source (SSRC) to refer to the separate auxiliary Measurement Information Block [RFC6776], which describes measurement periods in use (see [RFC6776], Section 4.2).
This metrics block relies on the measurement period in the Measurement Information Block indicating the span of the report. Senders MUST send this block in the same compound RTCP packet as the Measurement Information Block. Receivers MUST verify that the measurement period is received in the same compound RTCP packet as this metrics block. If not, this metrics block MUST be discarded.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BT=IBGD | I | resv | Block Length = 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Threshold | Sum of Burst Durations (ms) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Packets Discarded in Bursts | Number of | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bursts | Total Packets Expected in Bursts | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Discard Count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Report Block Structure
The structure of the Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block is as follows.
In this document, burst/gap discard metrics can only be measured over definite intervals and cannot be sampled. Also, the value I=00 is reserved for future use. Senders MUST NOT use the values I=00 or I=01. If a block is received with I=00 or I=01, the receiver MUST discard the block.
The metrics described here are intended to be used in conjunction with information from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776].
These metrics provide the following information relevant to statistical parameters (depending on cumulative of interval measures), for example:
This metrics block is applicable to a broad range of RTP applications. Where the metric is used with a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) application and the stream repair means is not available, the following considerations apply.
RTCP XR views a call as being divided into bursts, which are periods during which the discard rate is high enough to cause noticeable call quality degradation (generally over 5 percent discard rate) and gaps, which are periods during which discarded packets are infrequent and hence call quality is generally acceptable.
If voice activity detection is used, the burst and gap duration shall be determined as if silence packets had been sent, i.e., a period of silence in excess of Gmin packets will terminate a burst condition.
The recommended value for the threshold Gmin in [RFC3611] results in a burst being a period of time during which the call quality is degraded to a similar extent to a typical pulse code modulation (PCM) severely errored second.
[RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling.
xr-format =/ xr-ind-bgd-block xr-ind-bgd-block = "ind-burst-gap-discard"
This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to signal the use of the report block defined in this document. The ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows.
When SDP is used in Offer/Answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage defined in [RFC3611] for unilateral "rtcp-xr" attribute parameters applies. For detailed usage in Offer/Answer for unilateral parameters, refer to Section 5.2 of [RFC3611].
New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to [RFC3611].
This document assigns the block type value IBGD in the IANA "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" to the "Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: Please replace IBGD with the IANA provided RTCP XR block type for this block.]
This document also registers a new parameter "ind-burst-gap-discard" in the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry".
ART Area Directors <art-ads@tools.ietf.org>
The contact information for the registrations is:
It is believed that this RTCP XR block introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611] does not apply.
Qin Wu, Rachel Huang, and Alan Clark wrote RFC7003, which this document extends.
The authors would like to thank Paul Kyzivat, Jan Novak, Dan Romascanu for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft.