Audio/Video Transport Working Group | A. Clark |
Internet-Draft | Telchemy |
Intended status: Standards Track | S. Zhang |
Expires: October 17, 2013 | J. Zhao |
STTRI | |
Q. Wu, Ed. | |
Huawei | |
April 15, 2013 |
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Loss metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-loss-12.txt
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block that allows the reporting of 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 October 17, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2013 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 to augment those defined in [RFC3611] for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block type supports the reporting of the proportion of packets lost by the network. The losses during loss bursts are reported, together with the number of bursts and additional data allowing the calculation of statistical parameters (mean and variance) of the distribution of burst lengths. Some uses of these metrics depend on the availability of the metric "cumulative number of packets lost" from RTCP [RFC3550].
This block provides information on transient IP problems. Burst/Gap metrics are typically used in Cumulative reports, however they also may be used in Interval reports. The burstiness of packet loss affects user experience, may influence any sender strategies to mitigate the problem, and may also have diagnostic value.
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 definitions in [RFC3611]. To accommodate the range of jitter buffer algorithms and packet discard logic that may be used by implementors, the method used to distinguish between bursts and gaps may be an equivalent method to that defined in [RFC3611]. The method used should produce the same result as that defined in [RFC3611] for conditions of burst packet loss, but may produce different results for conditions of time varying jitter.
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 Architectures [RFC6792] provides guideline for reporting block format using RTCP XR. The Metrics Block described in this document are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and [RFC6792].
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications which contain jitter buffers and don't use stream repair means, e.g., Forward Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109] 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 Loss in the stream arriving at the RTP system. The measurement of these metrics are made at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this Metrics Block refer by Synchronization source (SSRC) 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=NBGL | I |C| resv. | block length = 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Threshold | Sum of Burst Durations (ms) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Packets Lost in Bursts | Total... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...Packets expected in bursts | Number of bursts | Sum of| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...Squares of Burst Durations (ms-squared) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Report Block Structure
Burst/Gap Loss metrics block
In this document, Burst/Gap Loss 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 as described in this section, in conjunction with information from the Measurement Information block [RFC6776] and also with the metric "cumulative number of packets lost" provided in standard RTCP [RFC3550].
These metrics provide information relevant to statistical parameters, including:
The details on calculation these parameters in the metrics are described in [SUMSTAT].
This Metrics Block is applicable to a broad range of RTP applications. Where the metric is used with a Voice-overIP (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 loss rate is high enough to cause noticeable call quality degradation (generally over 5 percent loss rate), and gaps, which are periods during which lost 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-bgl-block xr-bgl-block = "burst-gap-loss"
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.
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 parameter, 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 NBGL in the IANA " RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry " to the "Burst/Gap Loss Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace NBGL with the IANA provided RTCP XR block type for this block.]
This document also registers a new parameter "burst-gap-loss" in the " RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry".
The contact information for the registrations is: Qin Wu (sunseawq@huawei.com) 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China
This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611] does not apply. However the gaps indicated within this block could be used to detect the timing of other events on the path between the sender and receiver. For example, a competing multimedia stream might cause a loss burst for the duration of the stream, allowing the receiver of this block to know when the competing stream was active. This risk is not a significant threat since the only information leaked is the timing of the loss, not the cause. Besides this, it is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no other new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
Geoff Hunt wrote the initial draft of this document.
The authors gratefully acknowledge reviews and feedback provided 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, Hideaki Yamada, Adam Roach, Dan Romascanu,Chris Lonvick, Alfred C.,Morton Jr., Pete Resnick, Ted Lemon, Stephen Farrell, Richard Barnes, Benoit Claise.
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. |
[RFC3611] | Friedman, T., Caceres, R. and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", November 2003. |
[RFC4566] | Handley, M., Jacobson, V. and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", July 2006. |
[RFC3550] | Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003. |
[RFC5725] | Begen, A., Hsu, D. and M. Lague, "Post-Repair Loss RLE Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XRs)", RFC 5725, February 2020. |
[RFC6709] | Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, September 2012. |
[DISCARD] | Wu, Q., "RTCP XR Report Block for Discard metric Reporting", ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-11, December 2012. |
[SUMSTAT] | Zorn, G., "RTCP XR for Summary Statistics Metrics Reporting", ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-11, March 2013. |
[RFC6776] | Wu, Q., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block", RFC 6776, October 2012. |
[RFC6792] | Hunt, G., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP", RFC 6792, November 2012. |
[RFC6390] | Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric Development", RFC 6390, July 2011. |
[RFC5109] | Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007. |
[RFC4588] | Rey, J., Leon, D., Varsa, V. and R. Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, July 2006. |
RFC EDITOR NOTE: please change XXXX in [RFCXXXX] by the new RFC number, when assigned.
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC.
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
The following are the major changes compared to previous version: