Audio/Video Transport Working Group | A. Clark |
Internet-Draft | Telchemy |
Intended status: Standards Track | K. Gross |
Expires: May 23, 2013 | AVA Networks |
Q. Wu | |
Huawei | |
November 19, 2012 |
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Delay metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-delay-12.txt
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block that allows the reporting of Delay metrics for use in a range of Real-time Transport Protocol 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 May 23, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2012 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 mean, minimum and maximum values of the network round-trip delay between RTP interfaces in peer RTP end systems as measured, for example, using the RTCP method described in [RFC3550]. It also supports reporting of the component of the round- trip delay internal to the local RTP system.
The network metrics belong to the class of transport metrics defined in [MONARCH].
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 [MONARCH] 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 [MONARCH].
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications in which this report block would be useful, such as multimedia conferencing and streaming audio and video. Knowledge of the round-trip delay and delay characteristics can aid other receivers in sizing their receive buffers and selecting a playout delay. The same information is also valuable to network managers in troubleshooting network and user experience issues.
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].
Metrics in this block report on packet delay in the stream arriving at the RTP system. The measurement of these metrics are made either at the receiving end of the RTP stream or at the sending end of the RTP stream. Instances of this Metrics Block refer by Synchronization source (SSRC) to the separate auxiliary Measurement Information block [RFC6776] which contains measurement periods (see RFC6776 section 4.2). This metric block relies on the measurement period in the Measurement Information block indicating the span of the report and SHOULD be sent in the same compound RTCP packet as the measurement information block. If the measurement period is not received in the same compound RTCP packet as this metric block, this metric block MUST be discarded.
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=NDEL | I | resv. | block length = 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mean Network Round Trip Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Min Network Round Trip Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max Network Round Trip Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End System Delay - Seconds (bit 0-31) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End System Delay - Fraction (bit 0-31) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Delay metrics block
[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-delay-block xr-delay-block ="delay"
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] applies.
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 NDEL in the IANA "RTCP XR Block Type Registry" to the "Delay Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace NDEL with the IANA provided RTCP XR block type for this block.]
This document also registers a new parameter "delay" in the "RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry".
The contact information for the registrations is: Qin Wu (sunseawq@huawei.com) 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China
It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report 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.
Geoff Hunt wrote the initial version of this document.
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,Jing Zhao,Kevin Gross, Colin Perkins, Charles Eckel, Glen Zorn,Shida Schubert,Barry Leiba,Sean Turner,Robert Sparks,Benoit Claise,Stephen Farrell.
[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. |
[RFC5905] | Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J. and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. |
[RFC6709] | Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, September 2012. |
[MONARCH] | Hunt, G., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP", ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-22, September 2012. |
[RFC6776] | Hunt, G., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block", RFC 6776, October 2012. |
[RFC6390] | Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric Development", RFC 6390, October 2011. |
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC.
The following are the major changes to previous version :