Audio/Video Transport Working Group | A. Clark |
Internet-Draft | Telchemy |
Intended status: Standards Track | G. Zorn |
Expires: December 31, 2013 | Network Zen |
Q. Wu | |
Huawei | |
June 29, 2013 |
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard-15.txt
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block that allows the reporting of a simple discard count metric 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 December 31, 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 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] or retransmission [RFC4588]) and to those which do not.
This metric is useful for identifying the existence, and characterizing the severity, of a packet transport problem which may affect users' perception of a service delivered over RTP.
This block may be used in conjunction with [BGDISCARD] which provides additional information on the pattern of discarded packets. However the metric in [BGDISCARD] may be used independently of the metrics in this block.
When a Discard Count Metrics Block is sent together with a Burst Gap Discard Metrics Block (defined in [BGDISCARD] ) to the media sender or RTP based network management system, the information carried in the Discard Count Metrics Block and the Burst Gap Discard Metrics Block allows systems receiving the blocks to calculate burst gap summary statistics (e.g., the gap discard rate).
The metric belongs to the class of transport-related end system metrics defined in [RFC6792].
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].
This metric is believed to be applicable to a large class of RTP applications which use a de-jitter buffer [RFC5481].
Discards due to late or early arriving packets affects user experience. The reporting of discards alerts senders and other receivers to the need to adjust their transmission or reception strategies. The reports allow network managers to diagnose these user experience problems.
The ability to detect duplicate packets can be used by managers to detect network layer or sender behavior which may indicate network or device issues. Based on the reports, these issues may be addressed prior to any impact on user experience.
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 the number of packets discarded in the stream arriving at the RTP end system. The measurement of these metrics is made at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metrics block refer by SSRC to the separate auxiliary Measurement Information Block [RFC6776] which describes measurement Intervals in use. This metrics block relies on the measurement interval in the Measurement Information Block indicating the span of the report and MUST be sent in the same compound RTCP packet as the measurement information block. If the measurement interval is not received in the same compound RTCP packet as this metrics block, 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=PDC | I |DT | resv.| block length = 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | discard count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Report Block Structure
In this document, the Discard Count Metric can only be measured over definite intervals, and cannot be sampled. Accordingly, the value I=01, indicating a sampled value, MUST NOT be sent, and MUST be discarded when received. In addition, the value I=00 is reserved and also MUST NOT be sent, and MUST be discarded when received.
[RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. However XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling (see section 5 of RFC3611).
xr-format =/ xr-pdc-block xr-pdc-block = "pkt-discard-count"
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 of 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 PDC in the IANA " RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry " to the "Discard Count Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace PDC with the IANA provided RTCP XR block type for this block.]
This document also registers a new parameter "pkt-discard-count" in the " RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry ".
Qin Wu (sunseawq@huawei.com) 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China
The following contact information is provided for all registrations in this document:
In some situations, returning very detailed error information (e.g.,over-range measurement or measurement unavailable) using this report block can provide an attacker with insight into the security processing. Where this is a concern, the implementation should apply authentication to this report block. This can be achieved by using the AVPF profile together with the Secure RTP profile as defined in [RFC3711]; as a prerequisite, an appropriate combination of those two profiles (an "SAVPF") is being specified [RFC5124].
Besides this, 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 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, and Hideaki Yamada, Kevin Gross, Varun Singh, Claire Bi, Roni Even, Dan Romascanu and Jonathan Lennox.
[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. |
[RFC6776] | Hunt, G., "Measurement Identity and information Reporting using SDES item and XR Block", RFC 6776, October 2012. |
[RFC6709] | Carpenter, B., Aboba, B. and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, September 2012. |
[RFC6792] | Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP", RFC 6792, November 2012. |
[BGDISCARD] | Hunt, G., "RTCP XR Report Block for Burst Gap Discard metric Reporting", ID draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-burst-gap-discard-14, April 2013. |
[RTPDUP] | Begen, A. and C. Perkins, "Duplicating RTP Streams", ID draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-02, March 2013. |
[RFC6390] | Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric Development", RFC 6390, October 2011. |
[RFC5725] | Begen, A., "RTCP XR Report Block for Post-Repair Loss metric Reporting", RFC 5725, February 2010. |
[RFC4588] | Rey, J., "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, July 2006. |
[RFC5109] | Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 5109, 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: