Network Working Group | G. Hunt |
Internet-Draft | Unaffiliated |
Intended status: Standards Track | A. Clark |
Expires: January 12, 2013 | Telchemy |
Q. Wu | |
Huawei | |
R. Schott | |
DT | |
G. Zorn | |
Network Zen | |
July 13, 2012 |
RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02
This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block including two new segment types and associated SDP parameters that allow the reporting of QoE 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 January 12, 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 provides information on multimedia quality using one of several standard metrics.
The metrics belong to the class of application level 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. The use of Extended Report blocks is defined by [RFC3611].
The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] 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 [RFC6390].
The QoE Metrics Report Block can be used in any application of RTP for which QoE measurement algorithms are defined.
The factors that affect real-time AV application quality can be split into two categories. The first category consists of transport- dependent factors such as packet loss, delay and jitter (which also translates into losses in the playback buffer). The factors in the second category are application-specific factors that affect real time application (e.g., video) quality and are sensitivity to network errors. These factors can be but not limited to video codec and loss recovery technique, coding bit rate, packetization scheme, and content characteristics.
Compared with application-specific factors, the transport-dependent factors sometimes are not sufficient to measure real time data quality, since the ability to analyze the real time data in the application layer provides quantifiable measurements for subscriber Quality of Experience (QoE) that may not be captured in the transmission layers or from the RTP layer down. In a typical scenario, monitoring of the transmission layers can produce statistics suggesting that quality is not an issue, such as the fact that network jitter is not excessive. However, problems may occur in the service layers leading to poor subscriber QoE. Therefore monitoring using only network-level measurements may be insufficient when application layer content quality is required.
In order to provide accurate measures of real time application quality when transporting real time contents across a network, the synthentical multimedia quality Metrics is highly required which can be conveyed in the RTCP XR packets[RFC3611] and may have the following three benefits:
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].
The terminology used is
This block reports the multimedia application performance or quality beyond the information carried in the standard RTCP packet format. Information is recorded about multimedia application QoE metric which provides a measure that is indicative of the user's view of a service. Multimedia application QoE metric is commonly expressed as a MOS ("Mean Opinion Score"), MOS is on a scale from 1 to 5, in which 5 represents excellent and 1 represents unacceptable. MOS scores are usually obtained using subjective testing or using objective algorithm. However Subjective testing to estimate the multimedia quality may be not suitable for measuring the multimedia quality since the results may vary from test to test. Therefore using objective algorithm to calculate MOS scores is recommended. ITU-T recommendations define the methodologies for assessment of the performance of multimedia stream [G.107][P.564][G.1082][P.NAMS][P.NBAMS] and provides a method to evaluate QoE estimation algorithms and objective model for video and audio. Hence this document recommends vendors and implementers to use these International Telecommunication Union (ITU)-specified methodologies to measure parameters when possible.
The report block contents are dependent upon a series of flag bits carried in the first part of the header. Not all parameters need to be reported in each block. Flags indicate which are and which are not reported. The fields corresponding to unreported parameters MUST be present, but are set to zero. The receiver MUST ignore any QoE Metrics Block with a non-zero value in any field flagged as unreported. The encoding of QoE metrics block payload consists of a series of 32 bit units called segments that describe MOS Type, MoS algorithm and MoS value.
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=MMQ | I | Rsd | block length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC of source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Segment 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Segment 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ .................. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Segment n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The QoE Metrics Block has the following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0| MT |CAlg | PT |Rsv. | MOS Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MoS-LQ measures the quality of audio for listening purposes only while MoS-CQ measures the quality of audio for conversation purpose only. MoS-A,MoS-V and MoS-AV measures the quality of audio application, the quality of video application and Audio-Video application respectively. Both MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ are commonly used in VoIP applications. MOS-LQ uses either wideband audio codec or narrowband audio codec, or both and does not take into account any of bidirectional effects, such as delay and echo. MOS-CQ uses narrowband codec and takes into account listening quality in each direction, as well as the bidirectional effects.
G.107 and P.564 and ETSI TS101 329-5 specify three Calculation algorithms or MoS algorithms that are used to estimate speech quality or conversation quality. P.NAMS and P.NBAMS specify two MoS algorithms that are used to estimate multimedia quality including video quality, audio quality and audio-video quality. If MoS type is MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ, the MoS value can be calculated based on ITU-T G.107
[G.107], ITU-T P.564 [P.564]or ETSI TS 101 329-5 [ETSI], if the Mos type is MoS-V or MoS-AV, the Mos value can be calculated based on ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS]or ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS]. If new MOS types are defined, they can be added by an update to this document. If the receiver does not understand the MOS type defined in this document it should discard this report. If MoS Type does not match the MoS algorithm in the report (e.g., specify a voice MOS algorithm for a video quality MOS), the receiver should also discard this report.+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1| MT |CAlg | PT |CHID | MOS Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
rtcp-xr-attrib = "a=rtcp-xr:" [xr-format *(SP xr-format)] CRLF xr-format = qoe-metrics qoe-metrics = "multimedia-quality-metrics"
One new parameter is defined for the report block defined in this document to be used with Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] using the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234]. It has the following syntax within the "rtcp-xr" attribute [RFC3611]: RFC 3611 [RFC3611] for a detailed description and the full syntax of the "rtcp-xr" attribute.
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 MMQ in the IANA "RTCP XR Block Type Registry" to the "QoE Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace MMQ with the IANA provided RTCP XR block type for this block.]
This document also registers a new parameter "qoe-metrics" in the "RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry".
Qin Wu sunseawq@huawei.com 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, JiangSu 210012 China
The contact information for the registrations is:
This document creates a new registry for single stream per SSRC segment defined in the section 3.2.1 to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric block - multimedia application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-registry of the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry". This registry applies to the multimedia session where each type of media are sent in a separate RTP stream. Specially this registry also applies to the layered video session where each layer video are sent in a separate RTP stream. Policies for this new registry are as follows:
This document creates a new registry for multi-channel audio per SSRC segment defined in the section 3.2.2 to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric block – multi-channel application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-registry of the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" if multi-channel voice data are carried in the same RTP stream. Policies for this new registry are as follows:
The new RTCP XR report blocks proposed in this document introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
This draft merges ideas from two drafts addressing the QoE metric Reporting issue. The authors of these drafts are listed below (in alphabetical order):
The authors would like to thank Alan Clark, Bill Ver Steeg, David R Oran, Ali Begen,Colin Perkins, Roni Even,Youqing Yang, Wenxiao Yu and Yinliang Hu for their valuable comments and suggestions on this document.
[RFC3611] | Friedman, T., Caceres, R. and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003. |
[RFC3550] | Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003. |
[RFC3551] | Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 3551, July 2003. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC4566] | Handley, M., Jacobson, V. and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. |
[RFC5234] | Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. |
[RFC5226] | Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. |
[ATSC] | U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), "ATSC Standard: Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), Revision B", ATSC Doc A/52B, June 2005. |
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: