Internet DRAFT - draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring
draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring
Network Working Group G. Hunt
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Standards Track A. Clark
Expires: July 3, 2012 Telchemy
Q. Wu
Huawei
R. Schott
DT
G. Zorn
Network Zen
December 31, 2011
RTCP XR Blocks for QoE metric reporting
draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-08
Abstract
This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block and associated SDP
parameters that allow the reporting of QoE metrics for use in a range
of RTP applications.
Status of this Memo
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 July 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. QoE Metrics Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. QoE Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Metric Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Definition of Fields in QoE Metrics Block . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Single Stream per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Multi-Layer per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Multi-Channel per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Contact information for registrations . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms for single
stream per SSRC segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. New registry of calculation algorithms for multi-layer
per SSRC segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. New registry of calculation algorithms for
multi-channel per SSRC segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-03 . . . . . . 16
A.2. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-04 . . . . . . 16
A.3. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-05 . . . . . . 16
A.4. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-06 . . . . . . 17
A.5. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-07 . . . . . . 17
A.6. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-08 . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
1. Introduction
1.1. QoE Metrics Report Block
This draft 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] (work in progress).
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports
The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611]
defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended
Report (XR). This draft defines a new Extended Report block that
MUST be used as defined in RFC3550 and RFC3611.
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework
The Performance Metrics Framework [PMOL] 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 [PMOL].
1.4. Applicability
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
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
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:
o Tuning the content encoder algorithm to satisfy real time data
quality requirements.
o Determining which system techniques to use in a given situation
and when to switch from one technique to another as system
parameters change.
o Verifying the continued correct operation of an existing system.
2. Terminology
2.1. Standards Language
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
Numeric formats S X:Y
where S indicates a two's complement signed representation, X
the number of bits prior to the decimal place and Y the number
of bits after the decimal place.
Hence 8:8 represents an unsigned number in the range 0.0 to
255.996 with a granularity of 0.0039. S7:8 would represent the
range -127.996 to +127.996. 0:16 represents a proper binary
fraction with range
0.0 to 1 - 1/65536 = 0.9999847
though note that use of flag values at the top of the numeric
range slightly reduces this upper limit. For example, if the
16- bit values 0xfffe and 0xffff are used as flags for "over-
range" and "unavailable" conditions, a 0:16 quantity has range
0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
3. QoE Metrics Block
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.
3.1. Metric Block Structure
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.
The QoE Metrics Block has the following format:
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
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=TBD | I | Rsd | block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
..................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2. Definition of Fields in QoE Metrics Block
Block type (BT): 8 bits
The QoE Metrics Block is identified by the constant <SMQ>.
Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bit
This field is used to indicate whether the Basic Loss/Discard
metrics are Interval or Cumulative metrics, that is, whether the
reported values applies to the most recent measurement interval
duration between successive metrics reports (I=01) (the Interval
Duration) or to the accumulation period characteristic of
cumulative measurements (I=00) (the Cumulative Duration) or to the
value of a continuously measured or calculated that has been
sampled at end of the interval (I=10) (Sampled Value).
Rsd.:6 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of
such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Block Length: 16 bits
The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one. For
the QoE Metrics Block, the block length is variable length.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
SSRC of source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611].
Segment i: 32 bits
There are three segment types : single stream per SSRC segment,
multi-channel audio per SSRC segment, multi-layer per SSRC
segment. Multi-channel per SSRC segment and multi-layer per SSRC
segment are used to deal with the case where multiple elementary
streams or components are carried in one RTP stream while single
stream per SSRC segment is used to deal with the case where there
is no more than one elementary stream or component in one RTP
stream. The left two bits of the section determine its type. If
the leftmost bit of the segment is zero, then it is single stream
segment. If the leftmost bit is one and the second bit is zero,
then it is multi-channel audio segment, if the leftmost bit is one
and the second bit is one, then it is multi- view segment. Note
that in these three segment type,any two segment types can not be
present in the same metric block.
3.2.1. Single Stream per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| MT |CAlg | Rsv. | MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segment Type ( S): 1 bit
A zero identifies this as a single stream segment. Single stream
means there is only one elementary stream carried in one RTP
stream. The single stream segment can be used to report the MoS
value associated with this elementary stream. If there are
multiple streams and they want to use the single stream segment to
report the MOS value, they should be carried in the separate RTP
streams with different SSRC. In this case, multiple QoE Metrics
Blocks are required to report the MOS value corresponding to each
stream using single stream segment.
MoS Type (MT): 4 bits
This field is used to indicate the MOS type to be reported. The
MOS type is defined as follows:
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
0000 MOS-LQ - Listening Quality MoS.
0001 MOS-CQ - Conversation Quality MoS.
0010 MOS-A - Audio Quality MOS.
0010 MOS-V - Video Quality MOS.
0011 MOS-AV - Audio-Video Quality MOS.
0100~1111 - Reserved for future definitions.
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 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.
Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits
000 - ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
001 - G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
010 - ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] (Voice)
011 - ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS] (Multimedia)
100 - ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS] (Multimedia)
101~111 - Reserved for future extension.
Rsd.:8 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of
such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
MOS Value: 16 bits
The estimated mean opinion score for multimedia application
quality is defined as including the effects of delay,loss,
discard,jitter and other effects that would affect multimedia
quality . It is expressed in numeric format 8:8 with the value in
the range 0.0 to 255.996. The valid the measured value ranges
from 0.0 to 50.0, corresponding to MoS x 10 as for MoS. If the
measured value is over ranged, the value 0xFFFE SHOULD be reported
to indicate an over-range measurement. If the measurement is
unavailable, the value 0xFFFF SHOULD be reported. Values other
than 0xFFFE,0xFFFF and the valid range defined above MUST NOT be
sent and MUST be ignored by the receiving system.
3.2.2. Multi-Layer per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| MT |CAlg | SSID |Rsv| MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segment Type ( S): 1 bit
A one identifies this as either a multi-channel segment or multi-
layer segment.
Media Type (M): 1bit
A one identifies this as a multi-layer video segment.
MoS Type (MT): 4 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document. If the value of
this field is not for MoS-V, the receiver using multi-layer
segment should discard this invalid segment with the wrong MoS
Type.
Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits
000~010 - Reserved.
011 - ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS] (Multimedia).
100 - ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS] (Multimedia).
101~111 - Reserved for future extension.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
Sub Stream Identifier (SSID): 5 bits
If multiple layers of video are carried in the same RTP stream,
each layer will be viewed as a sub stream. Specially, If multiple
views of video are carried in the same RTP stream, each view will
be viewed as a sub stream. This field is used to identify each
layer of video that is carried in the same media stream. NAL unit
type is one example of such SSID.
(Editor's Note: It's not sufficient to simply say that a "NAL unit
type is one example", the draft needs to give normative rules for
the use of this field)
Rsd.:2 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of
such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
MOS Value: 16 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.
3.2.3. Multi-Channel per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| MT |CAlg | CHID | Rsv.| MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segement Type ( S): 1 bit
A one identifies this as either a multi-channel segment or multi-
layer segment.
Media Type (M): 1bit
A zero identifies this as a multi-channel per SSRC segment.
MoS Type (MT): 4 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document. If the value of
this field is not for MoS-CQ or MoS-LQ, the receiver using multi-
channel segment should discard this invalid segment with the wrong
MoS Type.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits
000 - ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
001 - G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
010 - ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E, [ ETSI] (Voice)
011~100 - Reserved.
101~111 - Reserved for future extension.
Channel Identifier (CHID): 4 bits
This field is used to identify each channel that is carried in the
same media stream. If multiple channels of audio are carried in
one RTP stream, each channel of audio will be viewed as a
independent channel(e.g., left channel audio, right channel
audio). Channel mapping follows static ordering rule described in
the section 4.1 of [RFC3551].
(Editor's Note: It is not clear that the channel mapping in RFC
3551 Section 4.1 is the only one in use)
Rsd.:3 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of
such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
MOS Value: 16 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.
4. SDP Signaling
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]:
rtcp-xr-attrib = "a=rtcp-xr:"
[xr-format *(SP xr-format)] CRLF
xr-format = qoe-metrics
qoe-metrics = "multimedia-quality-metrics"
Refer to Section 5.1 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611] for a detailed description
and the full syntax of the "rtcp-xr" attribute.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
5. IANA Considerations
New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For
general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to
[RFC3611].
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value
This document assigns the block type value NDEL in the IANA "RTCP XR
Block Type Registry" to the "QoE Metrics Block".
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace SMQ with the IANA provided RTCP
XR block type for this block.]
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter
This document also registers a new parameter "qoe-metrics" in the
"RTCP XR SDP Parameters Registry".
5.3. Contact information for registrations
The contact information for the registrations is:
Qin Wu
sunseawq@huawei.com
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, JiangSu 210012 China
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms for single stream per SSRC
segment
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:
o The information required to support this assignment is an
unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
metric. This should include the units of measurement, how values
of the metric are reported in the one 16-bit fields "MoS Value".
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
o The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
o Entries in the registry are integers. The valid range is 0 to 7
corresponding to the 3-bit field "CAlg" in the block. Values are
to be recorded in decimal.
o Initial assignments are as follows:
1. ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
2. G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
3. ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] (Voice)
4. ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS] (Multimedia)
5. ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS] (Multimedia)
5.5. New registry of calculation algorithms for multi-layer per SSRC
segment
This document creates a new registry for multi-layer per SSRC segment
defined in the section 3.2.2 to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric block -
layered application Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-registry of the
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry"
if multi-layer video are carried in the same RTP stream. Policies
for this new registry are as follows:
o The information required to support this assignment is an
unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
metric. This should include the units of measurement, how values
of the metric are reported in the one 16-bit fields "MoS Value".
o The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
o Entries in the registry are integers. The valid range is 0 to 7
corresponding to the 3-bit field "CAlg" in the block. Values are
to be recorded in decimal.
o Initial assignments are as follows:
1. ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS] (Multimedia)
2. ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS] (Multimedia)
5.6. New registry of calculation algorithms for multi-channel per SSRC
segment
This document creates a new registry for multi-channel per SSRC
segment defined in the section 3.2.3 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)
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
Block Type Registry" if multi-channel voice data are carried in the
same RTP stream. Policies for this new registry are as follows:
o The information required to support this assignment is an
unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
metric. This should include the units of measurement, how values
of the metric are reported in the one 16-bit fields "MoS Value".
o The review process for the registry is "Specification Required" as
described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
o Entries in the registry are integers. The valid range is 0 to 7
corresponding to the 3-bit field "CAlg" in the block. Values are
to be recorded in decimal.
o Initial assignments are as follows:
1. ITU-T P.564 Compliant Algorithm [P.564] (Voice)
2. G.107 [G.107] (Voice)
3. ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [ ETSI] (Voice)
6. Security Considerations
The new RTCP XR report blocks proposed in this document introduces no
new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
7. Authors
This draft merges ideas from two different drafts addressing the QoE
metric Reporting issue. The authors of these drafts are listed below
(in alphabetical order) :
Alan Clark < alan.d.clark@telchemy.com >
Geoff Hunt < r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com >
Martin Kastner < martin.kastner@telchemy.com >
Kai Lee < leekai@ctbri.com.cn >
Roland Schott < roland.schott@telekom.de >
Qin Wu < sunseawq@huawei.com >
Glen Zorn < gwz@net-zen.net >
8. Acknowledgements
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.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,
November 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[ETSI] ETSI, "Quality of Service (QoS) measurement
methodologies", ETSI TS 101 329-5 V1.1.1, November 2000.
[G.107] ITU-T, "The E Model, a computational model for use in
transmission planning", ITU-T Recommendation G.107,
April 2009.
[G.1082] ITU-T, "Measurement-based methods for improving the
robustness of IPTV performance", ITU-T
Recommendation G.1082, April 2009.
[MONARCH] Wu, Q., "Monitoring Architectures for RTP",
ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-00, April 2011.
[P.564] ITU-T, "Conformance testing for narrowband Voice over IP
transmission quality assessment models", ITU-T
Recommendation P.564, July 2006.
[P.NAMS] ITU-T, "Non-intrusive parametric model for the Assessment
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
of performance of Multimedia Streaming", ITU-T
Recommendation P.NAMS, November 2009.
[P.NBAMS] ITU-T, "non-intrusive bit-stream model for assessment of
performance of multimedia streaming", ITU-T
Recommendation P.NBAMS, November 2009.
[PMOL] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric
Development", ID draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-12,
July 2011.
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-03
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 02:
o Remove the tag field.
o Define MOS Value field as 32 bits integer value field.
o Clear unused references.
o Add text to MOS type field for clarification.
o Other Editorial changes.
A.2. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-04
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 03:
o Add Numeric format definition and express the MoS-Value in Numeric
format.
o Change 32bits MoS Value into 16bits MoS Value.
o Add some text to MoS Type definition to clarify the algorithm
calculation.
o Separate MoS-A into MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ and add some text to clarify
the difference between them.
o Add one more reference for MoS-LQ and MoS-CQ value calculation.
o Other Editorial changes.
A.3. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-05
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 04:
o Merge this draft with Clack's draft
o Define three segment types to distinguish multiple elementary
stream carried in the same RTP stream from multiple elementary
stream carried in each different RTP stream
o Allocate 3 bit for MOS calculation algorithms in each segment.
o Allocate or move 4 bit for MOS Type to each segment
o Other Editorial changes.
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
A.4. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-06
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 05:
o Specify how sub-streams are identified.
o Change multi-view segment into multi-layer segment.
o Move MoS Type field before Calg field.
o Provide guidance on how new calculation algorithms can be
registered
o Define the channel mapping algorithm for multi-channel segment
A.5. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-07
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 05:
o Add MoS-A as one new MoS Type to distinguish from MoS-LQ and
MoS-CQ.
o Add guidance on which algorithm is appropriate for which MOS type.
o Add restriction on MOS Type and algorithm choice to multi-layer
segment and multi-channel segment.
o Other editorial changes.
A.6. draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-08
The following are the major changes compared to previous version 07:
o Define registries for each segment type rather than various
applications.
o Add cross references to each registry.
o Typo fixed for section number.
Authors' Addresses
Geoff Hunt
Unaffiliated
Email: r.geoff.hunt@gmail.com
Alan Clark
Telchemy Incorporated
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
Duluth, GA 30097
USA
Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks December 2011
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Roland Schott
Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7
Darmstadt 64295
Germany
Email: Roland.Schott@telekom.de
Glen Zorn
Network Zen
77/440 Soi Phoomjit, Rama IV Road
Phra Khanong, Khlong Toie
Bangkok 10110
Thailand
Phone: +66 (0) 87 502 4274
Email: gwz@net-zen.net
Hunt, et al. Expires July 3, 2012 [Page 18]
