RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7266.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alan Clark , Qin Wu , Roland Schott , Glen Zorn | ||
| Last updated | 2012-10-17 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-12)
by Joel Halpern
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03
Network Working Group A. Clark
Internet-Draft Telchemy
Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu
Expires: April 21, 2013 Huawei
R. Schott
DT
G. Zorn
Network Zen
October 18, 2012
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric
Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03
Abstract
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) 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.
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 April 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice
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
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
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-Channel audio per SSRC Segment . . . . . . . . . 9
4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Contact information for registrations . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms for single
stream segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. New registry of calculation algorithms for
multi-channel audio segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.4. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
1. Introduction
1.1. QoE Metrics Report Block
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].
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 for use
with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework
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 XR Block described in this document
are in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and [MONARCH].
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
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
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:
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
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542
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.1201][P.1202] 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.
Editor's note: P.NAMS and P.NBAMS are replaced with P.1201 and
P.1202. However P.1201 is further splitted into P.1201.1 and
P.1201.2 and P.1202 is futher splitted into P.1202.1 and P.1202.2.
So shall we reference parent document P.1201 and P.1202 or
reference derived documents P.1201.1,P.1201.2, P.1202.1,P.1202.2?
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.
Editor's note: MOS values for narrowband, wideband, super wideband
and fullband codecs; these MOS values occupy the same range. For
video application,MoS values for SD resolution, HD resolution
video also occupy the same ranges and hence the QoE block needs to
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
indicate what the MOS reference is.
Editor's Note: If we add MoS reference concept, 32 bit segment is
not sufficient. Therefore it was suggested to expand 32 bit
segment into 48 bit segment to support MoS reference feature.
The QoE Metrics Block has the following format:
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=QMB | I | Reserved | 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 <QMB>.
Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits
This field is used to indicate whether the QoE 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=10) (the Interval Duration)
or to the accumulation period characteristic of cumulative
measurements (I=11) (the Cumulative Duration) or is a sampled
instantaneous value (I=01) (Sampled Value).
Reserved.: 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.
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
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.
SSRC of source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611].
Segment i: 32 bits
There are two segment types defined in this document: single
stream per SSRC segment, multi-channel audio per SSRC segment.
Multi-channel audio per SSRC segment is used to deal with the case
where Multi-channel audios are carried in one RTP stream while
single stream per SSRC segment is used to deal with the case where
each media stream is identified by SSRC and sent in separate 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, then it is multi-channel
audio segment. Note that two segment types can not be present in
the same metric block.
3.2.1. Single Stream per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| MT |CAlg | PT |Rsv. | MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Editor's Note: If we add | Editor's Note: Shall we need to |
| MoS reference concept, we | support MoS Scaling concept in the |
| should give a definition | future draft? One point on the list |
| of MoS reference which | is MoS Scaling concept is implicitly |
| covers both audio | used within the industry when |
| application and video | quoting MOS scores for codecs and |
| application. | measurements. |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Segment Type (S): 1 bit
This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
report block. A zero identifies this as a single stream segment.
Single stream means there is only one media stream carried in one
RTP stream. The single stream segment can be used to report the
MoS value associated with this media stream identified by SSRC.
If there are multiple media streams and they want to use the
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
single stream per SSRC 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 media 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:
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.
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 - TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
100 - ITU-T P.1201 [P.1201] (Multimedia)
101 - ITU-T P.1202 [P.1202] (Video)
110~111 - Reserved for future extension.
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.1201]or ITU-T P.NBAMS
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
[P.1202]. 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.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits
QoE metrics reporting depends on the payload format in use. This
field identifies the format of the RTP payload. For RTP sessions
where multiple payload formats can be negotiated or the payload
format changes during the mid-session), the value of this field
will be used to indicate what payload format was in use for the
reporting interval.
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: 14 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 6:8 with the value in
the range 0.0 to 63.996. 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-Channel audio per SSRC Segment
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| MT |CAlg | PT |CHID | MOS Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Segement Type (S): 1 bit
This field is used to identify the segment type used in this
report block. A one identifies this as a multi-channel audio
segment.
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
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 corresponding to MoS-CQ or MoS-LQ, the receiver
using multi-channel segment should discard this invalid segment
with the wrong MoS Type.
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 - TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
100~111 - Reserved for future extension.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits
As defined in Section 3.2.1 of this document.
Channel Identifier (CHID): 3 bits
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). This field is used to
identify each channel carried in the same media stream. The
default Channel mapping follows static ordering rule described in
the section 4.1 of [RFC3551]. However there are some payload
formats that use different channel mappings, e.g., AC-3 audio over
RTP [RFC4184] only follow AC-3 channel order scheme defined in
[ATSC]. Enhanced AC-3 Audio over RTP [RFC4598] uses dynamic
channel transform mechanism. In order that the appropriate
channel mapping can be determined, QoE reports need to be tied to
an RTP payload format, i.e., including the payload type of the
reported media according to [MONARCH] and using Payload Type to
determine the appropriate channel mapping.
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.
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
MOS Value: 14 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]:
xr-format = qoe-metrics
qoe-metrics = "QoE metrics"
Refer to Section 5.1 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611] for a detailed description
and the full syntax of the "rtcp-xr" attribute.
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 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.]
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
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
5.4. New registry of calculation algorithms for single stream 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".
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. TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (Voice)
5. ITU-T P.1201 [P.1201] (Multimedia)
6. ITU-T P.1202 [P.1202] (Video)
5.5. New registry of calculation algorithms for multi-channel audio
segment
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:
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".
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
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. TTC JJ201.01 [TTC] (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 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 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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[ATSC] U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), "ATSC
Standard: Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), Revision B",
ATSC Doc A/52B, June 2005.
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
[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-22, September 2012.
[P.1201] ITU-T, "Parametric non-intrusive assessment of audiovisual
media streaming quality", ITU-T Recommendation P.1201,
October 2012.
[P.1202] ITU-T, "non-intrusive bit-stream model for assessment of
performance of multimedia streaming", ITU-T
Recommendation P.1202, October 2012.
[P.564] ITU-T, "Conformance testing for narrowband Voice over IP
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
transmission quality assessment models", ITU-T
Recommendation P.564, July 2006.
[RFC4184] Link, B., Hager, T., and J. Flaks, "RTP Payload Format for
AC-3 Audio", RFC 4184, October 2005.
[RFC4598] Link, B., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload
Format for Enhanced AC-3 (E-AC-3) Audio", RFC 4598,
July 2006.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric
Development", RFC 6390, October 2011.
[TTC] TTC 201.01 (Japan), "A method for speech quality
assessment for Voice over IP".
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Add one new reference to support TTC JJ201.01.
o Update two references P.NAMS and P.NBAMS.
o Other Editorial changes based on comments applied to PDV and Delay
drafts.
A.2. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-02
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Remove leftmost second bit since it is ueeless.
o Change 13bits MoS value field into 14 bits to increase MoS
precision.
o Fix some typo and make some editorial changes.
A.3. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Remove layered support from the QoE metric draft.
o Allocate 7 bits in the block header for payload type to indicate
what type of payload format is in use and add associated
definition of payload type.
o Clarify using Payload Type to determine the appropriate channel
mapping in the definition of Channel Identifier.
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks October 2012
A.4. draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Allocate one more bit in the single stream per SSC segment to get
alignment with the other two segment type.
Authors' Addresses
Alan Clark
Telchemy Incorporated
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
Duluth, GA 30097
USA
Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
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
Clark, et al. Expires April 21, 2013 [Page 16]