RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Loss Concealment Metrics for Video Applications
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-07-26
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-04-28
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-04-28
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-27
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-21
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-04-21
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-04-21
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] IPR issue has been resolved. |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-04-21
|
Alexa Morris | Removed related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc | |
2016-03-30
|
06 | Naveen Khan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-03-30
|
06 | Naveen Khan | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-06.txt |
2016-02-22
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA's initial review missed that these registrations are subject to expert review. Contacting the expert now. |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] ... and I would be a Yes, except that I don't want to be a Yes while the sponsoring AD is still a … [Ballot comment] ... and I would be a Yes, except that I don't want to be a Yes while the sponsoring AD is still a Discuss! |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] scott bradner performed the opsdir review |
2016-01-07
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] Changing to DISCUSS since I'd like to discuss the IPR situation with the IESG. I had thought re-confirming with the WG that they … [Ballot discuss] Changing to DISCUSS since I'd like to discuss the IPR situation with the IESG. I had thought re-confirming with the WG that they still wanted to progress the draft would be sufficient given the terms of the disclosure, but if folks think we need to do another IETF LC we should discuss. Also the WG's own discussion about the IPR is ongoing. |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Ben's comment about the IPR. If it helps, I'd be happy to hold a discuss to get that sorted. |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot comment text updated for Stephen Farrell |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] (Note that there was a post IETF LC IPR declaration. We should discuss whether we need to re-run the last call. I think … [Ballot comment] (Note that there was a post IETF LC IPR declaration. We should discuss whether we need to re-run the last call. I think Alissa is on top of this, so I did not make this a DISCUSS) Otherwise, I have a few minor comments: - 4: "The report block MUST be sent in conjunction with the information from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776]. " "MUST be sent in conjunction" is ambiguous. I think you mean that, if the LC block is sent, the Measurement Information Block MUST also be sent. === Editorial=== - 1, 2nd paragraph: Please expand QoE on first mention. Also, I think there's a cut-paste or edit error in the last sentence: OLD: Evaluating error concealment is important in the circumstance in estimating the subjective impact of impairments. NEW: Evaluating error concealment is important for estimating the subjective impact of impairments. -4:, 1st paragraph: There are several instances of "this metric block" where the antecedent for "this" is not clear. I think they all refer to the loss concealment block. I suggest changing most or all instances of "this metric block" to "the loss concealment block." |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-01-05
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-12-29
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-12-22
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
2015-12-17
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2015-12-16
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-01-07 from 2015-12-17 |
2015-12-16
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-15
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-12-15
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 7.3 -- There is no longer a "RAI" area, and is no longer an appropriate email address (for two reasons: these … [Ballot comment] -- Section 7.3 -- There is no longer a "RAI" area, and is no longer an appropriate email address (for two reasons: these aliases have also been moved to @ietf.org). I suppose this should now be "ART Area Directors" and "". We should check this in other documents that come from the former APP and RAI areas, as well. |
2015-12-15
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-12-15
|
Naveen Khan | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc | |
2015-12-15
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-12-14
|
05 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2015-12-14
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-12-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-12-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-12-07
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-12-07
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2015-12-07
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-12-07
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-04
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-12-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-02
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the RTCP XR Block Type subregistry of the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/ a new block type is to be registered as follows: BT: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: Video Loss Concealment Metric Report Block Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters/ a new SDP Parameter is to be registered as follows: Parameter: video-loss-concealment Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2015-11-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-11-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-11-26
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-11-26
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-11-23
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alcoop@cisco.com, xrblock@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com, xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc@ietf.org, "Dan … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alcoop@cisco.com, xrblock@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com, xrblock-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc@ietf.org, "Dan Romascanu" Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTCP XR Report Block for Loss Concealment Metrics Reporting on Video Applications) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following document: - 'RTCP XR Report Block for Loss Concealment Metrics Reporting on Video Applications' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a new RTCP XR Report Block that allows the reporting of loss concealment metrics for video applications of RTP. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-17 |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-11-05
|
05 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-05.txt |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Multimedia applications often suffer from packet losses in IP networks. In order to get a reasonable degree of quality in case of packet losses, it is necessary to have loss concealment mechanisms at the decoder. Video loss concealment is a range of techniques to mask the effects of packet loss in video communications. In some applications, reporting the information of receivers applying video loss concealment could give monitors or senders useful information on application QoE. One example is no-reference video quality evaluation. Video probes located upstream from the video endpoint or terminal may not see loss occurring between the probe and the endpoint, and may also not be fully aware of the specific loss concealment methods being dynamically applied by the video endpoint. Evaluating error concealment is important in the circumstance in estimating the subjective impact of impairments. This draft defines one new video loss concealment block type to augment those defined in [RFC3611] and [RFC7294] for use in a range of RTP video applications. The metrics defined in this draft belong to the class of transport-related terminal metrics defined in [RFC6792]. Working Group Summary The XRBLOCK WG has a small but dedicated number of contributors. The I-D was attentively reviewed and improved by comments provided by contributors. There is strong consensus to advance the document to the IESG Document Quality Representatives from a couple of vendors reported on plans to implement. The document was reviewed by the SDP and PMOL directorates, and comments made by these were addressed and changes incorporated. Personnel Dan Romascanu is the Shepherd, Alissa Cooper is the Responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I read and reviewed the document in all its phases. This version is ready for publication IMO. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document was reviewed by the SDP and PM directorates. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The principal editor Rachel Huang confirmed. The co-editor Alan Clark did not respond. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? It represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals who are actively participating in the WG with editing and reviews. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Running idnits results in no errors or warnings (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). A new RTCP XR block type value and a new RTCP XR SDP parameter are defined in the IANA considerations section. The definitions are clear. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-03
|
04 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-04.txt |
2015-11-02
|
03 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-03.txt |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Changed document writeup |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Notification list changed to "Dan Romascanu" <dromasca@avaya.com> |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Document shepherd changed to Dan Romascanu |
2015-10-21
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-09-11
|
02 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-02.txt |
2015-07-06
|
01 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-01.txt |
2015-02-25
|
00 | Rachel Huang | New version available: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc-00.txt |