Skip to main content

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