Network Working Group                                            G. Hunt
Internet-Draft                                              Unaffiliated
Intended status: Standards Track                                A. Clark
Expires: June 16, 2012                                          Telchemy
                                                                   Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               R. Schott
                                                                      DT
                                                                 G. Zorn
                                                             Network Zen
                                                       December 14, 2011


                RTCP XR Blocks for QoE metric reporting
             draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-06

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 June 16, 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 June 16, 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 segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  multi-layer segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.3.  multi-channel segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   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 . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     A.1.  draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-03 . . . . . . 14
     A.2.  draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-04 . . . . . . 14
     A.3.  draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-05 . . . . . . 14
     A.4.  draft-wu-xrblock-rtcp-xr-quality-monitoring-06 . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15











Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 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 June 16, 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 June 16, 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 June 16, 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 June 16, 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, multi-channel
      audio, multi-layer.  Multi-channel segment and multi-layer segment
      are used to deal with the case where multiple elementary streams
      or components are carried in one RTP stream while single stream
      segment is used to deal with the case where there is no more than
      one elementary streams or components 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 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 June 16, 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-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-V and MoS-AV measures the quality of video
      application or Audio-Video application.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.
      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 - G.107 / ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [G.107],[ ETSI] (Voice)
         011 - ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS]
         100 - ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS]
         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.

   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



Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


      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 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 4.2.1 of this document.

   Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits

      As defined in Section 4.2.1 of this document.

   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.

   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.






Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


   MOS Value: 16 bits

      As defined in Section 4.2.1 of this document.


3.2.3.  multi-channel segment

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |1|0|  MT   |CAlg |  CHID | Rsv.|        MOS Value              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Segement Type ( S): 1 bit

      A one identifies this as either a multi-channel section or multi-
      view segment.

   Media Type (M): 1bit

      A zero identifies this as a multi-channel audio section.

   MoS Type (MT): 4 bits

      As defined in Section 4.2.1 of this document.

   Calculation Algorithm (CALg):3 bits

      As defined in Section 4.2.1 of this document.

   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.

   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 4.2.1 of this document.





Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


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.


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








Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


5.4.  New registry of calculation algorithms

   This document creates a new registry to be called "RTCP XR QoE metric
   block - Calculation Algorithm" as a sub-registry of the "RTP Control
   Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry".  Policies
   for this new registry are as follows:

   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.  G.107 / ETSI TS 101 329-5 Annex E [G.107],[ ETSI] (Voice)
      4.  ITU-T P.NAMS [P.NAMS]
      5.  ITU-T P.NBAMS [P.NBAMS]



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 June 16, 2012                [Page 12]


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.

   [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.

   [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
              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.




Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


   [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.

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.





Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


   o  Provide guidance on how new calculation algorithms can be
      registered
   o  Define the channel mapping algorithm for multi-channel segment


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


   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













Hunt, et al.              Expires June 16, 2012                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          RTCP XR QoE Report Blocks          December 2011


   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 June 16, 2012                [Page 16]