draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-00.txt   draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-01.txt 
Network Working Group R. Huang Network Working Group R. Huang
Internet-Draft Q. Wu Internet-Draft Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: January 31, 2013 H. Asaeda Expires: April 21, 2013 H. Asaeda
Keio University NICT
G. Zorn, Ed. G. Zorn, Ed.
Network Zen Network Zen
July 30, 2012 October 18, 2012
RTCP XR Report Block for TS Decodability Statistics Metric reporting RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for TS
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-00 Decodability Statistics Metric reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-01
Abstract Abstract
Transport Stream is a standard container format used in the Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in the
transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast/ transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast/
Broadcast MPEG-TS over RTP is widely adopted in the IPTV deployment. Broadcast MPEG-TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This
This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block that allows the document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
reporting of decodability statistics metrics related to transmissions Block that allows the reporting of decodability statistics metrics
of MPEG-TS over RTP. related to transmissions of MPEG-TS over RTP.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Standards Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TR 101 290 Decodability Statistics Metric Report Block . . . . 3 3. TR 101 290 Decodability Statistics Metric Report Block . . . . 3
4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Atrribute Extension . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Offer/Answer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has
defined a set of syntax and information consistency tests and defined a set of syntax and information consistency tests and
resulting indicators [ETSI] recommended for the monitoring of MPEG-2 corresponding indicators [ETSI] that are recommended for the
Transport Streams (TS) [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]. The tests and monitoring of MPEG-2 Transport Streams [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]. The
corresponding indicators are grouped according to priority: tests and corresponding indicators are grouped according to priority:
o First priority - Necessary for de-codability (basic monitoring) o First priority - Necessary for de-codability (basic monitoring)
o Second priority - Recommended for continuous or periodic o Second priority - Recommended for continuous or periodic
monitoring monitoring
o Third priority - Recommended for application-dependant monitoring o Third priority - Recommended for application-dependant monitoring
This draft is based on information consistency tests and resulting This draft is based on information consistency tests and resulting
indicators in the [ETSI] and defines a new block type to augment indicators defined by ETSI [ETSI] and defines a new block type to
those defined in [RFC3611] for use with Transport Stream (TS) augment those defined in Freidman, et al. [RFC3611] for use with
[ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]. The new block type supports reporting of the Transport Stream (TS) [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]. The new block type
number of each indicator in the first and second priority;third supports reporting of the number of occurances of each indicator in
priority indicators are not supported. This new block type can be the first and second priorities; third priority indicators are not
useful for measuring content stream or TS quality by checking TS supported. This new block type can be useful for measuring content
header information [ETSI] and identifying the existence, and stream or TS quality by checking TS header information [ETSI] and
characterizing the severity, of bitstream packetization problem which identifying the existence, and characterizing the severity, of
may affect users' perception of a service delivered over RTP; it may bitstream packetization problems which may affect users' perception
also be useful for verifying the continued correct operation of an of a service delivered over RTP; it may also be useful for verifying
existing system management. the continued correct operation of an existing management system.
The new report block is in compliance with the monitoring The new report block is in compliance with the monitoring
architecture specified in [MONARCH] and the Performance Metrics architecture specified in Wu, et al. [MONARCH] and the Performance
Framework [RFC6390]. The metric is applicable to any type of RTP Metrics Framework [RFC6390]. The metric is applicable to any type of
application that uses TS standard format for container of multimedia RTP application that uses the TS standard format for multimedia data;
data, for example MPEG4 TS content over RTP. for example, MPEG4 TS content over RTP.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Standards Language 2.1. Standards Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. TR 101 290 Decodability Statistics Metric Report Block 3. TR 101 290 Decodability Statistics Metric Report Block
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 18
o Continuity count errors o Continuity count errors
and continuous monitoring parameters including: and continuous monitoring parameters including:
o Transport errors o Transport errors
o Program Clock Reference (PCR) errors o Program Clock Reference (PCR) errors
o PCR repetition errors o PCR repetition errors
o PCR discontinuity indicator errors o PCR discontinuity indicator errors
o Presentation Time Stamp (PTS) errors o Presentation Time Stamp (PTS) errors
The other parameters are ignored since they are not applied to all The other parameters are ignored since they do not apply to all MPEG
the MPEG implentations. For further information on these parameters, implementations. For further information on these parameters, see
see [ETSI] [ETSI].
The Decodability Metrics Block has the following format: The Decodability Metrics Block has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | rvd | block length | | BT=TBD | Reserved | block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of source | | SSRC of source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| begin_seq | end_seq | | begin_seq | end_seq |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of TSs | | Number of TSs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS_sync_loss_count | | TS_sync_loss_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sync_byte_error_count | | Sync_byte_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Continuity_count_error_count | | Continuity_count_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transport_error_count | | Transport_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCR_error_count | | PCR_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCR_repetition_error_count | | PCR_repetition_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCR_discontinuity_indicator_error_count | | PCR_discontinuity_indicator_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PTS_error_count | | PTS_error_count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
block type (BT): 8 bits block type (BT): 8 bits
A TR 101 290 decodability metrics report block is identified by A TR 101 290 decodability metrics report block is identified by
the constant <TDM>. the constant <TDM>.
rvd: 8 bits Reserved: 8 bits
This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of 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 such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
block length: 16 bits block length: 16 bits
The constant 11, in accordance with the definition of this field The constant 11, in accordance with the definition of this field
in Section 3 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611]. in Section 3 of RFC 3611.
SSRC of source: 32 bits SSRC of source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. As defined in Section 4.1 of RFC 3611.
begin_seq: 16 bits begin_seq: 16 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. As defined in Section 4.1 of RFC 3611.
end_seq: 16 bits end_seq: 16 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. As defined in Section 4.1 of RFC 3611.
Number of TSs: 32 bits Number of TSs: 32 bits
Number of TS in the above sequence number interval. Number of TS in the above sequence number interval.
TS_sync_loss_count: 32 bits TS_sync_loss_count: 32 bits
Number of TS_sync_loss errors in the above sequence number Number of TS_sync_loss errors in the above sequence number
interval. interval.
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
Number of PCR_discontinuity_indicator_errors in the above sequence Number of PCR_discontinuity_indicator_errors in the above sequence
number interval. number interval.
PTS_error_count: 32 bits PTS_error_count: 32 bits
Number of PTS_errors in the above sequence number interval. Number of PTS_errors in the above sequence number interval.
4. SDP Signaling 4. SDP Signaling
One new parameter is defined for the report block defined in this RFC 3611 defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol)
document to be used with Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] [RFC4566] for signaling the use of RTCP XR blocks. XR blocks MAY be
using the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234]. It has the used without prior signaling.
following syntax within the "rtcp-xr" attribute [RFC3611]:
rtcp-xr-attrib = "a=rtcp-xr:" 4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Atrribute Extension
[xr-format *(SP xr-format)] CRLF
xr-format = decodability-metrics This session augments the SDP attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in Section
5.1 of RFC 3611 by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to
signal the use of the report block defined in this document.
xr-format =/ decodability-metrics
decodability-metrics = "decodability-metrics" decodability-metrics = "decodability-metrics"
Refer to Section 5.1 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611] for a detailed description 4.2. Offer/Answer Usage
and the full syntax of the "rtcp-xr" attribute.
When SDP is used in offer-answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage
defined in RFC 3611 applies.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
New report block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. New report block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration.
For general guidelines on IANA allocations for RTCP XR, refer to For general guidelines on IANA allocations for RTCP XR, refer to
Section 6.2 of [RFC3611]. Section 6.2 ofRFC 3611.
This document assigns one new block type value in the RTCP XR Block This document assigns one new block type value in the RTCP XR Block
Type Registry: Type Registry:
Name: TDM Name: TDM
Long Name: TR 101 290 Decodability Metrics Long Name: TR 101 290 Decodability Metrics
Value <TDM> Value <TDM>
Reference: section 3 Reference: Section 3
This document also registers one SDP [RFC4566] parameters for the This document also registers one SDP [RFC4566] parameters for the
"rtcp-xr" attribute in the RTCP XR SDP Parameter Registry: "rtcp-xr" attribute in the RTCP XR SDP Parameter Registry:
* "decodability-metrics" * "decodability-metrics"
The contact information for the registrations is: The contact information for the registrations is:
Rachel Huang Rachel Huang
rachel.huang@huawei.com rachel.huang@huawei.com
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, JiangSu 210012 China Nanjing, JiangSu 210012 China
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no new security This proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no new security
considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. considerations beyond those described in RFC 3611.
7. References 7. Acknowledgements
7.1. Normative References Thanks to Ray van Brandenburg for useful review and suggestions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ETSI] ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Measurement [ETSI] ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Measurement
guidelines for DVB systems", Technical Report TR 101 290, guidelines for DVB systems", Technical Report TR 101 290,
2001. 2001.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2250] Hoffman, D., Fernando, G., Goyal, V., and M. Civanlar,
"RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video", RFC 2250,
January 1998.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control [RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,
November 2003. November 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 8.2. Informative References
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007] [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology - Generic coding of moving "Information technology - Generic coding of moving
pictures and associated audio information: Systems", pictures and associated audio information: Systems",
ISO International Standard 13818-1, October 2007. ISO International Standard 13818-1, October 2007.
[MONARCH] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. , "Monitoring Architectures for [MONARCH] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. , "Monitoring Architectures for
RTP", ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17, June 2012. RTP", ID draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-22, September 2012.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011. October 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rachel Huang Rachel Huang
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
Email: rachel.huang@huawei.com Email: rachel.huang@huawei.com
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Hitoshi Asaeda Hitoshi Asaeda
Keio University National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Graduate School of Media and Governance 5322 Endo 4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi
Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-0882 Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795
Japan Japan
Email: asaeda@wide.ad.jp Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Glen Zorn (editor) Glen Zorn (editor)
Network Zen Network Zen
227/358 Thanon Sanphawut 227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
Bang Na, Bangkok 10260 Bang Na, Bangkok 10260
Thailand Thailand
Phone: +66 (0) 87-040-4617 Phone: +66 (0) 909-201060
Email: glenzorn@gmail.com Email: glenzorn@gmail.com
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
100 lines changed or deleted 102 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/