1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Clark
Request for Comments: 6843 Telchemy
Category: Standards Track K. Gross
ISSN: 2070-1721 AVA Networks
Q. Wu
Huawei
January 2013
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Block for Delay Metric Reporting
Abstract
This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) block that allows the reporting of delay metrics for use in a
range of Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) applications.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6843.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
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.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Packet Delay Metrics Block .................................2
1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports ...................................2
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework ..............................3
1.4. Applicability ..............................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................3
2.1. Standards Language .........................................3
3. Delay Block .....................................................3
3.1. Report Block Structure .....................................4
3.2. Definition of Fields in Delay Metrics Report Block .........4
4. SDP Signaling ...................................................6
4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension .....................7
4.2. Offer/Answer Usage .........................................7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................7
5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value ...............................7
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter ..................................7
5.3. Contact Information for Registrations ......................7
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. Contributors ....................................................8
8. Acknowledgments .................................................8
9. References ......................................................8
9.1. Normative References .......................................8
9.2. Informative References .....................................9
1. Introduction
1.1. Packet Delay Metrics Block
This document defines a new block type to augment those defined in
[RFC3611] for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block type
supports the reporting of the mean, minimum, and maximum values of
the network round-trip delay between RTP interfaces in peer RTP end
systems as measured, for example, using the RTCP method described in
[RFC3550]. It also supports reporting of the component of the round-
trip delay internal to the local RTP system.
The network metrics belong to the class of transport metrics defined
in [RFC6792].
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 document defines a new Extended Report block for
use with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework
The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the
definition and specification of performance metrics. The RTP
Monitoring Architectures [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting
block format using RTCP XR. The metrics block described in this
document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and
[RFC6792].
1.4. Applicability
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications in which
this report block would be useful, such as multimedia conferencing
and streaming audio and video. Knowledge of the round-trip delay and
delay characteristics can aid other receivers in sizing their receive
buffers and selecting a playout delay. The same information is also
valuable to network managers in troubleshooting network and user
experience issues.
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].
3. Delay Block
Metrics in this block report on packet delay in the stream arriving
at the RTP system. The measurement of these metrics is made either
at the receiving end of the RTP stream or at the sending end of the
RTP stream. Instances of this metrics block refer by synchronization
source (SSRC) to the separate auxiliary Measurement Information block
[RFC6776], which contains measurement periods (see [RFC6776], Section
4.2). This metrics block relies on the measurement period in the
Measurement Information block indicating the span of the report and
SHOULD be sent in the same compound RTCP packet as the Measurement
Information block. If the measurement period is not received in the
same compound RTCP packet as this metrics block, this metrics block
MUST be discarded.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
3.1. Report Block Structure
Delay metrics block
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT=16 | I | resv. | block length = 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mean Network Round-Trip Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min Network Round-Trip Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max Network Round-Trip Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End System Delay - Seconds (bit 0-31) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End System Delay - Fraction (bit 0-31) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Report Block Structure
3.2. Definition of Fields in Delay Metrics Report Block
Block type (BT): 8 bits
A Delay Report Block is identified by the constant 16.
Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bit
This field is used to indicate whether the delay metrics are
Sampled, Interval or Cumulative metrics:
I=10: Interval Duration - the reported value applies to the
most recent measurement interval duration between successive
metrics reports.
I=11: Cumulative Duration - the reported value applies to the
accumulation period characteristic of cumulative measurements.
I=01: Sampled Value - the reported value is a sampled
instantaneous value.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
Reserved (resv): 6 bits
These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders and
ignored by receivers (see [RFC6709], Section 4.2).
block length: 16 bits
The length of this report block in 32-bit words, minus one. For
the delay block, the block length is equal to 6.
SSRC of source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611].
Mean Network Round-Trip Delay: 32 bits
The Mean Network Round-Trip Delay is the mean value of the RTP-to-
RTP interface round-trip delay over the measurement period,
expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds. This value is typically
determined using "the NTP timestamp field" in the RTCP sender
report (SR) and "the last SR (LSR) field","delay since last SR
(DLSR) field" in the RTCP receiver report (RR) (see [RFC3550],
Section 6.4.1 and Figure 2). It also can be determined using "the
NTP timestamp field" in the RTCP Receiver Reference Time Report
Block and "last RR (LRR) field", "delay since last RR (DLRR)
field" in the DLRR Report Block (see [RFC3611], Section 4.5).
If only one measurement of Round-Trip Delay is available for the
time span of the report (i.e., the measurement period) (whether
Interval or Cumulative), this single value SHOULD be reported as
the mean value.
If the measurement is unavailable, the value of this field with
all bits set to 1 MUST be reported.
Min Network Round-Trip Delay: 32 bits
The Min Network Round Trip Delay is the minimum value of the RTP-
to-RTP interface round-trip delay over the measurement period,
expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds. This value is typically
determined using the NTP timestamp field in the RTCP SR and LSR
field and DLSR field in the RTCP RR. It also can be determined
using the NTP timestamp field in the RTCP Receiver Reference Time
Report Block and LRR field and DLRR field in the DLRR Report
Block.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
If only one measurement of Round Trip Delay is available for the
time span of the report (i.e., the measurement period) (whether
Interval or Cumulative), this single value SHOULD be reported as
the minimum value.
If the measurement is unavailable, the value of this field with
all bits set to 1 MUST be reported.
Max Network Round-Trip Delay: 32 bits
The Max Network Round-Trip Delay is the maximum value of the RTP-
to-RTP interface round-trip delay over the measurement period,
expressed in units of 1/65536 seconds. This value is typically
determined using the NTP timestamp field in the RTCP SR and LSR
field and DLSR field in the RTCP RR. It also can be determined
using the NTP timestamp field in the RTCP Receiver Reference Time
Report Block and LRR field and DLRR field in the DLRR Report
Block.
If only one measurement of Round-Trip Delay is available for the
time span of the report (i.e.,the measurement period) (whether
Interval or Cumulative), this single value SHOULD be reported as
the maximum value.
If the measurement is unavailable, the value of this field with
all bits set to 1 MUST be reported.
End System Delay: 64 bits
The End System Delay is the internal round-trip delay within the
reporting endpoint, calculated using the nominal value of the
jitter buffer delay plus the accumulation/encoding and decoding/
playout delay associated with the codec being used. The value of
this field is represented using a 64-bit NTP-format timestamp as
defined in [RFC5905], which is a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point
number with the integer part in the first 32 bits and the
fractional part in the last 32 bits.
If the measurement is unavailable, the value of this field with
all bits set to 1 MUST be reported.
4. SDP Signaling
[RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol)
[RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks MAY be used
without prior signaling.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension
This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] attribute "rtcp-xr" defined
in [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to
signal the use of the report block defined in this document.
xr-format =/ xr-delay-block
xr-delay-block ="delay"
4.2. Offer/Answer Usage
When SDP is used in offer/answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage
defined in [RFC3611] applies.
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 16 in the IANA "RTP
Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" to
the "Delay Metrics Block".
5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter
This document also registers a new parameter "delay" in the "RTP
Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry.
5.3. Contact Information for Registrations
The contact information for the registrations is:
Qin Wu (sunseawq@huawei.com)
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
6. Security Considerations
It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no
new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611].
This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to
confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3, of [RFC3611]
does not apply.
7. Contributors
Geoff Hunt wrote the initial version of this document.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and contributions
made by Bruce Adams, Philip Arden, Amit Arora, Bob Biskner, Kevin
Connor, Claus Dahm, Randy Ethier, Roni Even, Jim Frauenthal, Albert
Higashi, Tom Hock, Shane Holthaus, Paul Jones, Rajesh Kumar, Keith
Lantz, Mohamed Mostafa, Amy Pendleton, Colin Perkins, Mike Ramalho,
Ravi Raviraj, Albrecht Schwarz, Tom Taylor, and Hideaki Yamada, Jing
Zhao, Kevin Gross, Colin Perkins, Charles Eckel, Glen Zorn, Shida
Schubert, Barry Leiba, Sean Turner, Robert Sparks, Benoit Claise, and
Stephen Farrell.
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., 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
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.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6843 RTCP XR Delay January 2013
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
September 2012.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
[RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, October 2012.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the
RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, November 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Alan Clark
Telchemy Incorporated
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
Duluth, GA 30097
USA
EMail: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
Kevin Gross
AVA Networks
EMail: kevin.gross@avanw.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
Clark, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|
