Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Q. Wu, Ed. R. Huang Huawei November 2014

Similar documents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7004 Category: Standards Track. Q. Wu, Ed. R. Huang Huawei September 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7244 Category: Standards Track. Huawei May 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6843 Category: Standards Track. Q. Wu Huawei January 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7005 Category: Standards Track. Q. Wu Huawei September 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Nokia Research Center May 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5725 Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2010

Network Working Group Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: January 31, 2013 Keio University G. Zorn, Ed. Network Zen July 30, 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6642 Category: Standards Track ISSN: June 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8035 Updates: 5761 November 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 4326 June 2014 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6440 Category: Standards Track. Huawei December 2011

Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7725 Category: Standards Track February 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track December 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. May IEEE Information Element for the IETF

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5451 March 2012 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8055 Category: Standards Track. January 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7319 BCP: 191 July 2014 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8186 Category: Standards Track. June 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational March 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6694 August 2012 Category: Informational ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational August 2012 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco May 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8440 Category: Standards Track ISSN: August 2018

Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Prefer Header for HTTP

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7125 Category: Informational. February 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7660 Category: Standards Track. October 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7189 Category: Standards Track March 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. Huawei D. Romascanu Individual L. Deng China Mobile September 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8142 Category: Standards Track April 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) BroadSoft August Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7973 Category: Informational ISSN: November 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: M. Luby Qualcomm Incorporated August 2012

Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2012 Expires: April 18, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: January 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. M. Nottingham, Ed. Akamai April 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Ericsson March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7881 Category: Standards Track. Big Switch Networks July 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track September 2018 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5987 Category: Standards Track August 2010 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7197 Category: Standards Track. H. Ou. Cisco. April 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track March 2015 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5322 March 2013 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. J. Halpern Ericsson E. Levy-Abegnoli, Ed. Cisco February 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 2474 August 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7504 June 2015 Updates: 1846, 5321 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Obsoletes: 7302 September 2016 Category: Informational ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8465 September 2018 Category: Informational ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: September 2015

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6015 Category: Standards Track October 2010 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track January 2019 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: July 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7255 Category: Informational May 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational March 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: June 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8464 September 2018 Category: Informational ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. J. Quittek. NEC Europe Ltd. October 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8441 Updates: 6455 September 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track March 2011 ISSN:

Request for Comments: 4571 Category: Standards Track July 2006

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6522 STD: 73 January 2012 Obsoletes: 3462 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8191 Category: Standards Track. X. Lee CNNIC. August 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6441 BCP: 171 November 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) October This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: August 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6028 Category: Experimental ISSN: October 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Obsoletes: 2831 July 2011 Category: Informational ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7537 Updates: 4379, L. Andersson S. Aldrin Huawei Technologies May 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8069 Category: Informational February 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. M. Petit-Huguenin Impedance Mismatch November 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8516 Category: Standards Track January 2019 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) April 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Enterprise Architects February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7403 Category: Standards Track November 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: March 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: January 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. August IANA Registration for the Cryptographic Algorithm Object Identifier Range

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5885 Category: Standards Track July 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track April 2013 ISSN: Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4573 Category: Standard Track July MIME Type Registration for RTP Payload Format for H.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: Y. Umaoka IBM December 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd July Rebind Capability in DHCPv6 Reconfigure Messages

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 6376 January 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7213 Category: Standards Track. M. Bocci Alcatel-Lucent June 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2018

Updates: 6126 May 2015 Category: Experimental ISSN: Extension Mechanism for the Babel Routing Protocol

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7198 Category: Standards Track. April 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: November 2013

Transcription:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7380 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Tong C. Bi, Ed. China Telecom R. Even Q. Wu, Ed. R. Huang Huawei November 2014 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting Abstract An MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in the transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/multicast MPEG2 TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) block that allows the reporting of MPEG2 TS decodability statistics metrics related to transmissions of MPEG2 TS over RTP. The metrics specified in the RTCP XR block are related to Program Specific Information (PSI) carried in MPEG TS. 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/rfc7380. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...3 1.1. MPEG2 Transport Stream Decodability Metrics...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. MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Statistics Metrics Block...4 4. SDP Signaling...8 4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension...8 4.2. Offer/Answer Usage...8 4.3. Usage Outside of Offer/Answer...8 5. IANA Considerations...9 5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value...9 5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter...9 5.3. Contact Information for Registrations...9 6. Security Considerations...9 7. References...9 7.1. Normative References...9 7.2. Informative References...10 Authors Addresses...11 Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

1. Introduction 1.1. MPEG2 Transport Stream Decodability Metrics The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has defined a set of syntax and information consistency tests and corresponding indicators [ETSI] that are recommended for the monitoring of MPEG2 Transport Streams [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007]. The tests and corresponding indicators are grouped according to priority: First priority: Necessary for decodability (basic monitoring) Second priority: Recommended for continuous or periodic monitoring Third priority: Recommended for application-dependent monitoring This memo defines a new block type for use with MPEG2 Transport Streams [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007] to augment those defined in [RFC3611]. The new block type supports reporting of the number of occurrences of each Program Specific Information (PSI) indicator in the first and second priorities listed in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, respectively, of [ETSI]. The third priority indicators are not supported. The metrics defined here supplement information from the PSI-Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Block [RFC6990]. 1.2. RTCP and RTCP XR Reports The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611] defines 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]. 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 RTCP XR block formats. The new report block described in this memo is in compliance with the monitoring architecture specified in [RFC6792] and the Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390]. 1.4. Applicability These metrics are applicable to any type of RTP application that uses the MPEG2 TS standard format for multimedia data, for example, MPEG4 over MPEG2 TS over RTP. This new block type can be useful for measuring content stream or TS quality by checking TS header information [ETSI] and identifying the existence (and characterizing Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

the severity) of bitstream packetization problems that may affect users perception of a service delivered over RTP. It may also be useful for verifying the continued correct operation of an existing system management tool. 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. MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Statistics Metrics Block ETSI TR 101 290 [ETSI] generally defines indicators related to error events whereas the XR block defined in this document contains counts of occurrences of the [ETSI] indicators. The block defined in this document reports MPEG2 TS PSI decodability statistics metrics beyond the information carried in the standard RTCP packet format and PSI- Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Block [RFC6990], which are measured at the receiving end of the RTP stream. It contains counts of seven metrics defined in ETSI TR 101 290 [ETSI]. Information is reported about basic monitoring parameters necessary to ensure that the TS can be decoded, including: o Program Association Table (PAT) errors o PAT2 errors o Program Map Table (PMT) errors o PMT2 errors o Packet Identifier (PID) errors Information is also reported about continuous monitoring parameters necessary to ensure continuous decoding, including: o Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) errors o Conditional Access Table (CAT) errors In these parameters, PAT2 errors and PMT2 errors are actually replacements for and improvements on PAT errors and PMT errors, respectively, and are therefore preferred in future implementations. In addition, measurement results for some of these parameters (e.g., PAT errors or PMT errors) may be different based on whether Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

scrambling is employed. The other parameters defined in Section 5 of [ETSI] are ignored since they do not apply to all MPEG2 implementations. For further detailed information on these parameters, see [ETSI]. The MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Metrics Block has the following format: 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=32 Reserved block length SSRC of source begin_seq end_seq PAT_error_count PAT_error_2_count PMT_error_count PMT_error_2_count PID_error_count CRC_error_count CAT_error_count Reserved block type (BT): 8 bits The MPEG2 TS PSI Decodability Metrics Block is identified by the constant 32;. Reserved: 8 bits These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders ignored by receivers (see Section 4.2 of [RFC6709]). block length: 16 bits The constant 6, in accordance with the definition of this field in Section 3 of [RFC3611]. The block MUST be discarded if the block length is set to a different value. Synchronization Source (SSRC) of source: 32 bits As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. begin_seq: 16 bits As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

end_seq: 16 bits As defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC3611]. PAT_error_count: 16 bits A count of the number of PAT errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. The Program Association Table (PAT) is the only packet with Packet Identifier (PID) 0x0000. A PAT error occurs when (1) a packet with PID 0x0000 does not occur at least every 0.5 seconds, (2) a packet with PID 0x0000 does not contain table_id 0x00 (i.e., a PAT), or (3) the Scrambling_control_field in the TS packet header is not 00 for a packet with PID 0x0000. See Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI]. Every program within the MPEG TS stream is listed in the PAT; if it is missing, then no programs can be decoded. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. NOTE 1 of the table in Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI] recommends using PAT_error_2_count. Upon reception, if PAT_error_2_count is available (that is, other than 0xFFFF), then receivers MUST ignore PAT_error_count. PAT_error_2_count: 16 bits A count of the number of PAT2 errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A PAT2 error occurs when (1) a packet with PID 0x0000 containing table_id 0x00 does not occur at least every 0.5 seconds, (2) a packet with PID 0x0000 contains a table with a table_id other than 0x00, or (3) the Scrambling_control_field in the TS packet header is not 00 for a packet with PID 0x0000. See Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI]. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. PMT_error_count: 16 bits A count of the number of PMT errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A PMT_error occurs when (1) a packet containing a table with table_id 0x02 (i.e., a PMT) does not occur at least every 0.5 seconds on the PID that is referred to in the PAT or (2) the Scrambling_control_field in the TS packet header is not 00 for all packets with PID containing a table with table_id 0x02 (i.e., a PMT). See Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI]. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]

unavailable, the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. NOTE 2 of the table in Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI] recommends using PMT_error_2_count. Upon reception, if PMT_error_2_count is available (that is, other than 0xFFFF), then receivers MUST ignore PMT_error_count. PMT_error_2_count: 16 bits A count of the number of PMT2 errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A PMT2_error occurs when (1) a packet containing table_id 0x02 (i.e., a PMT) does not occur at least every 0.5 seconds on each program_map_pid that is referred to in the PAT or (2) the Scrambling_control_field in the TS packet header is not 00 for all packets containing a table with table_id 0x02 (i.e., a PMT) on each program_map_pid that is referred to in the PAT. See Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI]. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. PID_error_count: 16 bits A count of the number of PID errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A PID error occurs when no data stream is present corresponding to a given PID. This may be caused by multiplexing or demultiplexing, then remultiplexing. See Section 5.2.1 of [ETSI]. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. CRC_error_count: 16 bits A count of the number of CRC errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A CRC_error occurs if data corruption occurred in any of the following tables -- CAT, PAT, PMT, Network Information Table (NIT), Event Information Table (EIT), Bouquet Association Table (BAT), Service Description Table (SDT), or Time Offset Table (TOT), as defined in Section 5.2.2 of [ETSI]. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]

CAT_error_count: 16 bits A count of the number of CAT errors that occurred in the above sequence number interval. A CAT_error occurs when (1) a packet with PID 0x0001 contains a table with a table_id other than 0x01 (i.e., not a CAT) or (2) a packet does not contain a table with table_id = 0x01 (i.e., a CAT) when scrambling is employed (i.e., the Scrambling_control_field is set as a value other than 00). See Section 5.2.2 of [ETSI]. unavailable, then the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. Reserved: 16 bits These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders ignored by receivers (see Section 4.2 of [RFC6709]). 4. SDP Signaling [RFC3611] defines the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] for signaling the use of RTCP XR blocks. However, XR blocks MAY be used without prior signaling (see Section 5 of [RFC3611]). 4.1. SDP rtcp-xr-attrib Attribute Extension This session augments the SDP attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to signal the use of the report block defined in this document. The ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows: xr-format =/ xr-tpd-block xr-tpd-block = "ts-psi-decodability" 4.2. Offer/Answer Usage When SDP is used in Offer/Answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage defined in [RFC3611] for unilateral "rtcp-xr" attribute parameters applies. For detailed usage of Offer/Answer for unilateral parameters, refer to Section 5.2 of [RFC3611]. 4.3. Usage Outside of Offer/Answer For usage outside of Offer/Answer, refer to Section 5.3 of [RFC3611]. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]

5. IANA Considerations New report block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For general guidelines on IANA allocations for RTCP XR, refer to Section 6.2 of [RFC3611]. 5.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value This document assigns the block type value 32 "MPEG2 Transport Stream PSI Decodability Statistics Metrics Block" in the "RTCP XR Block Type" subregistry of the IANA "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry". 5.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter This document also registers a new parameter "ts-psi-decodability" in the "RTCP XR SDP Parameters" subregistry of 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: RAI Area Directors <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org> 6. Security Considerations This proposed RTCP XR block introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611] and [RFC6990]. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [ETSI] ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Measurement guidelines for DVB systems", ETSI TR 101 290, June 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]

[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>. [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>. [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. 7.2. Informative References [ISO-IEC.13818-1.2007] ISO/IEC, "Information technology - Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information - Part 1: Systems", ISO International Standard 13818-1, 2013. [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>. [RFC6792] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6792>. [RFC6990] Wu, Q., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics reporting", RFC 6990, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6990>. Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]

Authors Addresses Jiangang Tong Shanghai Research Institute of China Telecom Corporation Limited No. 1835, South Pudong Road Shanghai 200122 China EMail: tongjg@sttri.com.cn Claire Bi (editor) Shanghai Research Institure of China Telecom Corporation Limited No. 1835, South Pudong Road Shanghai 200122 China EMail: bijy@sttri.com.cn Roni Even Huawei 14 David Hamelech Tel Aviv 64953 Israel EMail: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com Qin Wu (editor) Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China EMail: bill.wu@huawei.com Rachel Huang Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China EMail: rachel.huang@huawei.com Tong, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]