<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v5 rel. 3 U (http://www.xmlspy.com)
     by Daniel M Kohn (private) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
]>
<rfc submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes" category="std" ipr="trust200902" number="6798">
  <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

  <?rfc toc="yes" ?>

  <?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>

  <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>

  <?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>

  <?rfc strict="no" ?>
  <?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
  <?rfc compact="yes"?>
  <?rfc subcompact="no"?>

  <front>
    <title abbrev="RTCP XR Packet Delay Variation">RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
    Extended Report (XR) Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric
    Reporting</title>

    <author fullname="Alan Clark" initials="A." surname="Clark">
      <organization abbrev="Telchemy">Telchemy Incorporated</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280</street>

          <city>Duluth</city>

          <region>GA</region>

          <code>30097</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>alan.d.clark@telchemy.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Qin Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District</street>

          <city>Nanjing</city>

          <region>Jiangsu</region>

          <code>210012</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>sunseawq@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="November" year="2012" />

    <area>Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area</area>

    <workgroup>Audio/Video Transport Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Real Time Control Protocol</keyword>


    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
      (XR) block that allows the reporting of packet delay variation metrics
      for a range of RTP applications.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <section title="Packet Delay Variation Metrics Block">
        <t>This document defines a new block type to augment those defined in
        <xref target="RFC3611"></xref>, for use in a range of RTP
        applications.</t>

        <t>The new block type provides information on Packet Delay Variation
        (PDV) using one of several standard metrics, for example, Mean
        Absolute Packet Delay Variation 2 (MAPDV2) (Clause 6.2.3.2 of <xref
        target="G.1020"></xref>) or 2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of <xref
        target="Y.1540"></xref>).</t>

        <t>The metrics belong to the class of transport metrics defined in
        <xref target="MONARCH"></xref>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="RTCP and RTCP XR Reports">
        <t>The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in <xref
        target="RFC3550"></xref>. <xref target="RFC3611"></xref> defined an
        extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended Report (XR).
        This document defines a new Extended Report block for use with <xref
        target="RFC3550"></xref> and <xref target="RFC3611"></xref>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Performance Metrics Framework">
        <t>The Performance Metrics Framework <xref target="RFC6390"></xref>
        provides guidance on the definition and specification of performance
        metrics. The RTP monitoring architectures <xref
        target="MONARCH"></xref>
  provides guidelines for reporting block format
        using RTCP XR. The XR block described in this document is in
        accordance with the guidelines in <xref target="RFC6390"></xref> and
        <xref target="MONARCH"></xref>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Applicability">
        <t>These metrics are applicable to a wide range of RTP applications in
        which the application streams are sensitive to delay variation <xref
        target="RFC5481"></xref>. For example, applications could use the
        measurements of these metrics to help adjust the size of adaptive
        jitter buffers to improve performance. Network managers can use these
        metrics to compare actual delay variation to targets (i.e., a
        numerical objective or Service Level Agreement) to help ensure the
        quality of real-time application performance.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>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 <xref
        target="RFC2119"></xref>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Notations">
        <t>This report block makes use of binary fractions. The terminology
        used is <list>
            <t>Numeric formats S X:Y<list>
                <t>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.</t>

                <t>Hence, 8:8 represents an unsigned number in the range 0.0 to
                255.996 with a granularity of 0.0039. S7:8 represents the
                range -127.996 to +127.996. 0:16 represents a proper binary
                fraction with range as follows:</t>

                <t>0.0 to 1 - 1/65536 = 0.9999847</t>

                <t>however, 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
                a range as follows:</t>

                <t>0.0 to 1 - 3/65536 = 0.9999542</t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Packet Delay Variation Metrics Block">
      <t>Metrics in this block report on packet delay variation in the stream
      arriving at the RTP system. The measurement of these metrics is made at
      the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metric block
      refer by synchronization source (SSRC) to the separate auxiliary
      Measurement Information Block <xref target="RFC6776"></xref>, which
      contains measurement intervals. This metric block relies on the
      measurement interval given by the value of the "Measurement Duration
      (Interval)" field in the Measurement Information Block to indicate the
      span of the report and MUST be sent in the same compound RTCP packet as
      the Measurement Information Block. If the measurement interval is not
      received for this metric block, this metric block MUST be discarded.
      </t>

      <section title="Report Block Structure">
        <t>PDV metrics block:<figure title="Figure 1: Report Block Structure">
            <artwork>
 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=15     | I |pdvtyp |Rsv|       block length=4          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                        SSRC of Source                         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Pos PDV Threshold/Peak     |     Pos PDV Percentile        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    Neg PDV Threshold/Peak     |     Neg PDV Percentile        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Mean PDV             |           Reserved            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Definition of Fields in PDV Metrics Block">
        <t><list style="hanging">

            <t hangText="Block type (BT): 8 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" /> A
            Packet Delay Variation Metrics Block is identified by the
            constant 15.</t>


            <t hangText="Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bit"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />This field is used to indicate whether the Packet
            Delay Variation metrics are Sampled, Interval, or Cumulative
            metrics <xref target="MONARCH"></xref>, that is, whether the reported values apply to the most recent
measurement interval duration between successive metrics reports
(I=10) (the Interval Duration), or they apply to the accumulation period
characteristic of cumulative measurements (I=11) (the Cumulative
Duration), or they are a sampled instantaneous value (I=01) (Sampled
Value). The value I=00
            is reserved and MUST NOT be used. If the value I=00 is received,
            then the XR block MUST be ignored by the receiver. </t>

            <t
            hangText="Packet Delay Variation Metric Type (pdvtyp): 4 bits"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />Packet Delay Variation Metric Type is of type
            enumerated and is interpreted as an unsigned, 4-bit integer. This
            field is used to identify the Packet Delay Variation Metric Type
            used in this report block, according to the following code:<list>
                <t>bits 014-011<list>
                    <t>0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of <xref
                    target="G.1020"></xref>,</t>

                    <t>1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of <xref
                    target="Y.1540"></xref>.</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>

            <t hangText="Rsv: 2 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" />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 ignored
            by the receiver. </t>

            <t hangText="block length: 16 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" />The
            length of this report block is
 in 32-bit words, minus one. For the
            Packet Delay Variation Metrics Block, the block length is equal to
            4.</t>

            <t hangText="SSRC of source: 32 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" />This field is as
            defined in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC3611"></xref>. </t>

            <t hangText="Positive PDV Threshold/Peak: 16 bits"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />This field is associated with the Positive PDV
            percentile and expressed in milliseconds with numeric format
            S11:4. The term "Positive" represents that the packets are arriving
            later than the expected time. <vspace blankLines="1" />If the
            measured value is less than -2047.9375 (the value that would be
            coded as 0x8001), the value 0x8000 SHOULD be reported to indicate
            an over-range negative measurement. If the measured value is
            greater than +2047.8125 (the value that would be coded as
            0x7FFD), the value 0x7FFE SHOULD be reported to indicate an
            over-range positive measurement. If the measurement is
            unavailable, the value 0x7FFF MUST be reported. </t>

            <t hangText="Positive PDV Percentile: 16 bits"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />This field indicates the percentages of packets in the RTP stream for
            which individual packet delays were less than the Positive PDV
            Threshold. It is expressed in numeric format 8:8 with values from
            0 to 100th percentile. <vspace blankLines="1" /> If the
            measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFF MUST be
            reported.</t>

            <t hangText="Negative PDV Threshold/Peak: 16 bits"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />This field is associated with the Negative PDV
            percentile and expressed in milliseconds with numeric format
            S11:4. The term "Negative" represents that the packets are arriving
            earlier than the expected time. <vspace blankLines="1" />If the
            measured value is more negative than -2047.9375 (the value that
            would be coded as 0x8001), the value 0x8000 SHOULD be reported to
            indicate an over-range negative measurement. If the measured value
            is more positive than +2047.8125 (the value that would be coded
            as 0x7FFD), the value 0x7FFE SHOULD be reported to indicate an
            over-range positive measurement. If the measurement is
            unavailable, the value 0x7FFF MUST be reported.</t>

            <t hangText="Negative PDV Percentile: 16 bits"><vspace
            blankLines="1" />This field indicates the percentages of packets in the RTP stream for
            which individual packet delays were more than the Negative PDV
            Threshold. It is expressed in numeric format 8:8 with values from
            0 to 100th percentile. <vspace blankLines="1" /> If the
            measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFF MUST be
            reported.<vspace blankLines="1" />If the PDV Type indicated is
            2-point PDV and the Positive and Negative PDV percentiles are set
            to 100.0, then the Positive and Negative Threshold/Peak PDV values
            are the peak values measured during the reporting interval (which
            may be from the start of the call for cumulative reports). In this
            case, the difference between the Positive and Negative
            Threshold/Peak values defines the range of 2-point PDV.</t>

            <t hangText="Mean PDV: 16 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" />The mean
            PDV value of data packets is expressed in milliseconds with
            Numeric format S11:4 format.<vspace blankLines="1" /> For MAPDV2,
            this value is generated according to Clause 6.2.3.2 of [G.1020].
            For interval reports, the MAPDV2 value is reset at the start of the
            interval.<vspace blankLines="1" /> For 2-point PDV, the value
            reported is the mean of per-packet 2-point PDV values. This metric
            indicates the arrival time of the first media packet of the
            session with respect to the mean of the arrival times of every
            packet of the session. A single value of the metric (for a single
            session) may not be useful by itself, but its average over a
            number of sessions may be useful in diagnosing media delay at
            session startup. For example, this might occur if media packets
            are often delayed behind signaling packets due to head-of-line
            blocking.<vspace blankLines="1" /> If the measured value is more
            negative than -2047.9375 (the value that would be coded as
            0x8001), the value 0x8000 SHOULD be reported to indicate an
            over-range negative measurement. If the measured value is more
            positive than +2047.8125 (the value that would be coded as
            0x7FFD), the value 0x7FFE SHOULD be reported to indicate an
            over-range positive measurement. If the measurement is
            unavailable, the value 0x7FFF MUST be reported.</t>

            <t hangText="Reserved: 16 bits"><vspace blankLines="1" />These
            bits are reserved for future definition. They MUST be set to zero
            by the sender and ignored by the receiver. </t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Guidance on Use of PDV Metrics">
        <t>This subsection provides informative guidance on when it might be
        appropriate to use each of the PDV metric types.</t>

        <t>MAPDV2 (Clause 6.2.3.2 of <xref target="G.1020"></xref>) is the
        envelope of instantaneous (per-packet) delay when compared to the
        short-term moving average delay. This metric could be useful in
        determining residual impairment when an RTP end system uses an
        adaptive de-jitter buffer that tracks the average delay variation,
        provided that the averaging behavior of the adaptive algorithm is
        similar to that of the MAPDV2 algorithm.</t>

        <t>2-point PDV (Clause 6.2.4 of <xref target="Y.1540"></xref>) reports
        absolute packet delay variation with respect to a defined reference
        packet transfer delay. Note that the reference packet is generally
        selected as the packet with minimum delay based on the most common
        criterion (see Sections 1 and 5.1 of <xref
        target="RFC5481"></xref>). In an RTP context, the two "points" are at
        the sender (the synchronization source that applies RTP timestamps)
        and at the receiver. The value of this metric for the packet with
        index j is identical to the quantity D(i,j) defined in Section 6.4.1
        of <xref target="RFC3550"></xref>, and the packet index i should be set
        equal to the index of the reference packet for the metric in practice.
        The metric includes the effect of the frequency offsets of clocks in
        both the sender and receiver end systems, so it is useful mainly in
        networks where synchronization is distributed. As well as measuring
        packet delay variation in such networks, it may be used to ensure that
        synchronization is effective, for example, where the network carries
        ISDN data traffic over RTP <xref target="RFC4040"></xref>. The metric
        is likely to be useful in networks that use fixed de-jitter
        buffering, because it may be used to determine the length of the
        required de-jitter buffer, or to determine if network performance has
        deteriorated such that existing de-jitter buffers are too small to
        accommodate the observed delay variation.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Examples of Use">


        <t><list>
            <t>(a) To report MAPDV2 <xref target="G.1020"></xref>:<list>
                <t>Pos PDV Threshold = 50.0; Pos PDV Percentile = 95.3; Neg
                PDV Threshold = 50.0 (note this implies -50 ms); Neg PDV
                Percentile = 98.4; PDV type = 0 (MAPDV2)</t>

                <t>causes average MAPDV2 to be reported in the Mean PDV
                field.</t>

                <t>Note that implementations either may fix the reported
                percentile and calculate the associated PDV level or may fix a
                threshold PDV level and calculate the associated percentile.
                From a practical implementation perspective, it is simpler to
                use the second of these approaches (except of course in the
                extreme case of a 100% percentile).</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>(b) To report 2-point PDV <xref target="Y.1540"></xref>:<list>
                <t>Pos PDV Threshold = 60 (note this implies +60 ms); Pos PDV
                Percentile = 96.3; Neg PDV Threshold = 0; Neg PDV Percentile =
                0; PDV type = 1 (2-point PDV)</t>

                <t>causes 2-point PDV to be reported in the Mean PDV
                field.</t>

                <t>2-point PDV, according to <xref target="Y.1540"></xref> is
                the difference in delay between the current packet and the
                referenced packet of the stream. If the sending and receiving
                clocks are not synchronized, this metric includes the effect
                of relative timing drift.</t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="SDP Signaling">
      <t>[RFC3611] defines the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) <xref
      target="RFC4566"></xref> for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks
      MAY be used without prior signaling.</t>

      <t>This section augments the SDP <xref target="RFC4566"></xref>
      attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in <xref target="RFC3611"></xref> by
      providing an additional value of "xr-format" to signal the use of the
      report block defined in this document.<figure>
          <artwork>
   xr-format =/ xr-pdv-block

   xr-pdv-block  = "pkt-dly-var" [ "," pdvtype ] [ "," nspec "," pspec ]

        pdvtype  = "pdv="  ( "0"         ; MAPDV2 ITU-T G.1020
                           / "1"         ; 2-point PDV ITU-T Y.1540
                           / 1*2DIGIT )  ;Value 2~15 are valid and
                                         ;reserved for future use
        nspec    = ("nthr=" fixpoint)     ; negative PDV threshold (ms)
                    / ("npc=" fixpoint )  ; negative PDV percentile
        pspec    = ("pthr=" fixpoint)     ; positive PDV threshold (ms)
                    / ("ppc=" fixpoint)   ; positive PDV percentile

        fixpoint       = 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT  ; fixed point decimal
        DIGIT          = &lt;as defined in Section 3.4 of [RFC5234]&gt;
</artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>When SDP is used in offer/answer, a system sending SDP may request a
      specific type of PDV measurement. In addition, they may state a specific
      percentile or threshold value and expect to receive the corresponding
      threshold or percentile metric, respectively. The system receiving the
      SDP SHOULD send the PDV metrics requested, but if the metric is not
      available, the system receiving the SDP MUST send the metric block with
      the flag value indicating that the metric is unavailable.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For
      general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to <xref
      target="RFC3611"></xref>.</t>

      <section title="New RTCP XR Block Type Value">
        <t>This document assigns the block type value 15 in the IANA "RTCP
        XR Block Type" registry to the "Packet Delay Variation Metrics
        Block".</t>

        <t></t>
      </section>

      <section title="New RTCP XR SDP Parameter">
        <t>This document also registers a new parameter "pkt-dly-var" in the
        "RTCP XR SDP Parameters" registry.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Contact Information for Registrations">
        <t><figure>
            <artwork>
The contact information for the registrations is:

Qin Wu (sunseawq@huawei.com)

101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
China
</artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="New Registry of PDV Types">
        <t>This document creates a new registry to be called "RTCP XR PDV
        block - PDV type" as a sub-registry of the "RTP Control Protocol
        Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry". Policies for this new
        registry are as follows:<list style="symbols">
            <t>The information required to support an assignment is an
            unambiguous definition of the new metric, covering the base
            measurements and how they are processed to generate the reported
            metric. This should include the units of measurement, how values
            of the metric are reported in the three 16-bit fields "Pos PDV
            Threshold/Peak", "Neg PDV Threshold/Peak", and "Mean PDV" within
            the report block, and how the metric uses the two 16-bit fields
            "Pos PDV Percentile" and "Neg PDV Percentile".</t>

            <t>The review process for the registry is "Specification Required"
            as described in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC5226"></xref>.</t>

            <t>Entries in the registry are unsigned 4-bit integers. The valid
            range is 0 to 15 corresponding to the 4-bit field "pdvtyp" in the
            block. Values are to be recorded in decimal.</t>

            <t>Initial assignments are as follows:<list>
                <t>0: MAPDV2, Clause 6.2.3.2 of <xref
                target="G.1020"></xref>,</t>

                <t>1: 2-point PDV, Clause 6.2.4 of <xref
                target="Y.1540"></xref>,</t>

                <t>2-15: Reserved for future use.</t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>It is believed that this proposed RTCP XR block introduces no
      new security considerations beyond those described in <xref
      target="RFC3611"></xref>. This block does not provide per-packet
      statistics so the risk to confidentiality documented in Section 7,
      paragraph 3, of <xref target="RFC3611"></xref> does not apply.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Contributors">
      <t>Geoff Hunt wrote the initial version of this document.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The authors gratefully acknowledge reviews and feedback provided 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, Hideaki Yamada, Jing Zhao, Kevin Gross, Colin
      Perkins, Charles Eckel, Glen Zorn, Shida Schubert, Benoit Claise, Adrian
      Farrel, and Pete Resnick. </t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">


<reference anchor='RFC2119'>

<front>
<title abbrev='RFC Key Words'>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Bradner' fullname='Scott Bradner'>
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street></postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email></address></author>
<date year='1997' month='March' />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
   capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be
   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines
   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

<list>
<t>
      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.
</t></list></t>
<t>
   Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
   level of the document in which they are used.
</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119' />

</reference>


      <reference anchor="G.1020">
        <front>
          <title>Performance parameter definitions for
          quality of speech and other voiceband applications utilizing IP
          networks</title>

          <author initials="" surname="">
            <organization>ITU-T Rec. G. 1020</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2006" />
        </front>
      </reference>



<reference anchor='RFC3611'>

<front>
<title>RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Friedman' fullname='T. Friedman'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Caceres' fullname='R. Caceres'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Clark' fullname='A. Clark'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2003' month='November' />
<abstract>
<t>This document defines the Extended Report (XR) packet type for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), and defines how the use of XR packets can be signaled by an application if it employs the Session Description Protocol (SDP).  XR packets are composed of report blocks, and seven block types are defined here.  The purpose of the extended reporting format is to convey information that supplements the six statistics that are contained in the report blocks used by RTCP's Sender Report (SR) and Receiver Report (RR) packets.  Some applications, such as multicast inference of network characteristics (MINC) or voice over IP (VoIP) monitoring, require other and more detailed statistics.  In addition to the block types defined here, additional block types may be defined in the future by adhering to the framework that this document provides.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3611' />

</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC3550'>

<front>
<title>RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications</title>
<author initials='H.' surname='Schulzrinne' fullname='H. Schulzrinne'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='S.' surname='Casner' fullname='S. Casner'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Frederick' fullname='R. Frederick'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='V.' surname='Jacobson' fullname='V. Jacobson'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2003' month='July' />
<abstract>
<t>This memorandum describes RTP, the real-time transport protocol.  RTP provides end-to-end network transport functions suitable for applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or simulation data, over multicast or unicast network services.  RTP does not address resource reservation and does not guarantee quality-of- service for real-time services.  The data transport is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow monitoring of the data delivery in a manner scalable to large multicast networks, and to provide minimal control and identification functionality.  RTP and RTCP are designed to be independent of the underlying transport and network layers.  The protocol supports the use of RTP-level translators and mixers.  Most of the text in this memorandum is identical to RFC 1889 which it obsoletes.  There are no changes in the packet formats on the wire, only changes to the rules and algorithms governing how the protocol is used.  The biggest change is an enhancement to the scalable timer algorithm for calculating when to send RTCP packets in order to minimize transmission in excess of the intended rate when many participants join a session simultaneously. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='STD' value='64' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3550' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC4040'>

<front>
<title>RTP Payload Format for a 64 kbit/s Transparent Call</title>
<author initials='R.' surname='Kreuter' fullname='R. Kreuter'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2005' month='April' />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how to carry 64 kbit/s channel data transparently in RTP packets, using a pseudo-codec called "Clearmode". It also serves as registration for a related MIME type called "audio/clearmode".&lt;/t>&lt;t> "Clearmode" is a basic feature of VoIP Media Gateways. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4040' />
<format type='TXT' octets='15363' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4040.txt' />
</reference>




<reference anchor='RFC4566'>

<front>
<title>SDP: Session Description Protocol</title>
<author initials='M.' surname='Handley' fullname='M. Handley'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='V.' surname='Jacobson' fullname='V. Jacobson'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='C.' surname='Perkins' fullname='C. Perkins'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2006' month='July' />
<abstract>
<t>This memo defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP).  SDP is intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4566' />

</reference>




<reference anchor='RFC5226'>

<front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Narten' fullname='T. Narten'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='H.' surname='Alvestrand' fullname='H. Alvestrand'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2008' month='May' />
<abstract>
<t>Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).&lt;/t>&lt;t> In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.&lt;/t>&lt;t> This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='26' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5226' />

</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC5234'>

<front>
<title>Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</title>
<author initials='D.' surname='Crocker' fullname='D. Crocker'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Overell' fullname='P. Overell'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2008' month='January' />
<abstract>
<t>Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax.  Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications.  The current specification documents ABNF.  It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power.  The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges.  This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='STD' value='68' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5234' />

</reference>






<reference anchor='RFC6776'>

<front>
<title>Measurement Identity and Information Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Clark' fullname='A. Clark'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='Q.' surname='Wu' fullname='Q. Wu'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='October' />
<abstract>
<t>This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description (SDES) item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) block carrying parameters that identify and describe a measurement period to which one or more other RTCP XR blocks may refer. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6776' />
<format type='TXT' octets='17259' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6776.txt' />
</reference>


      <reference anchor="Y.1540">
        <front>
          <title>IP packet transfer and availability
          performance parameters</title>

          <author fullname="" initials="" surname="">
            <organization>ITU-T Rec. Y.1540</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2007" />
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">


<reference anchor='MONARCH'>
<front>
<title>Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework</title>

<author initials='W' surname='Wu' fullname='Wenson Wu'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='G' surname='Hunt' fullname='Geoff Hunt'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='P' surname='Arden' fullname='Philip Arden'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='September' day='24' year='2012' />

<abstract><t>This memo proposes an extensible Real-Time Protocol (RTP) monitoring framework for extending RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with a new RTCP Extended Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding media transmission or reception quality.  In this framework, a new XR block should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all those parameters of concern to a specific application. Applications may then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which covers their set of concerns.  Where possible, a specific block should be designed to be re-usable across more than one application, for example, for all of voice, streaming audio and video.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Work in' value='Progress' />

</reference>


<!-- In Auth48 as of 11/11/12 as RFC-to-be RFC 6792.
      <reference anchor="MONARCH">
        <front>
          <title>Monitoring Architectures for RTP</title>

          <author fullname="Geoff Hunt" initials="G." surname="Hunt">
            <organization></organization>
          </author>

          <date month="September" year="2012" />
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="ID" value="draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-22" />

        <format type="TXT" />
      </reference> -->




<reference anchor='RFC5481'>

<front>
<title>Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Morton' fullname='A. Morton'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='B.' surname='Claise' fullname='B. Claise'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2009' month='March' />
<abstract>
<t>Packet delay variation metrics appear in many different standards documents. The metric definition in RFC 3393 has considerable flexibility, and it allows multiple formulations of delay variation through the specification of different packet selection functions.&lt;/t>&lt;t> Although flexibility provides wide coverage and room for new ideas, it can make comparisons of independent implementations more difficult. Two different formulations of delay variation have come into wide use in the context of active measurements. This memo examines a range of circumstances for active measurements of delay variation and their uses, and recommends which of the two forms is best matched to particular conditions and tasks. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5481' />

</reference>

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<reference anchor='RFC6390'>

<front>
<title>Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Clark' fullname='A. Clark'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='B.' surname='Claise' fullname='B. Claise'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2011' month='October' />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes a framework and a process for developing Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over IETF-specified protocols.  These metrics can be used to characterize traffic on live networks and services.  This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='170' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6390' />
<format type='TXT' octets='49930' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6390.txt' />
</reference>

  
    </references>

       
  </back>
</rfc>
