Network Working Group Q. Wu
Internet-Draft F. Xia
Intended status: Standards Track R. Even
Expires: August 26, 2012 Huawei
February 23, 2012
RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-13
Abstract
In a large RTP session using the RTCP feedback mechanism defined in
RFC 4585, a feedback target may experience transient overload if some
event causes a large number of receivers to send feedback at once.
This overload is usually avoided by ensuring that feedback reports
are forwarded to all receivers, allowing them to avoid sending
duplicate feedback reports. However, there are cases where it is not
recommended to forward feedback reports, and this may allow feedback
implosion. This memo discusses these cases and defines a new RTCP
third-party loss report that can be used to inform receivers that the
feedback target is aware of some loss event, allowing them to
suppress feedback. Associated SDP signalling is also defined.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
(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
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Format of RTCP Feedback Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Transport Layer Feedback: Third-party Loss Report . . . . 5
4.2. Payload Specific Feedback: Third-party Loss Report . . . . 6
5. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Example Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Source Specific Multicast (SSM) use case . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Unicast based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Stream
(RAMS) use case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. RTP Transport Translator use case . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Multipoint Control Unit (MCU) use case . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.5. Mixer use case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-01 . . . . . . 13
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-02 . . . . . . 13
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-03 . . . . . . 13
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-04 . . . . . . 14
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-05 . . . . . . 14
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-06 . . . . . . 15
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-07 . . . . . . 15
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-08 . . . . . . 15
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-09 . . . . . . 15
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-10 . . . . . . 16
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-11 . . . . . . 16
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-12 . . . . . . 16
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-13 . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
1. Introduction
RTCP feedback messages [RFC4585] allow the receivers in an RTP
session to report events and ask for action from the media source (or
a delegated feedback target when using unicast RTCP feedback with SSM
[RFC5760]). There are cases where multiple receivers may initiate
the same, or an equivalent message towards the same media source or
the same feedback target. When the receiver count is large, this
behavior may cause transient overload of the media source, the
network or both. This is known as a "feedback storm" or a "NACK
storm". One common cause of such a feedback storm is receivers
utilizing RTP retransmission [RFC4588] as a packet loss recovery
technique, sending feedback using RTCP NACK messages [RFC4585]
without proper dithering of the retransmission requests (e.g., not
implementing the RFC 4585 dithering rules or sending NACKs to a
feedback target that doesn't redistribute them to other receivers).
Another use case involves video Fast Update requests. A storm of
these feedback messages can occur in conversational multimedia
scenarios like multipoint video switching conference [RFC4587]. In
this scenario, the receiver may lose synchronization with the video
stream when speaker is changed in the middle of session. Poorly
designed receivers that blindly issue fast update requests (i.e.,
Full Intra Request (FIR) described in RFC5104 [RFC5104]), can cause
an implosion of FIR requests from receivers to the same media source.
RTCP feedback storms may cause short term overload, and in extreme
cases to pose a possible risk of increasing network congestion on the
control channel (e.g. RTCP feedback), the data channel, or both. It
is therefore desirable to provide a way of suppressing unneeded
feedback. This document specifies a new third-party loss report for
this function. It supplements the existing the use of RTCP NACK
packet and further is more precise in the uses where the network is
active to suppress feedback. It tells receivers explicitly that
feedback for a particular packet or frame loss is not needed for a
period of time and can provide an early indication before the
receiver reacts to the loss and invokes its packet loss repair
machinery. Section 6 provides some examples of when to send the
Third Party Loss Report message.
2. Requirements Notation
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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
3. Protocol Overview
This document extends the RTCP feedback messages defined in the
Audio-Visual Profile with feedback (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] defining a
Third Party Loss Report message. The Third Party Loss Report message
can be used by the intermediaries to inform the receiver that the
sender of the Third Party Loss Report has received reports that the
indicated packets were lost, and asks the receiver not to send
feedback to it regarding these packets. Intermediaries are variously
referred to as Distribution source, Burst/Retransmission Sources
(BRS), MCUs, RTP translator, or RTP mixers, depending on the precise
use case described in section 6.
RTCP Third Party Loss Report follows the similar format of message
type as RTCP NACK or Full Intra Request Command. However, the Third
Party Loss Report is defined as an indication that the sender of the
feedback has received reports that the indicated packets were lost,
while NACK [RFC4585] just indicates that the sender of the NACK
observed that these packets were lost. The Third Party Loss Report
(TPLR) message is generated by an intermediary that may not seen the
actual packet loss. It is sent following the same timing rule as
sending NACK defined in RFC4585 [RFC4585]. The TPLR feedback message
may be sent in a regular full compound RTCP packet or in an early
RTCP packet, as per the RTP/AVPF rules. Intermediaries in the
network that receive a Third Party Loss Report SHOULD NOT send their
own additional Third Party Loss Report messages for the same packet
sequence numbers. They SHOULD simply forward the Third Party Loss
Report message received from upstream direction to the receiver(s),
additionally, they may generate their own Third Party Loss Report
that reports a set of the losses they see, which are different from
ones reported in the Third Party Loss report they received. The
Third Party Loss Report does not have the retransmission request
[RFC4588] semantics.
When a receiver gets a Third Party Loss Report message, it MUST
follow the rules for NACK suppression in RFC 4585 and refrain from
sending a feedback request (e.g., NACK or FIR) for the missing
packets reported in the message,which is dealt with in the same way
as receiving NACK.
To increase the robustness to the loss of a TPLR, TPLR may be
retransmitted. If the additional TPLR arrives at receiver, the
receiver SHOULD deal with the additional TPLR in the same way as
receiving the first TPLR for the same packet and no additional
behavior for receiver is required.
A receiver may have sent a Feedback message according to the RTP/AVPF
scheduling algorithm of RFC4585 [RFC4585] before receiving a Third
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
Party Loss Report message, but further feedback messages for those
sequence numbers SHOULD be suppressed for a period of time after
receiving the TPLR. Nodes that do not understand the Third Party
Loss Report message will ignore it, and might therefore still send
feedback according to the AVPF scheduling algorithm of RFC4585
[RFC4585]. The media source or intermediate nodes cannot be certain
that the use of a Third Party Loss Report message actually reduces
the amount of feedback it receives.
4. Format of RTCP Feedback Messages
This document registers two new RTCP Feedback messages for Third
Party Loss Report. Applications that are employing one or more loss-
repair methods MAY use the Third Party Loss Report together with
their existing loss-repair methods either for every packet they
expect to receive, or for an application-specific subset of the RTP
packets in a session. In other words, receivers MAY ignore Third
Party Loss Report messages, but SHOULD react to them unless they have
good reason to still send feedback messages despite having been
requested to suppress them.
4.1. Transport Layer Feedback: Third-party Loss Report
This Third Party Loss Report message is an extension to the RTCP
Transport Layer Feedback Report and identified by RTCP packet type
value PT=RTPFB and FMT=TBD.
Within the common packet header for feedback messages (as defined in
section 6.1 of RFC4585 [RFC4585]), the "SSRC of packet sender" field
indicates the source of the request, and the "SSRC of media source"
denotes the media sender of the flow for which the indicated losses
are being suppressed.
The FCI field MUST contain one or more entries of transport layer
third party loss Early Indication (TLLEI). Each entry applies to the
same media source identified by the SSRC contained in the SSRC of
media source field of Feedback header. The length of the TLLEI
feedback message MUST be set to 2+1*N, where N is the number of FCI
entries.
The Feedback Control Information (FCI) for TLLEI uses the similar
format of message Types defined in the section 6.2.1 of RFC4585
[RFC4585]. The format is shown in Figure 1.
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PID | BLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Syntax of an FCI Entry in the TLLEI Feedback Message
Packet ID (PID): 16 bits
The PID field is used to specify a lost packet. The PID field
refers to the RTP sequence number of the lost packet.
bitmask of lost packets (BLP): 16 bits
The BLP allows for reporting losses of any of the 16 RTP packets
immediately following the RTP packet indicated by the PID. The
BLP's definition is identical to that given in the section 6.2.1
of [RFC4585].
4.2. Payload Specific Feedback: Third-party Loss Report
This message is an extension to the RTCP Payload Specific Feedback
report and identified by RTCP packet type value PT=PSFB and FMT=TBD,
which is used to suppress FIR [RFC5104] and PLI [RFC4585].
Within the common packet header for feedback messages (as defined in
section 6.1 of RFC4585 [RFC4585]), the "SSRC of packet sender" field
indicates the source of the request, and the "SSRC of media source"
is not used and SHALL be set to 0. The SSRCs of the media senders to
which this message applies are in the corresponding FCI entries.
The Feedback Control Information (FCI) for a Payload Specific Third
Party Loss Early Indication (PSLEI) consists one or more FCI entries.
Each entry applies to a different media Source, identified by its
SSRC. the content of which is depicted in Figure 2. The length of
the PSLEI feedback message MUST be set to 2+1*N, where N is the
number of FCI entries.
The format is shown in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
Figure 2: Syntax of an FCI Entry in the PSLEI Feedback Message
Synchronization source (SSRC):32 bits
The SSRC value of the media source that is already aware, or in
the process of being made aware, that some receiver lost
synchronization with the media stream and for which the PSLEI
receiver's own response to any such error is suppressed.
5. SDP Signaling
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] attribute, rtcp-fb,
is defined in the Section 4 of RFC4585 [RFC4585] and may be used to
negotiate the capability to handle specific AVPF commands and
indications. The ABNF for rtcp-fb is described in section 4.2 of
RFC4585 [RFC4585]. In this section, we extend the rtcp-fb attribute
to include the commands and indications that are described for third
party loss report in the present document.
In the ABNF [RFC5234] for rtcp-fb-val defined in RFC4585 [RFC4585],
the feedback type "nack", without parameters, indicates use of the
Generic NACK feedback format as defined in Section 6.2.1of RFC4585
[RFC4585]. In this document, we define two parameters that indicate
the third party loss supported for use with "nack", namely:
o "tllei" denotes support of transport layer third party loss early
indication.
o "pslei" denotes support of payload specific third party loss early
indication.
The ABNF for these two parameters for "nack" is defined here (please
refer to section 4.2 of RFC4585 [RFC4585] for complete ABNF syntax).
rtcp-fb-val =/ "nack" rtcp-fb-nack-param
rtcp-fb-nack-param = SP "tllei"
;transport layer third party
; loss early indication
/ SP "pslei"
;payload specific third party
; loss early indication
/ SP token [SP byte-string]
; for future commands/indications
token = <as defined in section 9 of [RFC4566]>
byte-string = <as defined in section 4.2 of [RFC4585] >
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
Refer to Section 4.2 of RFC4585 [RFC4585] for a detailed description
and the full syntax of the "rtcp-fb" attribute.
6. Example Use Cases
The operation of feedback suppression is similar for all types of RTP
sessions and topologies [RFC5117], however the exact messages used
and the scenarios in which suppression is employed differ for various
use cases. The following sections outline some of the intended use
cases for using the Third Party Loss Report for feedback suppression
and give an overview of the particular mechanisms.
6.1. Source Specific Multicast (SSM) use case
In SSM RTP sessions as described in "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast
Feedback" [RFC5760], one or more Media Sources send RTP packets to a
Distribution Source. The Distribution Source relays the RTP packets
to the receivers using a source- specific multicast group.
As outlined in the RFC5760 [RFC5760], there are two Unicast Feedback
models that may be used for reporting, the Simple Feedback model and
the Distribution Source Feedback Summary Model. In the simple
Feedback Model, there's no need for distribution source to create the
Third Party Loss Report, instead, NACKs are reflected by the
distribution source to the other Receivers. However in the
Distribution Source Feedback Summary model, the distribution source
will not redistribute the NACK for some reason(e.g., to prevent
revealing the identity or existence of a system sending NACK)and may
send a Third Party Loss Report to the systems that were unable to
receive the NACK, and won't receive the NACK via other means. The
Third Party Loss Report can be generated at the distribution source
when downstream loss is told (e.g., downstream loss report is
received), which indicates to the receivers that they should not
transmit feedback messages for the same loss event for a certain
time. Therefore the distribution source in the feedback summary
model can be reasonably certain that it will help the situation
(i.e., unable receive the NACK) by sending this Third Party Loss
Report message to all the relevant receivers impacted by the packet
loss.
6.2. Unicast based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Stream (RAMS) use
case
The typical RAMS architecture [RFC6285] may have several Burst/
Retransmission Sources(BRS) behind the multicast source (MS) placed
at the same level. These BRSes will receive the primary multicast
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
RTP stream from the media source and cache most recent packets after
joining multicast session. If packet loss happens at the upstream of
all the BRSs or the downstream of BRSes. One of the BRSes or all the
BRSes may send a NACK or TPLR message to the DS, where the SSRC in
this NACK or TPLR message is the BRS that is sending the message.
The DS forwards/reflects this message down on the primary SSM. The
details on how DS deal with this message is specified in
[RETRANSMISSION-FOR-SSM].
6.3. RTP Transport Translator use case
A Transport Translator (Topo-Trn-Translator), as defined in RFC5117
[RFC5117] is typically forwarding the RTP and RTCP traffic between
RTP clients, for example converting from multicast to unicast for
domains that do not support multicast. The translator may suffer a
loss of important video packets. In this case, the translator may
forward TPLR message received from upstream in the same way as
forwarding other RTCP traffic. If the translator acting as the
monitor [MONARCH] is aware of packet loss, it may use the SSRC of
monitor as packet sender SSRC to create NACK message and send it to
the receivers that is not aware of packet loss.
6.4. Multipoint Control Unit (MCU) use case
When the speaker is changed in a voice-activated multipoint video
switching conference [RFC4587], an RTP mixer can be used to select
the available input streams and forward them to each participants.
If the MCU is doing a blind switch without waiting for a
synchronization point on the new stream it can send a FIR to the new
video source. In this case the MCU should send a FIR suppression
message to the new receivers. e.g., when the RTP Mixer starts to
receive FIR from some participants it can suppress the remaining
session participants from sending FIR by sending out a Third party
Loss report message.
6.5. Mixer use case
A Mixer, in accordance with RFC5117 [RFC5117], aggregates multiple
RTP streams from other session participants and generates a new RTP
stream sent to the session participants. In some cases, the video
frames may get badly screwed up between media source and the mixer.
In such case, the mixer need to check if the packet loss will result
in PLI or FIR transmissions from most of the group by analyzing the
received video. If so the mixer may initiate FIR or PLI towards the
media source on behalf of all the session participants and send out a
Third party Loss report message to these session participants that
may or are expected to send a PLI or FIR. Alternatively, when the
mixer starts to receive FIR or PLI from some participants and like to
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
suppress the remaining session participants from sending FIR or PLI
by forwarding the FIR/PLI from one session participant to others.
7. Security Considerations
The defined messages have certain properties that have security
implications. These must be addressed and taken into account by
users of this protocol.
Spoofed or maliciously created feedback messages of the type defined
in this specification can have the following implications:
Sending the spurious Third Party Loss Report (e.g., the Third Party
Loss Report with the wrong sequence number of lost packet) that
causes missing RTP packets to not be repaired in a timely fashion.
To prevent these attacks, there is a need to apply authentication and
integrity protection of the feedback messages. This can be
accomplished against threats external to the current RTP session
using the RTP profile that combines Secure RTP [RFC3711] and AVPF
into SAVPF [RFC5124].
Note that intermediaries that are not visible at the RTP layer that
wish to send the Third Party Loss Reports on behalf of the media
source can only do so if they spoof the SSRC of the media source.
This is difficult in case SRTP is in use. If the intermediary is
visible at the RTP layer, this is not an issue, provided the
intermediary is part of the security context for the session.
Also note that endpoints that receive a Third Party Loss Report would
be well-advised to ignore it, unless the security is in place to
authenticate the sender of the Third Party Loss Report. Accepting
Third Party Loss Report from un-authenticated sender can lead to a
denial of service attack, where the endpoint accepts poor quality
media that could be repaired.
8. IANA Consideration
For use with "nack" [RFC4585], a joint sub-registry has been set up
that registers the following two values:
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
The value registration for the attribute value "nack":
Value name: tllei
Long name: Transport Layer Third Party Loss Early Indication
Usable with: nack
Reference: RFC 4585.
Value name: pslei
Long name: Payload Specific Third Party
Usable with: nack
Reference: RFC 4585.
The following value have been registered as one FMT value in the "FMT
Values for RTPFB Payload Types" registry located at the time of
publication at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters
RTPFB range
Name Long Name Value Reference
-------------- --------------------------------- ----- ---------
TLLEI Transport Layer Third Party TBA1 [RFCXXXX]
Loss Early Indication
The following value have been registered as one FMT value in the "FMT
Values for PSFB Payload Types" registry located at the time of
publication at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters
PSFB range
Name Long Name Value Reference
-------------- --------------------------------- ----- --------
PSLEI Payload Specific Third Party TBA2 [RFCXXXX]
Loss Early Indication
9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank David R Oran, Magnus Westerlund,
Colin Perkins, Ali C. Begen, Tom VAN CAENEGEM, Ingemar Johansson S,
Bill Ver Steeg, Jonathan Lennox, WeeSan Lee for their valuable
comments and suggestions on this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
July 2006.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
July 2006.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6285] Steeg, B., Begen, A., Caenegem, T., and Z. Vax, "Unicast-
Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions",
June 2011.
[MONARCH] Wu, Q., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Monitoring Architectures
for RTP", June 2011.
[RETRANSMISSION-FOR-SSM]
Caenegem, T., Steeg, B., and A. Begen, "Retransmission for
Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions", May 2011.
[RFC5117] Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117,
January 2008.
[RFC4587] Even, R., "RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams",
RFC 4587, August 2006.
[RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
RFC 3711, March 2004.
Appendix A. Change Log
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
publication as an RFC.
A.1. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-01
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Remove the merge report from SSM use case and additional text to
address report merging issue.
o Revise section 3 and section 6 to address FEC packet dealing issue
and Leave how to repair packet loss beyond the scope.
o Modify the SSM use case and RAMS use case to focus on uses.
o Other Editorial changes.
A.2. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-02
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o In Section 4.1, fix typo: change Section 4.3.1.1 of section
[RFC5104] to section 6.2.1 of [RFC4585].
o In Section 3: Clarify how to deal with downstream loss using Third
party loss report and upstream loss using NACK.
o Update title and abstract to focus on third party loss report.
o In Section 6.1: Update this section to explain how third party
loss report is used to deal with downstream loss.
o In section 6.1.2: Update this section to explain how third party
loss report is used to deal with downstream loss.
o In section 6.2: Rephrase the text to discuss how BRS deal with the
third party loss report.
A.3. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-03
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
o In Appendix A, fix typo: Appendix A. Appendix A. -> Appendix A.
o Update abstract to clarify when third-party loss reports should be
sent instead of NACKs.
o Update section 3 Paragraph 2 to differentiate when a third-party
loss report should be used compared to a NACK.
o Update section 3 Paragraph 3 to explain when media source to send
a third-party loss.
o Move specific rules for section 6.1.1 and section 6.1.2 to section
6.1 as generic rules and delete section 6.1.1.
A.4. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-04
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Reference Update.
o Clarify the use of the third party loss report in section 3 and
section 6.1.1.
A.5. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-05
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Remove 3rd and 4th paragraphs of section 6.1 and replaced them
with 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of section 3.
o Remove section 6.1.1.1.
o Revise the last paragraph of section 1 to clarify the rationale of
using new message.
o Update RTP transport translator case in section 6.3 to correct the
use of the third party loss report.
o Update MCU case in section 6.4 to correct the use of the third
party loss report.
o Revise SSM use case to address multiple DS issue.
o References Update.
o Move one rationale on preventing sending unicast NACK in
introduction section to SSM case section.
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
o Other Editorial changes to section 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.2.
A.6. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-06
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o A few Editorial changes to the whole document.
A.7. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-07
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Restructuring the protocol overview section to clarify the round
trip
time calculation and receiver behavior to the additional TPLR.
o Restructuring the SSM use case section to focus on the use of
TPLR.
o Editorial changes to the abstract, introduction, message format,
use cases and IANA sections.
o References update
A.8. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-08
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Clarify which RTT is used and how timer is refreshed in the
section 3.
o Editorial changes to the Introduction, Protocol Overview, SDP
Signaling, Message Format, Use case,Security Consideration and
IANA sections.
o Remove Seq Nr field in the figure 2 for payload specific feedback.
o References reorganizing.
A.9. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-09
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Clarify to suppression interval with regard to how long to receive
the
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
retransmitted packet. Treating TPLR in the same way as receiving
NACK.
o Replace timer based approach with timeless based approach.
A.10. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-10
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Fix the definition of Synchronization source for TPLR in section
4.2.
o Associate SDP parameters tllei and pslei with "nack".
o Remove the packet loss recovery from TPLR loss handling part.
o Other typo fixed.
A.11. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-11
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Additional Editorial changes.
A.12. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-12
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Additional Editorial changes.
A.13. draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-suppression-rtp-13
The following are the major changes compared to previous version:
o Additional Editorial changes.
Authors' Addresses
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Third Party Loss Report February 2012
Frank Xia
Huawei
1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Phone: +1 972-509-5599
Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com
Roni Even
Huawei
14 David Hamelech
Tel Aviv 64953
Israel
Email: even.roni@huawei.com
Wu, et al. Expires August 26, 2012 [Page 17]