Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 09:14 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF41C21F8729 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:14:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.532, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2aDY9-HrQYOk for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F337321F862B for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZW007M349ZP8@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZW00DXE49YAG@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHJ69068; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:10 +0800
Received: from SZXEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.162) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:00 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.149) by szxeml423-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:03 +0800
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:01 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Message-id: <94DC837519784483ABEA2D7891C9CC08@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_BOU8irpfWUOBkqBGHcTMEA)"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <4F3BB9C2.3020509@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:14:56 -0000
Hi, Magnus: Sorry for late. Thank for your valuable review. please see my comments inline below. Also the new version is now available at : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10 The Diff is: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-10.txt Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> To: "IETF AVTCore WG" <avt@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:57 PM Subject: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-09 Hi, As a WG chair I got the request to start a WG last call on this document. I have been a bit slow to get to this, but when I looked at the document before starting the WG last call I think the document isn't really ready for a WG last call. Thus instead I request that the WG helps develop the document to be ready for WG last call. The main issue I see with this document is focused on section 3 which is intended to provide an overview of the monitoring architecture for RTP. I see a number of issues with this section and especially figure 1. 1. Figure one fails to place third party monitor in relation to any of the packet flows. I think they belong on the RTP/RTCP paths between the sender, intermediate and the receiver. [Qin]: Okay, I remember you comment this before, I will put some text to make this clear and also get the "1" arrow through the third party monitor to indicate that it is placed on the RTP/RTCP paths between the sender, intermediate and the receiver. ----------------------------- 2. I think the document needs to discuss a bit about how the information flows from the different nodes to the management systems. There is an arrow 5 from the RTP sender to the management system. First of all I think this arrow should be separated from the other 5. In addition I think there should exist arrows from the Third party monitor, the monitor in the intermediate and receiver directly to the management systems. And these arrows could be RTCP information being forward in real-time. However, they could also be other solutions. [Qin]: Good suggestion and will redraw figure to reflect this. -------------------------------------------- 3. In general I think 3.1 should discuss what exist already for monitoring which there is no discussion. Like the RTP MIB. I can also see other solutions like using IPfix to capture a packet flow and then process using an RTP and RTCP receiver. [Qin] I agree. In order to fix this, We propose the following text at the beginning of section 3.1 to say: " There are many ways in which the performance of an RTP session can be monitored. These include RTP-based mechanisms such as the RTP SNMP MIB [RFC2959], or the SIP event package for RTCP summary reports [RFC6035], or non-RTP mechanisms such as generic MIBs, NetFlow, IPFix, and so on. Together, these provide useful mechanisms for exporting data on the performance of an RTP session to non-RTP network management systems. It is desirable to also perform in-session monitoring of RTP performance. RTCP provides the means to do this. In the following, we specify an architecture for using and extending RTCP for monitoring RTP sessions. One major benefit of such architecture is with ease of integration with other RTP/RTCP mechanism. " -------------------------------------- 4. The document argues for RTCP XR based monitoring, but can you please provide a clear indication of what the benefits are. [Qin]: One major benefit I think is Ease of integration with other RTP/RTCP mechanisms. Another benefit I can see is RTCP-based monitoring Takes both transport quality and application quality into account and can provide more accurate measurement for the Real time application quality. Below is a number of issues I found ---------------------------------------------------------- 5. Title: "Monitoring Architectures for RTP" is the plural in architectures intentional? If, you better have the document live up to that. The abstract doesn't appear to match that either. [Qin]:To be consistent, I think we should use singular rather than plural. Thank for catching this. ----------------------------------------------- 6. Section 1. "As more users and subscribers rely on real time application services, uncertainties in the performance and availability of these services are driving the need to support new standard methods for gathering performance metrics from RTP applications." What users and subscribers are you discussing above? The ones using RTP to build services or the actual user of the service using RTP? [Qin]: I think it is the latter. How about change it as: " As the delivery of multimedia services using the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) over IP network is gaining an increasing popularity, uncertainties in the performance and availability of these services are driving the need to support new standard methods for gathering performance metrics from RTP applications. ---------------------------------------- 7. Section 1, These rapidly emerging standards, such as RTCP XR [RFC3611] Please expand abrivetations on first usage. And in this case I think the correct title should be used prior to the reference ... such as "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611] ... [Qin]: Okay. I will also update other places in the document with the similar issues. --------------------------------------- 8. Section 1. " Quality of Experience (QoE)." Can you please include some reference that explains the concept of QoE? [Qin]: Good suggestion, I think we should reference RFC6390 or P.10/G.100 Amendment 2. I prefer to use RFC6390. ------------------------------------- 9. Section 1: "Since different applications layered on RTP may have some monitoring requirements in common, therefore these metrics should be satisfied by a common design." The above sentence needs to be reformulated. [Qin]: How about rephrase like: "Given that different applications layered on RTP may have some monitoring requirements in common, these metrics should be satisfied by a common design. ----------------------------- 10. Section 2: Section title doesn't match content. [Qin]: Agree and will change title into "Terminology". -------------------------------------------------- 11. Section 2: One example of such metrics is the QoE Metric specified in QoE metric reporting Block [MQ]. I don't think that reference is a good example. The reference defines how to transport and identify a large number of application level metrics in RTCP XR, rather than being an example of a metric. [Qin]: Do we have better reference than this one. I am aware that some ITU-T documents (e.g., ITU-T P.NAMS, P.NBAMS) define measurement method and model for QoE evaluation while other documents like RFC6390, E.800, P.10/G.100 Amendment 2 only give definition of QoE. Also I think QoE metric reporting Block [MQ] not only define data format for QoE metric and but also provide Metric name and description for QoE metric. If you really concerns this, I can remove this sentence. --------------------------------- 12. Section 2: Composed metrics Metrics that are calculated based on direct metric or combination of direct metric and derived metrics. What is an derived metric? Appears to be an reference without an explanation. [Qin]: Derived metric is actually one kind of composed metric. How about fix this like: " Composed metrics Metrics that are calculated based on Direct metric that have been measured or combination of Direct metrics that are identical to the metric being composed. " ---------------------------------------------- 13. Section 2: Interval metrics It is referred to as the metrics of which the reported values apply to the most recent measurement interval duration between successive metrics reports Is "interval duration" actually good English? To me the duration of an interval is the actual interval. [Qin]:My understanding is Yes, Interval metrics is defined in relation to "cumulative metric" as a metric that apply to the duration of an interval. The interval should be the most recent interval to be measured rather than accumulative period within the whole session. ------------------------------------------------- 14. Section 2: Sampled metrics It is referred to as the metrics of which the reported values only apply to the value of a continuously measured or calculated that has been sampled at end of the interval. Doesn't the above exclude metrics measured at give instance. Or is that what "sampled at end of the interval" means? But then it isn't actually an interval, is it? [Qin]: Ideally, I think sample metric can be applied to any instance of one measurement interval. But I assume the more sampled data you gather during one measurement interval, the more accurate the sampled metric you can calculate. Does this make sense? ------------------------------------------------ 15. Section 3.1: According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550], the end system that source RTP streams, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP packets to End- devices or a third party that does not participate in the RTP session (i.e., the third party monitor depicted in figure 1) can be envisioned to act as the Monitor within the RTP monitoring architecture. Shouldn't the RTP receiver be included in the above? [Qin]: You are right, I like to fix this by the following proposed change. OLD Text: " According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550], the end system that source RTP streams, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP packets to End- devices or a third party that does not participate in the RTP session (i.e., the third party monitor depicted in figure 1) can be envisioned to act as the Monitor within the RTP monitoring architecture. " New Text: " According to the definition of monitor in the RTP Protocol [RFC3550], the end system that runs an application program that sends or receives RTP data packets, an intermediate-system that forwards RTP packets to End-devices or a third party that does not participate in the RTP session(i.e., the third party monitor depicted in figure 1) can be envisioned to act as the Monitor within the RTP monitoring architecture. " -------------------------------------------- 16. Section 3.1: When considering the monitoring architecture, I think it is important to remember that we have topologies like the SSM, where few sources are potentially distributed to many receivers and where feedback is aggregated in feedback targets for potential processing and filtering back upstream. [Qin]: Okay, how about add one new paragraph at the end of Section 3.1 as follows: " RTP can be used to multicast groups, both ASM and SSM. These groups can be monitored using RTCP. In the ASM case, the monitor is a member of the multicast group and listens to RTCP XR reports from all members of the ASM group. In the SSM case, there is a unicast feedback target that receives RTCP feedback from receivers and distributes it to other members of the SSM group (see figure 1 of RFC5760). The monitor will need to be co-located with the feedback target to receive all feedback from the receivers (this may also be an intermediate system). In both ASM and SSM scenarios, receivers can send RTCP XR reports to enhance the reception quality reporting. " ---------------------------------------------------- 17. Section 3.2: o RTCP NACK is used to provide feedback on the RTP sequence number of the lost packets [RFC4585]. In this case I would be a bit careful. Because the sequence numbers reported on in NACK may in fact be a subset of all lost packets. Already the media stream receiver creating NACK requests may in fact filter on which sequence number is reported. There was a proposal for a informative block (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-selret-05.txt) that allowed for this type of information. There is other cases where a receiver will be able to determine that it doesn't need to ask for some lost packets. [Qin]: Okay, How about rephrase this sentence as: " o RTCP NACK is used to provide feedback on the RTP sequence number on a subset of the lost packets or the total lost packets [RFC4585]. " --------------------------------------- 18. Section 3.3: For instance, application level metrics for QoE related performance parameters are usually measured at the user device in the home network. I think you need to be careful with "usually" here. There is a lot of hidden assumptions going into this sentence. I would recommend that one attempts to be more objective and less assuming in the description. Also there is a question what definition you have of a given location. Like the home network which might look significant different depending on where and whos network you look at. [Qin]: Agree, how about change like: " The location of the RTP Sender/Receiver entities may impact a set of meaningful metrics. For instance, application level metrics for QoE related performance parameters are under most conditions measured at the user device that receives RTP data packets. " ------------------------------------------------- 19. Section 4: o Using large block. I think "large" is a bad term, when you in reality are talking about compound or aggregated metrics blocks. I would suggest picking some other term and ensure that "large" isn't used in this meaning. [Qin]:Agree, I think compound metric block is a better term that replaces large block in relation to "single metric block". ----------------------------------------------------- 20. Section 4: "It may be also fixed across multiple RTP sessions from the same source. " I think the above is missing "at the same time". [Qin]: Agree and will add it into the update. ------------------------------------------------ 21. Section 5.1: To avoid this pitfall, this memo proposes the use of small RTCP XR metrics blocks each containing a very small number of individual metrics characterizing only one parameter of interest to an application running over RTP. This one is similar with 19. Instead of small, maybe single metric or something like this. [Qin]:Agree, will use "single metrics blocks" to be consistent with the title of section 5.1. ------------------------------------------------ 22. Section 5.2: non- RTP-based / non-RTP-based [Qin]: Fixed. ----------------------------------------- 23. Section 5.3: This memo proposes to define a new XR Block that will be used to convey the common time period and the number of packets sent during this period [MI]. "this memo" is reference the monarch document no the MI, which I think is the intention. [Qin]: Agree, will remove [MI] from this sentence. ------------------------------------------- 24. Section 5.3: If the measurement interval for a metric is different from the RTCP reporting interval, then this measurement duration in the [MI] SHOULD be used to specify the interval. New RTCP XR metric blocks that rely on the Measurement information block [MI] MUST specify the response in case the new RTCP XR metric block is received without an associated measurement information block; Normative statements? in a informative draft. Is the intention to quote the drafts text, then please make it a quote. [Qin]: The above text is not quoted from other draft like [MI], but intend to provide guideline for [MI]. I like to fix this by changing the language into lowercase, since this memo is informative. -------------------------------------------- 25. Section 6. This implies the creation of a subsidiary namespace to enumerate the PDV metrics which may be transported by this block, as discussed further in [PDV] . I would like to note that this assume a certain simularity in metric structure that allows the different metrics values to be carried in the same basic structure. [Qin]: You are right. I will put some text in the section 6 to highlight this. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 26. I have also noted a number of cases where the "." is not in the appropriate place, often additional space before the ".". [Qin]: Fixed. -------------------------------------------- Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance avt@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-mona… Qin Wu
- Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-mona… Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-mona… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-mona… Qin Wu
- Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-mona… Magnus Westerlund