RFC 8015
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metrics
RFC 8015: RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metrics 🎀
okay so this one is from the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) 💅 and it's RFC 8015, published in November 2016. The authors are V. Singh (callstats.io), C. Perkins (University of Glasgow), A. Clark (Telchemy), and R. Huang (Huawei). It's a Standards Track document, ISSN 2070-1721, and its title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates 🫶
Abstract ✨
This doc defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) block that lets you report burst/gap discard metrics on their own, separate from the burst/gap loss metrics. It's for a whole range of RTP apps 🦋
Status of This Memo 🌸
Okay the formal stuff, but make it cute: this is an Internet Standards Track document. It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). More about Internet Standards is in Section 2 of RFC 7841. For the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8015 ✨
Copyright Notice 🧚
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 💜
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 🔥
Table of Contents 📋
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . . . . . . . 3
1.2. RTCP and RTCP Extended Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Report Block Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Definition of Fields in the Independent Burst/Gap Discard
Metrics Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Derived Metrics Based on the Reported Metrics . . . . . . 8
4. Considerations for Voice-over-IP Applications . . . . . . . . 9
5. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Offer/Answer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Contact Information for Registrations . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the Template from RFC 6390 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151. Introduction ✨
1.1. Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block 💖
This doc defines a new block type that extends the metrics defined in [RFC7003]. The new block reports the proportion of packets discarded in a burst by the de-jitter buffer at the receiver. The number of packets discarded depends on the de-jitter buffer algorithm the endpoint implements. 🌈
The new report block here is different from the one in [RFC7003]. The metrics in [RFC7003] depend on the metrics in the burst/gap loss metric defined in [RFC6958]. So an endpoint that sends a Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block [RFC7003] also needs to send a Burst/Gap Loss Metrics Block [RFC6958]. That combo is useful when an endpoint sees correlated packet losses and discards. 🫶
But when the bursts of losses and discards don't happen at the same time, the app might prefer a concise report that just reports the burst/gap of discarded packets. The report block in this document gives the complete info and doesn't need any additional report blocks. Basically, this block reports the total number of packets discarded, the total burst duration, and the total number of bursts. All of these metrics are missing in [RFC7003]. main character energy, no cap 🦋
This block gives you info on transient network issues. Burst/gap metrics are typically used in cumulative reports, but they can also be used in interval reports (see the Interval Metric flag in Section 3.2). The variation in the number of packet discards in a burst affects the user experience, so based on the metrics in the block, the sending endpoint can change the packetization interval, vary the bitrate, etc. ✨ The report can also be used for diagnostics [RFC6792], and the metric belongs to the class of transport-related end-system metrics defined in [RFC6792]. 🔥
The definitions of "burst", "gap", "loss", and "discard" are consistent with the definitions in [RFC3611]. To accommodate a range of de-jitter buffer algorithms and packet discard logic that implementers can use, the method used to distinguish between bursts and gaps uses an equivalent method to the one defined in Section 4.7.2 of [RFC3611]. Note that reporting the specific de-jitter buffer algorithm and/or the packet discard logic is out of scope for this document. 🧚
1.2. RTCP and RTCP Extended Reports 🌸
The use of RTCP for reporting is defined in [RFC3550]. [RFC3611] defined an extensible structure for reporting using an RTCP Extended Report (XR). This document defines a new Extended Report block for use with [RFC3550] and [RFC3611]. 💜
1.3. Performance Metrics Framework 📊
The Performance Metrics Framework [RFC6390] provides guidance on the definition and specification of performance metrics. The RTP Monitoring Framework [RFC6792] provides guidelines for reporting the block format using RTCP XR. The metrics block described in this document is in accordance with the guidelines in [RFC6390] and [RFC6792]. 🍓
1.4. Applicability 🎀
These metrics are applicable to a range of RTP applications that contain de-jitter buffers at the receiver to smooth variation in packet-arrival time and don't use stream repair means, e.g., Forward Error Correction (FEC) [FLEX_FEC] and/or retransmission [RFC4588]. 🙈
2. Terminology 💅
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 👑
In addition, the following terms are defined: ✨
Received, Lost, and Discarded 💀
A packet is regarded as "lost" if it fails to arrive within an implementation-specific time window. A packet that arrives within this time window but is too early to be played out, too late to be played out, or thrown away before playout due to packet duplication or redundancy is be recorded as "discarded". A packet SHALL NOT be regarded as "discarded" if it arrives within this time window but is dropped during decoding by some higher-layer decoder, e.g., due to a decoding error. Each packet is classified as one of "received" (or "OK"), "discarded", or "lost". 🫶
The metric "cumulative number of packets lost" defined in [RFC3550] reports a count of packets lost from the media stream (single synchronization source (SSRC) within a single RTP session). Similarly, the metric "number of packets discarded" defined in [RFC7002] reports a count of packets discarded from the media stream (single SSRC within a single RTP session) arriving at the receiver. Another metric, defined in [RFC5725], is available to report on packets that are not recovered by any repair techniques that are in use. Note that the term "discard" defined here builds on the "discard" definition in [RFC3611] but extends the concept to take into account packet duplication and reports different types of discard counts [RFC7002]. 📈
Bursts and Gaps 🌊
The terms "burst" and "gap" are used in a manner consistent with that of RTCP XR [RFC3611]. RTCP XR views an RTP stream as being divided into bursts, which are periods during which the discard rate is high enough to cause noticeable quality degradation (generally a discard rate over 5 percent), and gaps, which are periods during which discarded packets are infrequent, and hence quality is generally acceptable. 🌸
3. Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block 🦋
Metrics in this block report on burst/gap discard in the stream arriving at the RTP system. Measurements of these metrics are made at the receiving end of the RTP stream. Instances of this metrics block use the synchronization source (SSRC) to refer to the separate auxiliary Measurement Information Block [RFC6776], which describes the measurement periods in use (see [RFC6776], Section 4.2). 💖
This metrics block relies on the measurement period in the Measurement Information Block indicating the span of the report. Senders MUST send this block in the same compound RTCP packet as the Measurement Information Block. Receivers MUST verify that the measurement period is received in the same compound RTCP packet as this metrics block. If not, this metrics block MUST be discarded. no excuses, it's a MUST 🔥
3.1. Report Block Structure ✨
Okay bestie, here's the whole layout of the Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block 🎀 Every bit gets a spot, and it's giving architecture-diagram energy 🦋
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=35 | I | resv | Block Length = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Threshold | Sum of Burst Durations (ms) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packets Discarded in Bursts | Number of |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bursts | Total Packets Expected in Bursts |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discard Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 1: Report Block Structure 💜
3.2. Definition of Fields in the Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block 💅
Now the fields, one by one, bestie 🫶
Block Type (BT): 8 bits
This block is identified by the constant 35. Iconic 👑
Interval Metric flag (I): 2 bits
This one tells you whether the burst/gap discard metrics are Sampled, Interval, or Cumulative metrics [RFC6792]. Two of the values are real:
I=10: Interval Duration - the reported value applies to the most recent measurement interval duration between successive metrics reports.I=11: Cumulative Duration - the reported value applies to the accumulation period characteristic of cumulative measurements.
Here's the tea 🫖 In this document, burst/gap discard metrics can only be measured over definite intervals and cannot be sampled. Also, I=00 is reserved for future use. Senders MUST NOT use the values I=00 or I=01. If a block is received with I=00 or I=01, the receiver MUST discard the block. Not me being strict about this, but it's a hard no 🙅♀️
Reserved (resv): 6 bits
These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers (see [RFC6709], Section 4.2). Basically they're placeholders, so keep them zeroed 🌸
Block Length: 16 bits
This is the length of the report block in 32-bit words, minus one. For the Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block, the block length is equal to 5. The block MUST be discarded if the block length is set to a different value. Wrong length? Gone 💀
SSRC of Source: 32 bits
As defined in Section 4 of [RFC3611]. ✨
Threshold: 8 bits
The Threshold is equivalent to Gmin in [RFC3611], i.e., the number of successive packets that have to be received prior to, and following, a discarded packet in order for that discarded packet to be regarded as part of a gap. Note that the Threshold is set in accordance with the Gmin calculation defined in Section 4.7.2 of [RFC3611]. So Gmin is the bouncer deciding what counts as a gap 🧚
Sum of Burst Durations (ms): 24 bits
This is the total duration of bursts of discarded packets in the period of the report (Interval or Cumulative).
The measured value is an unsigned value. If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFFFD, the value 0xFFFFFE MUST be reported to indicate an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFFFF MUST be reported. Overflow gets its own special code, bestie 🙈
Packets Discarded in Bursts: 24 bits
This is the total number of packets discarded during discard bursts, as defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7002]. 🍓
Number of Bursts: 16 bits
This is the number of discard bursts in the period of the report (Interval or Cumulative).
The measured value is an unsigned value. If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFD, the value 0xFFFE MUST be reported to indicate an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. Same energy as the last one, just with smaller numbers 💖
Total Packets Expected in Bursts: 24 bits
This is the total number of packets expected during the discard bursts (that is, the sum of received packets and lost packets). The metric is defined in [RFC7003]. 🌈
Discard Count: 32 bits
This is the number of packets discarded over the period (Interval or Cumulative) covered by this report, as defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7002]. ⭐
3.3. Derived Metrics Based on the Reported Metrics 🔥
These metrics are meant to be used alongside information from the Measurement Information Block [RFC6776]. They give you some stats-y goodness (depending on whether you're looking at cumulative or interval measures), for example:
- The average discarded burst size, which can be calculated by dividing the metric "Packets Discarded in Bursts" by the "Number of Bursts".
- The average burst duration, which can be calculated by dividing the metric "Sum of Burst Durations (ms)" by the "Number of Bursts".
4. Considerations for Voice-over-IP Applications 🎧
This metrics block works for a broad range of RTP applications, bestie 🦋 But when you're using it with a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) application and the stream repair means isn't available, these considerations apply.
RTCP XR sees a call as split into bursts and gaps. Bursts are the periods when the discard rate is high enough to cause noticeable call quality degradation (generally a discard rate over 5 percent). Gaps are the periods when discarded packets are rare, so call quality is generally fine 🌸
If voice activity detection is used, the burst/gap duration is determined as if silence packets had been sent, i.e., a period of silence in excess of Gmin packets will terminate a burst condition. Silence counts as if it was packets, so the call keeps its vibe 🤭
The RECOMMENDED value for the threshold Gmin in [RFC3611] results in a burst being a period of time during which the call quality is degraded to a similar extent to a typical pulse code modulation (PCM) severely errored second. So that's the sweet spot for Gmin, periodt 💅
5. SDP Signaling 📞
[RFC3611] defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol) [RFC4566] for signaling the use of XR blocks. XR blocks can be used without prior signaling. Bonus points if you signal it, but you don't have to ✨
5.1. SDP rtcp-xr Attribute Extension 🪄
This section augments the SDP [RFC4566] attribute "rtcp-xr" defined in [RFC3611] by providing an additional value of "xr-format" to signal the use of the report block defined in this document. The ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows:
xr-format =/ xr-ind-bgd-block
xr-ind-bgd-block = "ind-burst-gap-discard"5.2. Offer/Answer Usage 🤝
When SDP is used in an Offer/Answer context, the SDP Offer/Answer usage defined in [RFC3611] for unilateral "rtcp-xr" attribute parameters applies. For detailed usage in Offer/Answer for unilateral parameters, refer to Section 5.2 of [RFC3611]. Read the source, babe 📖
6. IANA Considerations 🗂️
New block types for RTCP XR are subject to IANA registration. For general guidelines on IANA considerations for RTCP XR, refer to [RFC3611]. 💜
6.1. New RTCP XR Block Type Value 🦋
This document assigns the block type value 35 in the IANA "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry" to the "Independent Burst/Gap Discard Metrics Block". Number 35 is officially ours now 👑
6.2. New RTCP XR SDP Parameter 🎀
This document also registers a new parameter "ind-burst-gap-discard" in the "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry". 🍓
6.3. Contact Information for Registrations 📬
The contact information for the registrations is:
ART Area Directors <art-ads@ietf.org>
7. Security Considerations 🔐
This is the serious part, bestie, so read it closely 🥺
This block does not provide per-packet statistics, so the risk to confidentiality documented in Section 7, paragraph 3 of [RFC3611] does not apply. However, the gap indicated within this block could be used to detect the timing of other events on the path between the sender and receiver. For example, a competing multimedia stream might cause a discard burst for the duration of the stream, allowing the receiver of this block to know when the competing stream was active. This risk is not a significant threat since the only information leaked is the timing of the discard, not the cause. 🕵️♀️
Where this is a concern, the implementation SHOULD apply encryption and authentication to this report block. For example, this can be achieved by using the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF) profile together with the Secure RTP profile, as defined in [RFC3711]; an appropriate combination of those two profiles ("SAVPF") is specified in [RFC5124]. Besides this, it is believed that this RTCP XR block introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. Lock it down if it matters 🔒💅
8. References 📚
8.1. Normative References 🌟
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5725] Begen, A., Hsu, D., and M. Lague, "Post-Repair Loss RLE
Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", RFC 5725, DOI 10.17487/RFC5725, February
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5725>.
[RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6776>.
[RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap
Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003,
September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7003>.8.2. Informative References ✨
Okay bestie, now we're in the "for your reading pleasure" section 📚 These are the extra docs the spec points to, not the must-reads. The Work in Progress one is still a draft, so it may change or vanish. 🫠
[FLEX_FEC] Singh, V., Begen, A., Zanaty, M., and G. Mandyam, "RTP Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction (FEC)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-03, October 2016.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R. Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC6792] Wu, Q., Ed., Hunt, G., and P. Arden, "Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework", RFC 6792, DOI 10.17487/RFC6792, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6792>.
[RFC6958] Clark, A., Zhang, S., Zhao, J., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Loss Metric Reporting", RFC 6958, DOI 10.17487/RFC6958, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6958>.
[RFC7002] Clark, A., Zorn, G., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count Metric Reporting", RFC 7002, DOI 10.17487/RFC7002, September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7002>.
Appendix A. Metrics Represented Using the Template from RFC 6390 💜
Here's where the metrics get the RFC 6390 template treatment, so every one gets the same neat setup 🎀 Some are defined back in other docs, so they just point over there.
- a. Threshold Metric 🌸
- Defined in item a of Appendix A of [RFC7003].
- b. Sum of Burst Durations (ms) ⏱️
- Metric Name: Sum of Burst Durations with Discarded RTP Packets.
- Metric Description: The total duration of bursts of discarded RTP packets in the period of the report.
- Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2, Sum of Burst Durations definition.
- Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2, Sum of Burst Durations definition.
- Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See Section 3, first paragraph.
- Measurement Timing: See Section 3, second paragraph for measurement timing and Section 3.2 for Interval Metric flag.
- Use and Applications: See Section 1.4.
- Reporting Model: See [RFC3611].
- c. Packets Discarded in Bursts Metric 🦋
- Defined in item b of Appendix A of [RFC7003].
- d. Number of Bursts 🍓
- Metric Name: Number of discard bursts in RTP.
- Metric Description: The total number of bursts with discarded RTP packets in the period of the report.
- Method of Measurement or Calculation: See Section 3.2, Number of Bursts definition.
- Units of Measurement: See Section 3.2 for the Number of Bursts definition.
- Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: See Section 3, first paragraph.
- Measurement Timing: See Section 3, second paragraph for measurement timing and Section 3.2 for Interval Metric flag.
- Use and Applications: See Section 1.4.
- Reporting Model: See [RFC3611].
- e. Total Packets Expected in Bursts Metric 🧚
- Defined in item c of Appendix A of [RFC7003].
- f. Discard Count 💅
- Defined in Appendix A of [RFC7002].
Acknowledgments 🫶
The authors want to thank Ben Campbell, Stephen Farrell, Paul Kyzivat, Shucheng LIU, Jan Novak, and Dan Romascanu for giving such valuable feedback on this doc. Iconic squad behavior 👑
Contributors 🌈
Qin Wu, Rachel Huang, and Alan Clark wrote RFC 7003, which this document extends. The OG crew 🔥
Authors' Addresses 📮
Here's where you can find the authors, in case you want to slide into their inbox about this 💌
Varun Singh
CALLSTATS I/O Oy
Runeberginkatu 4c A 4
Helsinki 00100
Finland
Email: varun@callstats.io
URI: https://www.callstats.io/about
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science
Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org
Alan Clark
Telchemy Incorporated
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 280
Duluth, GA 30097
United States of America
Email: alan.d.clark@telchemy.com
Rachel Huang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: Rachel@huawei.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8015 2016-11
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms