<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
]>

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?> 
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>

<rfc category="info" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-jiang-tsvwg-slice-media-service-01">

<front>
<title abbrev="Slice-Media-Service">Encoding 3GPP Slices for Interactive Media Services</title>

<author fullname="Tianji Jiang" initials="T." surname="Jiang"> 
<organization>China Mobile </organization> 
<address> 
	<postal> <street> </street> <code></code> 
		<city>San Jose, CA</city> 
		<country>U.S.</country> 
	</postal> 
	<email>tianjijiang@chnamobile.com</email> 
</address> 
</author>

<author initials="D." surname="Wang" fullname="Dan Wang">
<organization>China Mobile</organization>
<address>
<email>wangdanyjy@chinamobile.com</email>
</address>
</author>





<!-- month and day will be generated automatically by XML2RFC; be sure the year is current.-->
<!-- date month="June" year="2023"/ --> 
<date year="2023"/>
<area>Internet Area</area> 
<workgroup>TSV Working Group</workgroup>

<abstract>
	<t>
	 Extended Reality &amp; multi-modality communication, or XRM, is a type of advanced service that has been studied and standardized in the 3GPP SA2 working group. It targets at achieving high data rate, ultra-low latency, and high reliability. The streams of an XRM service might be comprised of data from multiple modalities, namely, video, audio, ambient-sensor and haptic detection, etc.
	 XRM service faces challenges on various aspects, e.g. accurate multi-modality data synchronization, QoS differentiation, large volume of packets, and etc. While a new 
	 3GPP network slice type, HDLLC, has been recently introduced to handle the QoS requirements of
	 XRM streams, the ubiquitously-existential encryption of packet header and/or payload 
	 post additional challenges to the
	 transport of encoded video packets via 5GS. We have then discussed two potential IETF schemes, 
	 e.g., IP-DSCP based or UDP-option extension,
	 that could be applied to 'expose' XRM QoS 'metadata' to 5GS. 
	</t>
</abstract>
</front>

<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
	<t>
		Extended Reality &amp; multi-modality communication, or XRM, is a type of advanced service that has been studied and standardized in the  3GPP SA2 working group. With the objective of achieving economical communication overhead, ultra-low latency, high reliability and top security, it features multi-modal interactions among a group of service entities 
		that are (geographically) distributed at the mobile network edges. The benefits of seamlessly integrating multiple types of streams sourced via multiple inputs make it widely applicable in fields, like AR/VR, telepresence, gaming, education, etc.
	</t>

	<t>
		The XRM service can consolidate the inputs from more than one source and disseminate information to multiple destinations. That is, the input data from different kinds of devices/sensors or the output data to different types of destinations are required for the same task or application. This type of communication scheme possesses intrinsic advantages of providing services that would be complementary to each other, or even bearing progressive add-on gains, so that redundant delivery and information accuracy could be achieved effectively. In general sense, the streams of an XRM service 
		might be comprised of data from four modalities, namely, 
		video, audio, ambient-sensor and haptic detection.
	</t>

	<t>
		Thanks to the unique nature and different requirements across modalities, and especially to address the 5G service requirements of different types of media steams with coordinated throughput, latency and reliability, XRM service faces challenges on various aspects, e.g. characteristics of generated data across modalities, accurate multi-modality data synchronization, QoS differentiation, large volume of small packets, and packet-size variation, etc. <xref target="\5G.TACMM"/>
	</t>

	<t>
		XRM services use (multiple) IP sessions to carry &amp; transport data frames. 
		With a session corresponding to one modality stream, the coordinated transmission among 
		multiple modality flows (or streams) needs to be warranted. The application client(s) of the 
		different types of data of one application may be located at either one destination (e.g., a UE), 
		or multiple destinations (e.g. having VR glasses, gloves, and more). 
	</t>

	<t>
		In current 5GS, a QoS Flow is the finest granularity of QoS differentiation in a PDU Session, 
		which indicates that all PDU packets in a QoS flow 
		are treated according to the same QoS requirements.
		Specifically for the XRM service, a group of packets carry the payload of a PDU Set (e.g. a frame, video slice/tile). Packets in a media stream belonging to the same PDU Set 
		are decoded/handled as a whole. For example, 
		a frame/video slice may only be decoded at the receiver
		in case all or certain amount of the packets carrying the frame/video slice are successfully delivered. For example, a frame within a GOP (Group of Pictures) can only be decoded by the client in case all frames on which that frame depends are successfully received. Hence the groups of packets within a PDU Set have inherent dependency on each other in media layer. Without considering the inter-dependancy among the packets within a PDU set, 5GS may perform a scheduling with low efficiency. For example, the 5GS may randomly 
		drop packet(s) but try to deliver other packets of the same PDU set which are useless to the 
		client and thus waste radio resources <xref target="TS.23.501"/>.
	</t>

	<t>
		The similar impact is also applicable to audio samples, haptics applications or remote control operations. The inter-dependency among the packets of a PDU Set (e.g. a frame/video slice) can 
		possibly help enhance the efficiency and promote user experience.
 	</t>
</section> <!-- End of section 'Introduction' -->


<section title="3GPP Slices Mapping for Media Services">

	<section anchor="3GPPSlicing">
      <name>3GPP Network Slicing</name>
	  <t>
	  	5G network slicing is a network architecture that enables the multiplexing of virtualized and independent logical networks on the same physical network infrastructure. Each network slice 
	  	is an isolated end-to-end network tailored to fulfil diverse requirements requested by a 
	  	particular application.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	  	Network slices may differ between supported features and network function optimisations.
			This technology assumes a central role to support 5G mobile networks that are designed to efficiently embrace a plethora of services with very different service level requirements (SLR). The realization of this service-oriented view of the network leverages on the concepts of software-defined networking (SDN) and network function virtualization (NFV) that allow the implementation of flexible and scalable network slices on top of a common network infrastructure.
		</t>

		<t>
			The business model adopted in Telco domain normally indicates that
			a network slice is administrated by a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). The infrastructure provider (the owner of the Telco infrastructure) leases its physical resources to the MVNOs that share the underlying physical network. According to the availability of the assigned resources, a MVNO can autonomously deploy multiple network slices that are customized to the various applications provided to its own users.
	  </t>
  </section> <!-- Section-END of 3GPP Network Slicing -->

  <section anchor="StandardizedSSTs">
  	<name>3GPP Standardized SSTs</name>
    <t>
    	As shown in the following <xref target="fig:3gppStandardSST" />, 
    	3GPP 5GS have defined 6 standard SSTs, covering eMBB, URLLC MIoT and more. 
    	Standardized SST values provide a way for establishing global interoperability for slicing 
    	so that Public Land Mobile Networks or PLMNs can support the roaming use case more 
			efficiently for the most commonly used Slice/Service Types (or SSTs).
		</t>

 		<figure anchor="fig:3gppStandardSST" title="3GPP Standardized SSTs">
		 <artwork><![CDATA[
  +----------------------------------------------------------------+
  | Types | Value |           Characteristics                      |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+
  | eMBB  |   1   |  Slice for 5G enhanced mobile broadband        |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+ 
  | URLLC |   2   |  Slice for ultra-reliable low-latency comm.    |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+ 
  | MIoT  |   3   |  Slice for Massive IoT                         |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+ 
  | V2X   |   4   |  Slice for V2X Services                        |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+ 
  | HMTC  |   5   |  Slice for High-performance Machine-type comm. |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+ 
  | HDLLC |   6   |  Slice for High data-rate & low-latency comm.  |
  +-------+-------+------------------------------------------------+
    ]]>
		</artwork>
		</figure>

		<t>
    	Specifically, the 6th SST in the table, i.e., HDLLC or the slice for
    	High Data-rate &amp; Low-Latency communication service, was just introduced recently as a 
    	new SST to handle the XR media service or XRM.
    	The XRM is characterized by high data rate and low latency communication. 
    	As per <xref target="TS.23.501"/>, the 5GS QoS framework has been enhanced to support different 
    	QoS handling for a PDU Set. It supports differentiated QoS provisioning considering different 
    	importance of PDU Sets, e.g. by treating packets belonging to less important 
    	PDU Set(s) differently to reduce the resource consumption. One add-on benefit is the reduction
    	of the complexity of roaming configuration between networks.
    </t>

		<t>
			Similarly, another SDO, GSMA ENSWI, also believes that the Extended Reality and Media Services
			are promising services, and a new standardized SST can bring consistent user experience for XRM Services and enhance the user experience, especially in the
			roaming case. Currently, GSMA ENSWI is working on defining a new NEST (NEtwork Slice Template)
			for Extended Reality and Media Services <xref target="GSMAnewSSTforXRM"/>. 
		</t>

  </section> <!-- Section-END of 3GPP defined standardized SSTs -->

  <section anchor="3GPPslice4XRM">
  	<name>Mapping Standardized SST for Encrypted XRM Service</name>
  <t>
  	Different SST maps to varied QoS requirements, 
  	e.g., guaranteed bandwidth, max-allowed bandwidth,
  	max-data-burst, min-latency, max-latency, jitter variation, etc. 
  	Particularly for the 5G XRM service, thanks to the diversified settings of 
  	framing, slicing, encoding of video images, there invovle additional parameters like the relative
  	importance among different data packets (or PDUs in 3GPP SA2 term)
  	that are generated from differrent types of frames, e.g., 
  	the I, P, B frames which render tiered priorities among them. 
  </t>

  <t>
  	Another critical factor impacting the transport of encoded video packets is the ubiquitously-existential encryption of packet (header and) payload. 
  	For example, supposing RTP is used to transport video data. 
  	If the data contents in a packet are encrypted at the video source (i.e., the UDP source), 
  	then the later-added UDP header could not expose the mattered QoS parameters
  	to the routing entities in the underlay transport network
  	until the same packet reaches the UDP destination. 
  	However, this brings in somewhat great challenges to the 5GS-based XRM service.
  </t>

		<figure anchor="fig:5gsLogicalDetnetNode" title="A 5GS 'composite' Node">
			<artwork><![CDATA[
     ...........................................
     :               /-----------\             :     
      :             |   5GS(SBA) |             :    
     :              /\-----------/\            :   
     :             /       |       \           :
     :      +-----+     +------+    +-----+    :
     :      | AMF |-----|  SMF |----| PCF |    :
     :      +-----+     +------+    +-----+    :
     :      /    |           |                 :
     :     N1   N2           N4                :
     :    /      |           |         <= Downlink direction
     :   /       |        +-------+            :
     +----+  +-------+ N3 |       | N6         :   +-------------+  
     | UE |--|  gNB  |----|  UPF  |------------:---|  IP-domain  |  
     +----+  +-------+    |       |            :   | Network(DNN)|                           
     :                    +-------+            :   +-------------+
     :                     |    |        Uplink direction =>
     :                     +-N9-+              :
     ...........................................
	    ]]>
			</artwork>
		</figure>

	<t>
		For example, as shown in the <xref target="fig:5gsLogicalDetnetNode"/>, 
		the network function(NF) UPF is similar to an IP-domain router, which sends/receives
		IP packets off the N6 interface to/from the IP domain network DNN. In the XRM
		scenario, when a downlink packet (from the DNN) with encrypted video contents 
		arrives at the UPF from the N6 interface, the UPF would generally only use the IP 5-tuple 
		for packet classfication and prioritization 
		(i.e., using PDRs in the 3GPP 5G term <xref target="TS.23.501"/>).
		Unfortunately, the 5-tuple cannot expose all the QoS related information, 
		or so-named 'metadata' for XRM in this draft, 
		that are required for the effective data processing of an XRM stream. 
		The existence of encryption prevents a UPF from diving further into the (video) data contents.
	</t>
	</section> <!-- Section-END of 3GPP Slice4XRM -->
</section> <!-- End of 3GPP-slice section -->

<section title="Possible IETF Schemes for Encrypted XRM Streams" anchor="IETFencryptedXRM">
	<t>	
		The challenges, revolving around the encrypted XRM service 
		as described in <xref target="3GPPslice4XRM"/>, lead to the exploration of
		novel IETF mechanisms to convey these critical 'metadata' to a UPF
		 (i.e., to the 5GS for advanced QoS handling). 
	</t>

 <section anchor="IPDSCP4Encryption">
  	<name>Using IP-DSCP to Map Encrypted XRM Streams</name>
  <t>
		One scheme is to use the 6-bit DS field in an IP header <xref target="RFC2474"/>. 
		The fundamental advantage is that the IP-DSCP bits are not normally subject to the 
		encryption hurdle. However, the 6-bit DS field has only 64 DSCP combinations 
		which could not provide better granularity that is an equal important factor 
		for the further evolution of 5G advanced services. Another disadvantage is  
		DSCP does not have good hierarchy among its 6 bits. For example, while the objective to 
		promote the HDLLC (SST=6) was initially targetting at the XRM service, 
		it could also be customized	&amp; applied later to Metaverse service, i.e., another type 
		of HDLLC service which is being discussed in the 3GPP SA2 WG now. 
		Therefore, in the scenario (of HDLLC), any candidate novel scheme 
		should have the hierarchial capability to extend and accommodate the mappings for
		both the top-level SST, e.g., HDLLC itself, and the more granular sub-types, 
		e.g., XRM, Metaverse, etc., as discussed previously.
	</t>
 </section>

 <section anchor="UDPoption4Encryption">
  	<name>Using UDP-option to Map Encrypted XRM Streams</name>
	<t>
		Another novel (and also more promising) scheme is to use the being-standardized 
		UDP-option <xref target="transportUDPoption"/>. Actually,
		when we view the requirements of the payload and/or header
		encryption-handling, the better granularity, 
		along with the extensibility that could be achieved via the new UDP-option structure, 
		make us believe adopting the UDP-option is a better alternative (than using the IP-DSCP). 
		For example, according to <xref target="transportUDPoption"/>,
		we may get a code from the 'Kind' range [10...126] to identify the top-level 
		as the type of '3GPP network slice'. Then, we could further define the sub-structure for more 
		concrete SSTs as per the table in <xref target="fig:3gppStandardSST"/>. 
	</t>

	<t>
		Another advantage is that UDP
		is a layer-4 protocol and its header will normally not be processed by IP routers. Not only does 
		this relieve the processing burden off IP transport devices, but also gives a clear demarcation
		of the TCP/IP layer structure. 
	</t>

  <section anchor="5GSNotViolateUDPend2endRule">
  	<name>UDP-option for 5GS NOT-violate UDP end-to-end rule</name>
	<t>
		Of course, some concerns are currenlty revolving around the extension of the UDP-otions by arguing
		that UDP is a layer-4 transport protocol and its associated datagrams
		should be end-to-end processed, i.e., encapsulated at UDP sources and decapsulated at UDP destinations.
		If we look at the <xref target="fig:5gsLogicalDetnetNode"/>, we know the downlink IP packets enter 
		into the 5GS via the UPF N6 interface from the IP domain (DNN) (right-side). 
		The UPF functions to switch IP packets toward the UE (residing on the left side). 
		Obviously, the UE is the genuine end receiver (of a UDP datagram).
		The UPF is only an intermediary node taking on IP functionalities, which is
		nothing different from a regular IP-domain node. Therefore, applying the UDP extension option and 
		having the intermediary (IP) node, e.g., a 5GS UPF, process UDP datagrams is indeed a concern of
		violating the end-to-end layer structure.
	</t>

	<t>
		Fortunately, there exist somewhat good agurments for the 5GS-based XRM service to adopt the
		UDP extension option. A 5GS is unique in that it is a composite system, as shown
		in the <xref target="fig:5gsLogicalDetnetNode"/>. It can be considered holistically as a 'blackbox'
		joining the external IP domain. The IP DNN does not know a UE and its anchored UPF are
		two seperate entities, nor does it care. Instead, it only cares to forward IP packets downstream 
		to the 5GS (actually toward a UPF via the N6 interface). How the 5GS (i.e., the UPF) may process
		the packets is out of the scope (of the IP domain). Because of 5GS'	'composite &amp; transparent'
		characteristics, we argue that a 5GS (UPF) can be granted the capability
		to 'intelligently' break the IP-UDP demarcation rule by peeking at the 
		(encrypted) XRM 'metadata' in the 
		UDP extension option field. To the external IP domain, this still observes the 'end-to-end' rule.
	</t>

	<t>
  	Actually, there is already an I.D. discussing how to 
  	have end points to explicitly distribute the encrpyted 
  	metadata to an intermediary network node <xref target="EncryptedMetaDataToNetworkNode"/>. As
  	shown in the <xref target="fig:5gsLogicalDetnetNode"/>, the UPF would be the node to
  	use the metadata to assist in decrypting the media contents (and/or headers). Once the UPF gets
  	all the detailed information, it can provision and enforce the QoS settings for the 
  	XRM streams <xref target="TS.23.501"/>.
  </t>

  <t>
		Further, the draft <xref target="transportUDPoption"/> also suggests clearly that the UDP-options 
		are just a framework. Options might be defined even when the details are not yet sufficient. 
		The use of such options can be described in separate documents. This suggestion does bode well
		for the 5GS XRM service because our draft is exactly conforming to the tenet
		of the UDP-option framework.
  </t>

 </section> <!-- End of UDP-option for 5GS NOT-violate UDP end-to-end rule -->
 </section>
</section> <!-- End of the discussion of IETF novel mechanisms -->





<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>Generally, this function will not incur additional security issues.</t>
</section>

<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>A new authentication option or other signaling message option may be used based on the specific implementation.</t>
</section>

</middle>


<back>

<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2474.xml" ?>

<reference anchor="\5G.TACMM">
        <front>
          <title>On the 5G Edge Network Challenges of Providing Tactile and Multi-modality Communication Services</title>

          <author initials="T" surname="Jiang">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author initials="X" surname="Shi">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author initials="J" surname="Gao">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <author initials="P" surname="Liu">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2021"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="International Conference on Edge Computing - EDGE'2021" value=""/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="TS.23.501">
        <front>
          <title>3GPP TS 23.501 (V17.0.0): System Architecture for 5G System; Stage 2</title>

          <author initials="3GPP">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2021"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="" value="3GPP TS 23.501"/>
</reference>


<reference anchor="TS.24.501">
        <front>
          <title>3GPP TS 24.501: Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for 5G System (5GS)</title>
          <author initials="3GPP">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="September" year="2022"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="" value="3GPP TS 24.501"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="transportUDPoption">
        <front>
          <title>Transport Options for UDP</title>

          <author initials="J" surname="Touch">
            <organization/>
          </author>
       
          <date month="June" year="2023"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="" value="draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-22"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="EncryptedMetaDataToNetworkNode">
        <front>
          <title>An Approach for Encrypted Transport Protocol Path Explicit Signals</title>

          <author initials="T." surname="Reddy">
            <organization/>
          </author>
       
          <date month="July" year="2023"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="" value="draft-reddy-tsvwg-explcit-signal-01"/>
</reference>

</references>	 <!-- END of 'normative reference' -->

<references title="Informative References">
	<reference anchor="GSMAnewSSTforXRM">
	        <front>
	          <title>LS reply on a new SST value for Extended Reality and Media Services</title>

	          <author initials="" surname="GSMA">
	            <organization/>
	          </author>

	          <date month="February" year="2023"/>
	        </front>

	        <seriesInfo name="" value="https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_157_Berlin_2023-05/Docs/S2-2306269.zip"/>
	</reference>

	<reference anchor="\3GPPnewSSTforXRM">
	        <front>
	          <title>Introduction of a new standard SST for Extended Reality and Media Services</title>

	          <author initials="" surname="3GPP">
	            <organization/>
	          </author>

	          <date month="May" year="2023"/>
	        </front>

	        <seriesInfo name="" value="https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_157_Berlin_2023-05/Docs/S2-2308186.zip"/>
	</reference>

</references>	

</back>
</rfc>

