Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-05

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (avtcore WG)
Last updated 2017-08-10 (latest revision 2017-07-03)
Replaces draft-berger-avtext-framemarking
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestones: Oct 2016 - Submit RTP Header Ex..., Jul 2017 - Submit RTP Header Ex... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          E. Berger
Internet-Draft                                             S. Nandakumar
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Zanaty
Expires: January 4, 2018                                   Cisco Systems
                                                            July 3, 2017

                   Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
                   draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-05

Abstract

   This document describes a Frame Marking RTP header extension used to
   convey information about video frames that is critical for error
   recovery and packet forwarding in RTP middleboxes or network nodes.
   It is most useful when media is encrypted, and essential when the
   middlebox or node has no access to the media decryption keys.  It is
   also useful for codec-agnostic processing of encrypted or unencrypted
   media, while it also supports extensions for codec-specific
   information.

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 January 4, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Berger, et al.           Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Frame Marking                    July 2017

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Words for Normative Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Frame Marking RTP Header Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Extension for Non-Scalable Streams  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Extension for Scalable Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Layer ID Mappings for Scalable Streams  . . . . . . .   6
         3.2.1.1.  H265 LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         3.2.1.2.  H264-SVC LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.3.  H264 (AVC) LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.4.  VP8 LID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.5.  Future Codec LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Signaling Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Usage Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.4.1.  Relation to Layer Refresh Request (LRR) . . . . . . .   8
       3.4.2.  Complex or Irregular Scalability Structures . . . . .   8
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Many widely deployed RTP [RFC3550] topologies [RFC7667] used in
   modern voice and video conferencing systems include a centralized
   component that acts as an RTP switch.  It receives voice and video
   streams from each participant, which may be encrypted using SRTP
   [RFC3711], or extensions that provide participants with private media
   via end-to-end encryption where the switch has no access to media
   decryption keys.  The goal is to provide a set of streams back to the
   participants which enable them to render the right media content.  In
   a simple video configuration, for example, the goal will be that each
Show full document text