Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (avtext WG)
Last updated 2016-10-31
Replaces draft-berger-avtext-framemarking
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
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: May 4, 2017                                       Cisco Systems
                                                        October 31, 2016

                   Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
                   draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-03

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 encryption 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 May 4, 2017.

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

Berger, et al.             Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Frame Marking                 October 2016

   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.  VP9 LID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         3.2.1.3.  VP8 LID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         3.2.1.4.  H264-SVC LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.5.  H264 (AVC) LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Signaling information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Considerations on use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Many widely deployed RTP [RFC3550] topologies 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 that excludes the switch.  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 participant sees and hears just
   the active speaker.  In that case, the goal of the switch is to
   receive the voice and video streams from each participant, determine
   the active speaker based on energy in the voice packets, possibly
   using the client-to-mixer audio level RTP header extension, and
   select the corresponding video stream for transmission to
Show full document text