Network Working Group                                             J. Ott
Internet-Draft                                              M. Engelbart
Intended status: Informational               Technical University Munich
Expires: 28 April 2022                                   25 October 2021

                             RTP over QUIC


   This document specifies a minimal mapping for encapsulating RTP and
   RTCP packets within QUIC.  It also discusses how to leverage state
   from the QUIC implementation in the endpoints to reduce the exchange
   of RTCP packets.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list (), which
   is archived at .

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at

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 https://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 28 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology and Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Local Interfaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  QUIC Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Congestion Controller Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Codec Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Protocol Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  SDP Signalling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Used RTP/RTCP packet types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Enhancements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Impact of Connection Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] is generally used to
   carry real-time media for conversational media sessions, such as
   video conferences, across the Internet.  Since RTP requires real-time
   delivery and is tolerant to packet losses, the default underlying
   transport protocol has been UDP, recently with DTLS on top to secure
   the media exchange and occasionally TCP (and possibly TLS) as
   fallback.  With the advent of QUIC and, most notably, its unreliable
   DATAGRAM extension, another secure transport protocol becomes
   available.  QUIC and its DATAGRAMs combine desirable properties for
   real-time traffic (e.g., no unnecessary retransmissions, avoiding
   head-of-line blocking) with a secure end-to-end transport that is
   also expected to work well through NATs and firewalls.

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   Moreover, with QUIC's multiplexing capabilities, reliable and
   unreliable transport connections as, e.g., needed for WebRTC, can be
   established with only a single port used at either end of the
   connection.  This document defines a mapping of how to carry RTP over
   QUIC.  The focus is on RTP and RTCP packet mapping and on reducing
   the amount of RTCP traffic by leveraging state information readily
   available within a QUIC endpoint.  This document also briefly touches
   upon how to signal media over QUIC using the Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) [RFC8866].

   The scope of this document is limited to unicast RTP/RTCP.

   Note that this draft is similar in spirit to but differs in numerous
   ways from [QRT].

2.  Terminology and Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The following terms are used:

   Congestion Controller:  QUIC specifies a congestion controller in
      Section 7 of [RFC9002], but the specific requirements for
      interactive real-time media, lead to the development of dedicated
      congestion control algorithms.  The term congestion controller in
      this document refers to these algorithms which are dedicated to
      real-time applications and may be used next to or instead of the
      congestion controller specified by [RFC9002].

   Datagram:  Datagrams exist in UDP as well as in QUICs unreliable
      datagram extension.  If not explicitly noted differently, the term
      datagram in this document refers to a QUIC Datagram as defined in

   Endpoint:  A QUIC server or client that participates in an RTP over
      QUIC session.

   Frame:  A QUIC frame as defined in [RFC9000].

   Media Encoder:  An entity that is used by an application to produce a
      stream of encoded media, which can be packetized in RTP packets to
      be transmitted over QUIC.

   Receiver:  An endpoint that receives media in RTP packets and may

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

      send or receive RTCP packets.

   Sender:  An endpoint sends media in RTP packets and may send or
      receive RTCP packets.

   Packet diagrams in this document use the format defined in
   Section 1.3 of [RFC9000] to illustrate the order and size of fields.

3.  Protocol Overview

   This document introduces a mapping of the Real-time Transport
   Protocol (RTP) to the QUIC transport protocol.  QUIC supports two
   transport methods: reliable streams and unreliable datagrams
   [RFC9000], [QUIC-DATAGRAM].  RTP over QUIC uses unreliable QUIC
   datagrams to transport real-time data.

   [RFC3550] specifies that RTP sessions need to be transmitted on
   different transport addresses to allow multiplexing between them.
   RTP over QUIC uses a different approach, in order to leverage the
   advantages of QUIC connections without managing a separate QUIC
   connection per RTP session.  QUIC does not provide demultiplexing
   between different flows on datagrams, but suggests that an
   application implements a demultiplexing mechanism if it is required.
   An example of such a mechanism are flow identifiers prepended to each
   datagram frame as described in [H3-DATAGRAM].  RTP over QUIC uses a
   flow identifier as a replacement for network address and port number,
   to multiplex many RTP sessions over the same QUIC connection.

   A congestion controller can be plugged in, to adapt the media bitrate
   to the available bandwidth.  This document does not mandate any
   congestion control algorithm, some examples include Network-Assisted
   Dynamic Adaptation (NADA) [RFC8698] and Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation
   for Multimedia (SCReAM) [RFC8298].  These congestion control
   algorithms require some feedback about the performance of the network
   in order to calculate target bitrates.  Traditionally this feedback
   is generated at the receiver and sent back to the sender via RTCP.
   Since QUIC also collects some metrics about the networks performance,
   these metrics can be used to generate the required feedback at the
   sender-side and provide it to the congestion controller, to avoid the
   additional overhead of the RTCP stream.

      *Editor's note:* Should the congestion controller work
      independently from the congestion controller used in QUIC, because
      the QUIC connection can simultaneously be used for other data
      streams, that need to be congestion controlled, too?

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

4.  Local Interfaces

   RTP over QUIC requires different components like QUIC
   implementations, congestion controllers and media encoders to work
   together.  The interfaces of these components have to fulfill certain
   requirements which are described in this section.

4.1.  QUIC Interface

   If the used QUIC implementation is not directly incorporated into the
   RTP over QUIC mapping implementation, it has to fulfill the following
   interface requirements.  The QUIC implementation MUST support QUICs
   unreliable datagram extension and it MUST provide a way to signal
   acknowledgments or losses of QUIC datagrams to the application.
   Since datagram frames cannot be fragmented, the QUIC implementation
   MUST provide a way to query the maximum datagram size, so that an
   application can create RTP packets that always fit into a QUIC
   datagram frame.

   Additionally, a QUIC implementation MUST expose the recorded RTT
   statistics as described in Section 5 of [RFC9002] to the application.
   These statistics include the latest generated RTT sample
   (latest_rtt), the minimum observed RTT over a period of time
   (min_rtt), exponentially-weighted moving average (smoothed_rtt) and
   the mean deviation (rtt_var).  These values are necessary to perform
   congestion control as explained in Section 4.2.

   Section 7.1 of [RFC9002] also specifies how QUIC treats Explicit
   Congestion Notifications (ECN) if it is supported by the network
   path.  If ECN counts can be exported from a QUIC implementation,
   these may be used to improve congestion control, too.

4.2.  Congestion Controller Interface

   There are different congestion control algorithms proposed by RMCAT
   to implement application layer congestion control for real-time
   communications.  To estimate the currently available bandwidth, these
   algorithms keep track of the sent packets and typically require a
   list of successfully delivered packets together with the timestamps
   at which they were received by a receiver.  The bandwidth estimation
   can then be used to decide, whether the media encoder can be
   configured to produce output at a higher or lower rate.

   A congestion controller used for RTP over QUIC should be able to
   compute an adequate bandwidth estimation using the following inputs:

   *  t_current: A current timestamp

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   *  pkt_status_list: A list of RTP packets that were acknowledged by
      the receiver

   *  pkt_delay_list: For each acknowledged RTP packet, a delay between
      the send- and receive-timestamps of the packet

   *  The RTT estimations calculated by QUIC as described in Section 5
      of [RFC9002]:

      -  latest_rtt: The latest RTT sample generated by QUIC.

      -  min_rtt: The miminum RTT observed by QUIC over a period of time

      -  smoothed_rtt: An exponentially-weighted moving average of the
         observed RTT values

      -  rtt_var: The mean deviation in the observed RTT values

   *  ecn: Optionally ECN marks may be used, if supported by the network
      and exposed by the QUIC implementation.

   A congestion controller MUST expose a target_bitrate to which the
   encoder should be configured to fully utilize the available

   It is assumed that the congestion controller provides a pacing
   mechanism to determine when a packet can be send and to avoid bursts.
   All of the currently proposed congestion control algorithms for real-
   time communications provide such a pacing mechanism.  The use of
   congestion controllers which don't provide a pacing mechanism is out
   of scope of this document.

4.3.  Codec Interface

   An application is expected to adapt the media bitrate to the observed
   available bandwidth by setting the media encoder to the
   target_bitrate that is computed by the congestion controller.  Thus,
   the media encoder needs to offer a way to update its bitrate
   accordingly.  An RTP over QUIC implementation can either expose the
   most recent target_bitrate produced by the congestion controller to
   the application, or accept a callback from the application, which
   updates the encoder bitrate whenever the congestion controller
   updates the target_bitrate.

5.  Packet Format

   All RTP and RTCP packets MUST be sent in QUIC datagram frames with
   the following format:

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   Datagram Payload {
     Flow Identifier (i),
     RTP/RTCP Packet (..)

                     Figure 1: Datagram Payload Format

   For multiplexing RTP sessions on the same QUIC connection, each RTP/
   RTCP packet is prefixed with a flow identifier.  This flow identifier
   serves as a replacement for using different transport addresses per
   session.  A flow identifier is a QUIC variable length integer which
   must be unique per stream.

   RTP and RTCP packets of a single RTP session MAY be sent using the
   same flow identifier (following the procedures defined in [RFC5761],
   or they MAY be sent using different flow identifiers.  The respective
   mode of operation MUST be indicated using the appropriate signaling,
   e.g., when using SDP as discussed in Section 7.

   RTP and RTCP packets of different RTP sessions MUST be sent using
   different flow identifiers.

   Differentiating RTP/RTCP datagrams of different RTP sessions from
   non-RTP/RTCP datagrams is the responsibility of the application by
   means of appropriate use of flow identifiers and the corresponding

   Senders SHOULD consider the header overhead associated with QUIC
   datagrams and ensure that the RTP/RTCP packets including their
   payloads, QUIC, and IP headers will fit into path MTU.

6.  Protocol Operation

   This section describes how senders and receivers can exchange RTP and
   RTCP packets using QUIC.  While the receiver side is very simple, the
   sender side has to keep track of sent packets and corresponding
   acknowledgments to implement congestion control.

   RTP/RTCP packets that are submitted to an RTP over QUIC
   implementation are buffered in a queue.  The congestion controller
   defines the rate at which the next packet is dequeued and sent over
   the QUIC connection.  Before a packet is sent, it is prefixed with
   the flow identifier described in Section 5 and encapsulated in a QUIC

   The implementation has to keep track of sent RTP packets in order to
   build the feedback for a congestion controller described in
   Section 4.2.  Each sent RTP packet is mapped to the datagram in which

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   it was sent over QUIC.  When the QUIC implementation signals an
   acknowledgment for a specific datagram, the packet that was sent in
   this datagram is marked as received.  Together with the received
   mark, an estimation of the delay at which the packet was received by
   the peer can be stored.  Assuming the RTT is divided equally between
   the link from the sender to the receiver and the link back to the
   sender, this estimation can be calculated by adding the latest_rtt
   divided by two to the send time of the datagram in which the RTP
   packet was sent.  This mapping can later be used to create the
   pkt_status_list and the pkt_delay_list as described in Section 4.2.

   In a regular interval, the pkt_status_list and the pkt_delay_list
   MUST be passed to the congestion controller together with the current
   timestamp t_current and the RTT statistics min_rtt, smoothed_rtt and
   rtt_var.  If available, the feedback MAY also contain the ECN marks.

   The feedback report can be passed to the congestion controller at a
   frequency specified by the used algorithm.

   The congestion controller regularly outputs the target_bitrate, which
   is forwarded to the encoder using the interface described in
   Section 4.3.

   +------------+ Media  +-------------+
   |  Encoder   |------->| Application |
   |            |        |             |
   +------------+        +-------------+
         ^                      |
         |                      |
         | Set             RTP/ |
         | Target          RTCP |
         | bitrate              |
         |                      v        Target
         |               +-------------+ Bitrate   +-------------+
         +---------------|  RTP over   |<----------| Congestion  |
                         |    QUIC     | Feedback  | Controller  |
                              |   ^
                      Flow ID |   | Datagram
                     prefixed |   | ACK/Lost-
                     RTP/RTCP |   | notification
                      packets |   | +
                              |   | RTT
                              v   |
                         |    QUIC     |
                         |             |

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

                     Figure 2: RTP over QUIC send flow

   On receiving a datagram, an RTP over QUIC implementation strips off
   and parses the flow identifier to identify the stream to which the
   received RTP or RTCP packet belongs.  The remaining content of the
   datagram is then passed to the RTP session which was assigned the
   given flow identifier.

7.  SDP Signalling

   QUIC is a connection-based protocol that supports connectionless
   transmissions of DATAGRAM frames within an established connection.
   As noted above, demultiplexing DATAGRAMS intended for different
   purposes is up to the application using QUIC.

   There are several necessary steps to carry out jointly between the
   communicating peers to enable RTP over QUIC:

   1.  The protocol identifier for the m= lines MUST be "QUIC/RTP",
       combined as per [RFC8866] with the respective audiovisual
       profile: for example, "QUIC/RTP/AVP".

   2.  The peers need to decide whether to establish a new QUIC
       connection or whether to re-use an existing one.  In case of
       establishing a new connection, the initiator and the responder
       (client and server) need to be determined.  Signaling for this
       step MUST follow [RFC8122] on SDP attributes for connection-
       oriented media for the a=setup, a=connection, and a=fingerprint
       attributes.  They MUST use the appropriate protocol
       identification as per 1.

   3.  The peers must provide a means for identifying RTP sessions
       carried in QUIC DATAGRAMS.  To enable using a common transport
       connection for one, two, or more media sessions in the first
       place, the BUNDLE grouping framework MUST be used [RFC8843].  All
       media sections belonging to a bundle group, except the first one,
       MUST set the port in the m= line to zero and MUST include the
       a=bundle-only attribute.

       For disambiguating different RTP session, a reference needs to be
       provided for each m= line to allow associating this specific
       media session with a flow identifier.  This could be achieved
       following different approaches:

       *  Simply reusing the a=extmap attribute [RFC8285] and relying on
          RTP header extensions for demultiplexing different media
          packets carried in QUIC DATAGRAM frames.

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

       *  Defining a variant or different flavor of the a=extmap
          attribute [RFC8285] that binds media sessions to flow
          identifiers used in QUIC DATAGRAMS.

          *Editor's note:* It is likely preferable to use multiplexing
          using QUIC DATAGRAM flow identifiers because this multiplexing
          mechanisms will also work across RTP and non-RTP media

       In either case, the corresponding identifiers MUST be treated
       independently for each direction of transmission, so that an
       endpoint MAY choose its own identifies and only uses SDP to
       inform its peer which RTP sessions use which identifiers.

       To this end, SDP MUST be used to indicate the respective flow
       identifiers for RTP and RTCP of the different RTP sessions (for
       which we borrow inspiration from [RFC3605]).

   4.  The peers MUST agree, for each RTP session, whether or not to
       apply RTP/RTCP multiplexing.  If multiplexing RTP and RTCP shall
       take place on the same flow identifier, this MUST be indicated
       using the attribute a=rtcp-mux.

   A sample session setup offer (liberally borrowed and extended from
   [RFC8843] and [RFC8122] could look as follows:

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP6 2001:db8::3
   c=IN IP6 2001:db8::3
   t=0 0
   a=group:BUNDLE abc xyz

   m=audio 10000 QUIC/RTP/AVP 0 8 97
   a=fingerprint:SHA-256 \
    12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB:4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF: \
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
   a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:<tbd>

   m=video 0 QUIC/RTP/AVP 31 32
   a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
   a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
   a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:<tbd>

                            Figure 3: SDP Offer

   Signaling details to be worked out.

8.  Used RTP/RTCP packet types

   Any RTP packet can be sent over QUIC and no RTCP packets are used by
   default.  Since QUIC already includes some features which are usually
   implemented by certain RTCP messages, RTP over QUIC implementations
   should not need to implement the following RTCP messages:

   *  PT=205, FMT=1, Name=Generic NACK: Provides Negative
      Acknowledgments [RFC4585].  Acknowledgment and loss notifications
      are already provided by the QUIC connection.

   *  PT=205, FMT=8, Name=RTCP-ECN-FB: Provides RTCP ECN Feedback
      [RFC6679].  If supported, ECN may directly be exposed by the used
      QUIC implementation.

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   *  PT=205, FMT=11, Name=CCFB: RTP Congestion Control Feedback which
      contains receive marks, timestamps and ECN notifications for each
      received packet [RFC8888].  This can be inferred from QUIC as
      described in Section 6.

   *  PT=210, FMT=all, Name=Token, [RFC6284] specifies a way to
      dynamically assign ports for RTP receivers.  Since QUIC
      connections manage ports on their own, this is not required for
      RTP over QUIC.

9.  Enhancements

   The RTT statistics collected by QUIC may not be very precise because
   it can be influenced by delayed ACKs.  An alternative to the RTT is
   to explicitly measure a one way delay.  [QUIC-TS] suggests an
   extension for QUIC to implement one way delay measurements using a
   timestamp carried in a special QUIC frame.  The new frame carries the
   time at which a packet was sent.  This timestamp can be used by the
   receiver to estimate a one way delay as the difference between the
   time at which a packet was received and the timestamp in the received
   packet.  The one way delay can then be used as a replacement for the
   receive time estimation derived from the RTT as described in
   Section 6 to create the pkt_delay_list.

      *Editor's note:* Even with one-way delay measurements it is still
      not possible to identify exact timestamps for individual packets,
      since the timestamp may be sent with an ACK that acks more than
      one earlier packet.

10.  Discussion

10.1.  Impact of Connection Migration

11.  Security Considerations


12.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

              Schinazi, D., Ed., "Using QUIC Datagrams with HTTP/3",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schinazi-quic-h3-
              datagram-05, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-

              Pauly, T., Ed., Kinnear, E., Ed., and D. Schinazi, Ed.,
              "An Unreliable Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-datagram-02,

   [QUIC-TS]  Huitema, C., Ed., "Quic Timestamps For Measuring One-Way
              Delays", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-huitema-
              quic-ts-05, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3550>.

   [RFC3605]  Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
              in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,

   [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010,

   [RFC6284]  Begen, A., Wing, D., and T. Van Caenegem, "Port Mapping
              between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions", RFC 6284,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6284, June 2011,

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   [RFC6679]  Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
              and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, DOI 10.17487/RFC6679, August
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6679>.

   [RFC8122]  Lennox, J. and C. Holmberg, "Connection-Oriented Media
              Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8122, March 2017,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8285]  Singer, D., Desineni, H., and R. Even, Ed., "A General
              Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions", RFC 8285,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8285, October 2017,

   [RFC8298]  Johansson, I. and Z. Sarker, "Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation
              for Multimedia", RFC 8298, DOI 10.17487/RFC8298, December
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8298>.

   [RFC8698]  Zhu, X., Pan, R., Ramalho, M., and S. Mena, "Network-
              Assisted Dynamic Adaptation (NADA): A Unified Congestion
              Control Scheme for Real-Time Media", RFC 8698,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8698, February 2020,

   [RFC8843]  Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8843,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8843, January 2021,

   [RFC8866]  Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP:
              Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8866, January 2021,

   [RFC8888]  Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP
              Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control",
              RFC 8888, DOI 10.17487/RFC8888, January 2021,

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                RTP over QUIC                 October 2021

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,

   [RFC9002]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
              and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [QRT]      Hurst, S., Ed., "QRT: QUIC RTP Tunnelling", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling-
              01, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hurst-


   TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

   Jörg Ott
   Technical University Munich

   Email: ott@in.tum.de

   Mathis Engelbart
   Technical University Munich

   Email: mathis.engelbart@gmail.com

Ott & Engelbart           Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 15]