[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
CLUE                                                           R. Hansen
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                       February 25, 2013
Expires: August 29, 2013

                   SDP and CLUE message interactions


   This document attempts to help resolve some of the complexities of
   interaction between SDP and CLUE messages in call flows by providing
   some strategies and some suggested syntax.

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 August 29, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Initial Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  The CLUE framework: dividing the information between SDP
       and CLUE messaging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  CLUE information principally in CLUE channel  . . . . . . . 4
     4.2.  Media encoding/decoding information in SDP, media
           content information in CLUE messaging . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Interdependence of SDP and CLUE negotiation . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Changes From Draft -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

1.  Introduction

   One issue that has repeatedly come up in the development of CLUE is
   the interconnected nature of many of the issues - making decisions in
   any one area requires that decisions are made in other areas.  One
   particularly problematic area has been that of producing call flows:
   many of the decisions that need to be made revolve around how offer/
   answer exchanges and CLUE messages will interact, but without a good
   understanding of what will be in SDP and what will be in CLUE these
   decisions have been difficult to make.

   In the hope of resolving some of these issues and allowing us to make
   more progress on the subject of call flows and CLUE signalling
   generally this draft addresses two issues that are hopefully not
   dependent on decisions in other areas, both aspects of the
   relationship between CLUE signalling and SDP.  Hopefully this draft
   will either provoke discussion, or document decisions that people
   feel are obvious but aren't currently reflected in writing.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.

3.  Initial Assumptions

   This section enumerates a few assumptions based on previous
   discussion which are, at this stage, hopefully uncontroversial.

   CLUE information such as capture descriptions are unsuitable for SDP,
   and as such there will be an alternate method for sending CLUE
   messages end to end.  In a call scenario where both sides wish to
   send and receive this CLUE negotiation takes the form of two
   independent, uni-directional exchanges; on each exchange one device
   provides its send capabilities while the other side determines what
   it wishes to receive.

   This CLUE negotiation will never enable or require a call to exceed
   boundaries negotiated in SDP.  This most obviously applies to
   bandwidth, both for the total call and for negotiated sessions, but
   also means that codec-specific limitations such as the maximum number
   of H.264 macroblocks a second a receiver can process MUST be

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

4.  The CLUE framework: dividing the information between SDP and CLUE

   The CLUE Framework [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] defines the information
   that will be needed to successfully negotiate a CLUE call, but does
   not define the mechanism by which this information is conveyed.  This
   section provides two options for dividing this information between
   SDP and CLUE signalling, without proposing explicit signalling for
   either channel (merely what information needs to be conveyed in

4.1.  CLUE information principally in CLUE channel

   One approach that has been a major part of CLUE discussions has been
   to make no significant additions to SDP, and continue to use it only
   for the negotiation of RTP sessions.  The sessions are then
   potentially subdivided into multiple streams using CLUE signalling.
   In this model standard SDP signalling provides the envelope within
   which CLUE negotiates the number and content of multiple streams.

   This method has a number of advantages - there is no need for
   additional SDP syntax, making interoperability with existing devices
   simple and concentrating new signalling in a single location (the
   CLUE negotiation).  There is also clear separation of
   responsibilities between SDP and CLUE: as normal SDP negotiates the
   specifics of the RTP sessions: address and ports, supported codecs,
   receive maxima and so on, while CLUE messaging then specifies how
   many streams are to be multiplexed on a port, details for
   demultiplexing, content of those streams, encoding limits and so on.
   The only necessary addition to the SDP would be a label [RFC4574]
   attribute per media line to allow CLUE messaging to identify them.

   Unfortunately, there are some downsides to this approach.  The
   primary one is that all multiplexing of streams is entirely dependant
   on the CLUE channel - as such this is not a method applicable to
   other applications.  Since other groups within the IETF have an
   interest in such multiplexing for reasons other than enabling
   telepresence scenarios they would have to invent other methods for
   negotiating similar multiplexing - both inefficient, and likely
   problematic when CLUE and some other solution involving
   multistreaming are both used in the call scenario.

4.2.  Media encoding/decoding information in SDP, media content
      information in CLUE messaging

   An alternative approach is to divide the information in the CLUE
   Framework [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] into the information specific to
   encoding and decoding RTP streams, and the content of those streams.

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

   On the advertising side this split is fairly natural: most of the
   information in the framework relates to the number, content, physical
   dimensions and simultaneity of the media captures available,
   information related to the contents of the media streams rather than
   the streams themselves.  In contrast, the encoder and encoder group
   information gives the limits on the media streams the sender can
   provide, with parameters such as bandwidth, max h.264 macroblocks per
   second and other parameters relevant to SDP.  These are defined as
   sender limitations rather than receiver ones and so are not directly
   analogous to existing SDP parameters, but are better suited to SDP
   than CLUE.

   When it comes to receiver selection the separation between parameters
   that logically should be in CLUE and should be in SDP is no longer so
   clean-cut, as the receiver must specify capture encodings, choosing
   both which captures they wish to receive and the media limitations on
   such streams.  The latter limitations are obviously suited to SDP,
   but information about captures is more relevant to the CLUE channel.
   The CLUE-specific information, however, is limited to simply
   selecting a capture for the stream.

   The ability to describe the sender's encoder limitations for
   multiplexed streams along with the receiver's selection of those
   streams and the media limitations, SSRCs and other demultiplexing
   information are all requirements that are not specific to CLUE;
   having them in SDP means that a consistent mechanism can be used by
   CLUE as well as by other call scenarios wishing to support additional
   media streams in this fashion.  Capture information, in contrast, is
   CLUE-specific and as such is sensible to keep in the CLUE channel.
   The CLUE channel will also reference the SDP, linking captures to
   encoding capabilities and identifying which capture is desired for
   each stream.  This split of information means that any change in
   capture information on the part of a sender does not necessitate an
   offer/answer exchange of SDP if there is no corresponding change to
   the encoding capabilities of that sender - only a new CLUE
   advertisement is required.

   This approach leads to a number of dependencies between the SDP and
   CLUE messages - the sender must define which captures and capture
   scenes are usable with which streams/encodings, while the receiver
   must define what capture they wish to receive with a particular
   encoding.  These could take the form of references in SDP to CLUE,
   references in CLUE to SDP or references in each to the other.
   However, this draft proposes that all such references MUST be from
   CLUE messages to SDP, not the other way around.  By ensuring all
   depenencies are unidirectional it reduces the complexity of
   integrating the two signalling methods.  There are multiple reasons
   for having references be CLUE->SDP and not the other way around: one

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

   is that logically CLUE is providing metadata about the contents of
   streams that are negotiated in SDP, so it makes sense for CLUE to be
   dependent on SDP and not visa-versa.  Another is that middle boxes
   wishing to monitor or alter SDP can then do so without necessarily
   needing to involve themselves in the CLUE channel as SDP remains

5.  Interdependence of SDP and CLUE negotiation

   With separate negotiation of SDP and CLUE there is the question of
   how to deal with dependencies between these two channels.  The number
   of dependancies depends on how the information defined in the CLUE
   Framework [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] is split between SDP and CLUE, as
   discussed in the previous section, but even in the case where all new
   information is in CLUE there will still be some dependencies as it
   will be necessary to determine which m-lines the CLUE signalling is
   referring to.  However, because we have two signalling methods
   changes that require alterations in both CLUE and SDP are no longer
   atomic: one message will be processed before the other.  There has
   been debate within the working group about how this will be dealt
   with, as such a decision has significant effect upon call flows.

   This draft proposes that CLUE messages and SDP messages should be
   independent: parameters in CLUE messages MAY exceed values negotiated
   in SDP, or may make reference to SDP contents not present in the most
   recent offer/answer exchange.  Without this provision, SDP and CLUE
   messages become part of a single negotiation, and a change on either
   by either side may necessitate an exchange of the other message type.
   For instance, removing stream information from SDP might first
   necessitate sending a new CLUE message removing the references to
   this stream.  The state machine required to ensure validity of
   negotiation will be complicated, and there will be a number of
   invalid states which must be avoided.  This is further complicated by
   the fact that, even if both ends of a call obey the constraints to
   ensure validity, a middle box may choose to rewrite an SDP such that
   an invalid state is reached.

   Making the two message types independent significantly reduces the
   complexity of the state machines required.  And with the message
   flows independent there is no way for an invalid state to occur when
   the two negotiations contain contradictory information.  A cost of
   this is that endpoints will now need to deal with the fact that CLUE
   messages may contain parameters exceeding those negotiated in SDP, or
   referencing SDP content that does not exist.  However, this is
   analogous to an issue endpoints already deal with in SDP.  For
   instance, the sum of bandwidth parameters for various m-lines can
   exceed the overall session bandwidth.  Not only is this not invalid,

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

   but it can be desirable, as it allows the sender to prioritise
   streams.  What can be sent for any device is simply the intersection
   of what is permitted by the most recent SDP offer/answer, and the
   outcome of the CLUE negotiation; implementations should ignore
   references to entities in the other negotiation that do no exist.

   This does not mean that there will be no interaction between SDP and
   CLUE messaging - a device wishing to add a new stream may well need
   to update both their SDP and their CLUE negotiations.  However, there
   is no fixed order in which this must be done and no requirement for
   them to be updated in a particular order or fashion; it is left to
   the implementation to renegotiate the channels as it sees fit.  If
   updates to both negotiations are required for a new stream to be
   added, then the new stream will not be available until both
   renegotiations are complete - the completion of the first
   renegotiation will have no effect.

6.  Security Considerations

   This draft only addresses how best to split information between SDP
   and CLUE signalling and the interdependencies between these two
   methods of signalling, it does not define the signalling or
   information itself.  As such this draft should require no additional
   security considerations.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

              Duckworth, M., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger, "Framework
              for Telepresence Multi-Streams",
              draft-ietf-clue-framework-09 (work in progress),
              February 2013.

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

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4574]  Levin, O. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Label Attribute", RFC 4574, August 2006.

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      SDP and CLUE message interaction       February 2013

Appendix A.  Changes From Draft -00

   o  Reordered main sections, as in the discussion about
      interdependence of SDP and CLUE is is useful to reference the
      split between CLUE and SDP.
   o  Added more detail to the argument of why dependencies should be
      CLUE->SDP and not the other way around or in both directions.
   o  Fixed spelling issues and did some minor rewording.

Author's Address

   Robert Hansen
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Email: rohanse2@cisco.com

Hansen                   Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 8]