[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Engineering Task Force       Audio-Video Transport WG
INTERNET-DRAFT                                      L. Gannoun
draft-ietf-avt-X11-new-00.txt                          EURECOM
                                                March 11, 1998
                                   Expires: September 11, 1998

                      RTP Payload Format
                             for
                   X Protocol Media Streams








1.  Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

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."

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please
check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the
Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West
Coast).

Distribution of this document is unlimited.
















INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


2.  Abstract

This document specifies the payload format for encapsulating
X-protocol streams in the Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP).
This specification is intended for X-protocol media streams
that are not already handled by other RTP payload
specifications. This specification gives details of the
payload format of X-protocol data requests that are carried
over RTP/UDP/IP in a shared window session. Multiple X
protocol requests can be carried over an RTP packet as well as
one X protocol request can be carried over multiple RTP
packets. a shared window header is defined within the RTP
payload to carry X protocol media requests. An RTCP join and
RTP reply packets are specified to allow a latecomer to join
an on-going session. This specification is intended for
streaming stored X Window protocol data as well as live X
protocol data requests.

3.  Introduction and Motivation

In a conference, information must be distributed to all the
conference participants. Early conferencing systems multiplex
all of the data streams, so that, they use a unicast
connection between each pair of participants which means that
each information must cross some networks more than once [7].
However, the Internet architecture provides a more efficient
approach of multicasting the information to all participants.
Multicast transmissions save the network bandwidth compared to
unicast transmissions.

Application sharing systems have become a popular vehicle for
supporting distributed, synchronous collaboration. However,
existing window shared systems, use unicast channels to
multiplex X protocol data streams to all participants of the
conference session [8],[9]. This is not optimal, since the
source that multiplexes the X protocol data streams will be
heavily loaded when the number of participants becomes very
large. Moreover with multicast transmissions the network
bandwidth is reduced comparing to unicast transmissions.

Furthermore most multiparty conferencing systems over the
Internet re being implemented over IP multicast which is
provided by the MBone [7]. Due, to the limitations of the
traditional application sharing systems, new approach that is
based on multicast delivery of X protocol data streams is





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


required. Thus, a new shared window system is designed for
high requirements of scalability to very large numbers of
participants, TCP-like congestion control and high efficiency.
This system is intended to be used in a distance learning
environment for large groups.

This specification proposes a sheme to carry X-protocol data
requests over RTP. In addition, it specifies some RTCP packets
that are required for the Latejoin-session protocol. The sheme
specified here handles the X-protocol requests which are
loss-intolerent media. This specification is intended for
streaming stored X-window sessions as well as live X-window
shared session.

4.  X-window System Overview

The X Window System is both hardware and operating system
independent, written application software will compile and run
on any system that supports X. The X-window system is a server
that accepts requests to manipulate the display on the
computer's console while reading input from the console's
keyboard and mouse devices [3]. The client is a program
displaying on the screen and taking input from the keyboard
and the mouse.

A client sends drawing requests and information requests to
the server. The server, sends back to the client user input,
reply to information requests, and error reports [3]. The
client may run on the same machine as the server or on a
different machine over the network. Communication between the
server and clients is managed by the X-protocol messages.

There are four classes of X-protocol messages that can be
transferred over the network which are the requests, replys,
events and errors [3]. For the purpose of this document we
will be concerned with multicasting X protocol data requests
using RTP. An X-protocol data request can carry a wide variety
of information, such as a specification for drawing a line or
changing the color value in a cell in a colormap or an inquiry
for the current size of a window. An X-protocol request can be
any multiple of 4 bytes in length.

X-Protocol data requests that are multicasted are those that
do not need replies from the X window server. However, some of
the X protocol requests that need replies (Roud-trip requests)





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


such as, AllocColor, AllocNamedCollor, etc...are not filtered
and are multicasted to all receivers. These requests are
normally handled by the shared application. However, in the
receivers side they are handled by the shared window system
application level that adapts them to remote X servers.

X protocol data requests are loss-intolerent media data. Then,
these requests are carried over RTP/UDP using a reliable
multicast protocol such as the Scalable Reliable Multicast
protocol (SRM) [5].

5.  Payload Format Specification

The encapsulation scheme described here specifies that each
X-request media stream associated with a single shared X-
application is sent over the same RTP session.

The X-request media stream is carried as payload data within
the RTP protocol. There is a fixed shared window (X-request
media) header immediatly following the RTP header. The X-
protocol media stream is packetized and placed in the RTP
packet following the shared window header.

The RTP packet is formatted sa follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                         RTP Header                            .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                        SWS Header...                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  X-Protocol Data Requests...                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.1.  RTP Header

The format and general usage of RTP header fileds are
described in [1]. The following fileds of the RTP header will
be used as specified bellow:

-    The payload type should specify the static payload type
     of X-protocol media streams (if assigned) or one of the





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


     dynamic payload types. (The need of a static payload type
     can be discussed in the IETF AVT working group).

-    The RTP timestamp is based on the time capture of the
     first X-protocol data request if we have more than one
     X-protocol request. The timestamp encodes the capturing
     instant of the first X-protocol media request contained
     in the RTP packet. Multiple requests can be encoded in
     the same RTP packet or a single X-protocol request may
     require multiple RTP packets. Packetization rules are
     defined in a subsequent section. If an X-protocol request
     occupies more than one packet the timestamp will be the
     same for all the packets. An RTP packet containing
     multiple X-protocol requests do not require different
     timestamps. In fact these requests are captured at
     different instants but the diffrences of their timestamps
     are not significantly and hence are grouped to form the
     same group. The timestamp of this group is the timestamp
     of the first captured X-request of this group.

-    The marker bit of the RTP header is set to one in the
     last packet of a segmented  X-request and otherwise, must
     be zero. This marker bit significance can be also foundd
     in [2]. If one or more requests are fully contained in an
     RTP packet the marker bit must be set to one. Thus, it is
     possible to detect that a complete request has been
     arrived and can be decoded and presented (translated and
     after lanched to the X-server).

5.2.  X-protocol Data header (SWS Header)

The Shared Window header is defined as follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  VER  |J|     AID             |           RC                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                     ...X-request...                           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                     ...X-request...                           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       ........                                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+






Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


The fields in the Shared Window header has the following
meanings:

VER:  4 bits
A version field must be set to zero by transmitters
implementing this specification.

J:  1bit
This field identifies this RTP packet as a Join/Reply packet.
This helps to distinguish these Join packets from normal RTP
packets that can be carried by the same channel-group. This
field should be set to zero if the packets are not
Join/packets and otherwise to 1. Later in a subsequent section
we will explicite how RTP join packets can be sent on a
separate channel-group from the normal RTP packets group that
carries X-protocol data requests.

AID:  12 bits
This filed corresponds to the Application IDentifier that is
being shared. In fact this identifier is relative to an X-
client which is shared. Since, an X-application can be
composed of several X-clients, then we should associate the
X-protocol data requests to the corresponding shared X-client.
Furthermore, different applications can be independently
shared and hence the corresponding X-protocol data streams can
be multiplexed in the same RTP/UDP/IP connection.

RC:  16 bits
The Request Count (RC) field represents the number of requests
that are encapsulated in the RTP packet. If the RTP packet
carries only a portion of a segmented request, this field
should contain the length of the request segment that
immediatly follows this header. The X-protocol request data
starts at the RTP data offset plus the 4 bytes of the fixed
Shared Window header.

In the case of a grouped requests, it's imperative to have a
length field  for each request in order to extract correctly
each request. However, in the X-request protocol header there
is a length field that represents the length of the X-request
in 4-bytes quantities of the hole request. Then we can reuse
this field as a request length field.  The X-protocol request
header is defined sa follows in the X11-protocol data requests
specifications [3].






Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    reqtype    |   data        |             length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  ...Request Data...                           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The fields meanings are as follows:

reqtype:  8 bits
This field represents the request type. there is 128 different
request in the X-protocol request specifications.

data:  8 bits
This field has a meaning relative to the request type.
length:  16 bits
This field contains the number in 4-bytes quantities of the
hole request including the 4 bytes of the request header.

Thus we can reuse the original X-request header to extract
properly the length of each request encapsulated in the RTP
packet. This helps saving the bandwidth with 2 bytes for each
request transmitted in the RTP Packet.

6.  Join Request/Reply Packet Formats

This section explains how we can use RTP/RTCP packets to allow
a latecommer to join in a consistent way a teleconference
based on a Shared Window System. Since a Shared Window System
multicasts X-protocol Data Streams which are medias that do
not support losses and require a reliable multicast transport
protocol. A such protocol that can handle X-protocol data
streams is the Scalable Reliable Multicast protocol (SRM). An
other feature of the Shared Window System is that a latecommer
should request a special context of the shared application.
This context is defined as follows:

A consistant context at an instant t of the space time of the
shared window application is:

-    The state of allocated ressources in the X-window server
     relative to the shared application at this instant t.







Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


-    The state of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) of the
     shared application at this instant t.

A context can be provided by either the source or any member
of the teleconferencing group (the nearest member).

In order to request a consistant context of an application
being shared in a teleconferencing environement we define an
RTCP packet that request a special context of a shared
application. This RTCP packet can be a variant packet from
RTCP-SRM [4] packets that are defined in order to implement
SRM with the RTP/RTCP.

The format of this packet is as follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | V |  CM |Count|     PT      |          length                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                         SSRC                                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       SDES (CNAME item)                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       timestamp                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

In this format we distinguish an RTCP header that is defined
as:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | V | CM  |Count|     PT      |          length                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

V:  2 bit
The version of the RTP equals to 2 (RTP version).

CM:  3 bits
A novel type of a command that defines a join request command.
This field is defined in [4] as 2 bits field and hence can not
handle the novel Join/Request command. This field is extended
to a 3 bis field to incorporate the Join/Request command and
should be set to 4.





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


Count:  3 bits
Here is not used.  PT:  8 bits
This Payload Type field contains 205 to identify this RTCP
packet as an SRM packet as defined in [5].

length:  16 bits
Defines the length of the hole RTCP packet in 32-bits mines
one including the header. Following the RTCP header in the
Join/request packet we find the following fields:

SSRC:  32 bits
It identifies the Source of the sender and

SDES (CNAME item):  32 bits
The canonical end-point identifier is a source description
(SDES) item defined in the RTP protocol[1]. This name is a
unique identifier that identifies the sender (the latecommer
user) of the Join-request message. By this address the
latecommer will be contacted by potential providers of the
shared window context. After an electing protocol the sender
of the context transmits the shared window context on a
special multicast channel to all the latejoiners.

This allows providing the shared application context to a
multiple and large number of latecommers. This follows a
special Join-Session protocol that is described in [6].

Timestamp:  32 bits
This timestamp serves as a to compute later an RTT between the
the latecommer and potential providers of the shared window
context.

The Reply is only received by the transmitter of the Join-
Request message on a unicast channel. Its format is as
follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       SSRC_sender                             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                     Timestamp Reply                           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       SDES (CNAME item)                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98          [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


This packet may not be an RTP packet, since it's intended to
be carried by a unicast channel as a response from the
potential providers of the shared window context. The fields
are:

SSRC_sender:  32 bits
Identifies the sender of the Join-reply as a potential sender
of the shared context.

Timestamp Reply:  2 bytes
It's composed of two fields, the Last Timestamp Query (LTQ)
and Duration from LTQ (DLTQ). These fileds are computed as
defined in [5]. These fields help computing the Round Trip
Time (RTTs) between the potential providers of the shared
window context and the the requester of this context.

SDES (CNAME item):  32 bits
The canonical end-point identifier serves to compute an IP
adress of the provider by which the latecommer can confirm to
this provider his election. On receiving the confirm message,
it then transmit the shared context on the join-multicast
channel.

The RTP data packets for providing the shared window context
are defined as follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                      RTP Header                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  VER  |J|     AID             |           RC                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    SSRC_requester                             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    ...X-request...                            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                      .........                                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The
RTP header contains the SSRC identifier of the site that
transmits the Join-packets.

SSRC_requester:  32 bits
Its an identifier of the member participant that requests the
shared window context.





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


The data format of a Join-packet is similar to that of an RTP
payload data format described in section 2.3.

Following immediatly the Shared Window Header which is of 4
bytes length, we find a sequence of requests. These requests
are generated from the sender to create the current shared
window context on the remote latecommer X-server.

7.  Media Data Packetization

The following definitions are required to make paketization
decisions:

-    MDR: Maximum X protocol Data Requests that can be
     accommodated in a single RTP packet.

-    DRS: All Data Request Size of a group of requests

-    SDR: Specific Data Request Size

Sheme I: (DRS <= MDR) This sheme defines a packetization
method of multiple X protocol requests that can be carried
with a single RTP packet. The RTP header M-bit is set to one
on all RTP packets.

Sheme II: SDR > MDR This sheme is specific to a segmentation
of a request that will be carried over multiple RTP packets.
The RTP header M-bit is set to one in the last packet and
otherwise is set to zero.

8.  Summary

Two problems will be treated in the near future and which are
dealing with user interactions with the shared application and
appropriate floor control policy that defines which users can
interact with the shared application. This policy should be
applied in a context of large groups. Besides, two other
features will be supported and related informations will be
carried over RTP packets. The first feature is Application
information such as, the name of the shared application and
the second one is related to the multicast messages for all
the participants.

-    User interactions:  A user interaction at a special
     receiver generate a flow of X protocol events from the





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


     user X server. Since these events are only handled by the
     shared application, then they are transmitted on a
     unicast channel to the shared window system at the shared
     application site.  At this level these events are
     translated to the convenient ones and after lanched to
     the shared application. In response, the shared
     application generates X protocol requests that are
     multicasted to all participants.

-    Floor control policy:  A control policy is required to
     allow a participant, among all attached participants, to
     input events to a shared application. We can use here a
     policy based on a floor token that is requested, passed,
     and released from a specific user. A conference chairman
     can explicitly grant a floor or revoke a floor from a
     specific user as proposed in [9].

-    Application Information: Information of the current
     shared applications can be obtained from the shared
     window system. Information can be requested by the
     following requests; ListApplications, GetApplicationName,
     GetApplicationOwner. These information can be directly
     requested from the control agent of the shared
     application site.

9.  Open Issues

The following open issues need to be resolved:

-    How to compress X protocol requests ? There are many
     techniques for compressing X Window System Protocol that
     contribute to bandwidth elimination which enables X
     applications to run over very slow connections such as
     wireless modems or on very small platforms such as hand-
     held notebooks. Compression sheme such as X remote [10]
     or Fast Higher bandwidth X, FHBX [11] which are a
     compressed transformation of the X protocol and can be
     used to compress X protocol data requests that are sent
     over a multicast channel-group. This reduces the
     bandwidth requirements of an X application when sharing
     it over IP multicast.


-    What is the convenient Forward Error Correction sheme ?
     The strict delay requirements of real-time multimedia and





Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


     especially the shared window system in a wide area
     network environement, may usually eliminate the
     possibility of retransmissions. It's for this reason that
     forward error correction (FEC) has been proposed to
     enhance transmission reliability in the Internet [12]. In
     particular should we use a traditional forward error
     correction based on parity operations or should we adopt
     a sheme that sends redundant application data (the most
     recent X request groups sent) which more reflects the
     shared window application context and has a less
     bandwidth requirement.







































Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


Addresses of Authors

Lassaad Gannoun
Institut EURECOM
2229, route des Cretes BP. 193 06904 Sophia Antipolis
FRANCE
electronic mail: gannoun@eurecom.fr


References

[1]  H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson,
     "RTP:  A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
     RFC 1889, January 1996.


[2]  A. Jones, A. Periyannan, and D. Singer, "RTP Payload
     Format for QuicTime Media Streams", INTERNET-DRAFT, July
     1997.


[3]  A. Nye,"X Protocol Reference Manual", O'Reilly &
     Associates, 1992.


[4]  P. Parnes,"RTP extension for Scalable Relible Multicast",
     INTERNET-DRAFT. available at:
     http://www.cdt.luth.se/~peppar.


[5]  Floyd/Jacobson/McCanne/Liu/Zhang,"A reliable Multicast
     Framework for Light-weight sessions and Application Level
     Framing". In Proceedings of the ACM/Sigcomm'95.


[6]  N. Ben Ali,"Systeme de partage d'applications base sur le
     multicast", Master's Thesis, Institut Eurecom, June 1997.


[7]  Handley/Crowcroft/Bormann/Ott,"The Internet Multimedia
     Conferencing Architecture", INTERNET-DRAFT, July 1998.
     available at: http://north.east.isi.edu/~mjh/papers.html








Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


[8]  H. M. Abdel-Wahab, and  M. A. Feit,"XTV: A framework for
     sharing X-window clients in remote synchronous
     collaboration", In Proceedings of the IEEE  Conference on
     Communications Software: Communications for Distributed
     Applications and Systems", 1991.


[9]  T. Gutekunst, D. Bauer, G. Caronni, Hasan and B.
     Plattner, "A distributed and policy-free general-purpose
     shared window system", IEEE/ACM Transactions on
     Networking, February, 1995.


[10] D. Cornelius," XRemote: a serial line protocol for X",
     sixth Annual X Technical Conference, Boston, MA, 1992.


[11] J.M. Danskin, Q. Zhang and D.M. Abrahams-Gessel,"Fast
     higher bandwith X", Proceedings of the Multimedia
     Networking, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 192-199.
     Aizu, Japan.1995


[12] J. -C. Bolot and A. Garcia,"The case for FEC-based error
     control for packet audio in the Internet, Multimedia
     Systems, 1997.
























Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT                              11 Mar, 1998


Table of Contents


1 Status of this Memo ...................................    1
2 Abstract ..............................................    2
3 Introduction and Motivation ...........................    2
4 X-window System Overview ..............................    3
5 Payload Format Specification ..........................    4
5.1 RTP Header ..........................................    4
5.2 X-protocol Data header (SWS Header) .................    5
6 Join Request/Reply Packet Formats .....................    7
7 Media Data Packetization ..............................   11
8 Summary ...............................................   11
9 Open Issues ...........................................   12
 Addresses of Authors ...................................   14
 References .............................................   14


































Gannoun                Expires 11/9/98         [Page 16]