INTERNET-DRAFT                                          2 March 2001



                                                       Colin Perkins
                                                             USC/ISI



        RTP Audio/Video Profile Interoperability Statement

               draft-ietf-avt-profile-interop-05.txt



                        Status of this memo



This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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.

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Distribution of this document is unlimited.

Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the
IETF Audio/Video Transport working group's mailing list at rem-conf@es.net.


                              Abstract


     It is required to demonstrate interoperability of implementations
     in order to move the RTP audio/video profile to draft standard.
     This memo outlines those features to be tested, as the first
     stage of an interoperability statement.



1   Introduction



The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements
on a standards track protocol specification.   In particular, when
advancing a protocol from proposed standard to draft standard it



Perkins                                                       Page 1



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001



is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and interoperable
implementations, from different code bases, of all options and features of
that protocol.   Further, in cases where one or more options or features
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations,
the specification may advance to the draft standard level only if those
options or features are removed.   The RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conferences with Minimal Control was originally specified in RFC1890 as a
proposed standard [2].   The revision of this specification for draft
standard status is now well underway, so it has become necessary to conduct
such an interoperability demonstration.

This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP Audio/Video
profile which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration.

This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard of any
kind.



2   Features and options required to demonstrate interoperability

In order to demonstrate interoperability it is required to produce a
statement of interoperability for each feature noted below. Such a statement
should note the pair of implementations tested, including version numbers,
and a pass/fail statement for each feature. It is not expected that every
implementation will implement every feature, but each feature needs to be
demonstrated by some pair of applications.

The RTP specification [3] enumerates a number of items that can be
specified or modified by a profile.   Those modified from the defaults
by the audio/video profile are as follows, and interoperable behaviour
must be demonstrated:

  1. Exchange of RTCP packets with the default RTCP reporting interval.

       o  PASS: rat, IP/TV

  2. Exchange of RTCP packets with a modified RTCP reporting interval
     as selected by a different fraction of the session bandwidth
     (the means by which this interval is signalled are outside of
     the scope of this memo, but one such mechanism should be demonstrated).

       o  PASS: IP/TV, rtplib

  3. Implementations must send RTCP packets containing an SDES CNAME
     in every reporting interval.

       o  PASS: rat, IP/TV

Perkins                                                       Page 2



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001


  4. Other SDES items must be sent every third interval, with NAME
     every 7 of 8 times within that slot and any other SDES items
     cycically taking up the 8th slot.

       o  PASS: rat, IP/TV

  5. Interoperable selection of `pass phrase' for encryption and exchange
     of media using DES encryption.   This must include mapping of
     the pass phrase to the canonical form.

       o  FAIL: NeVoT does this, need to test...

  6. Interoperable transport of RTP via unicast UDP

       o  PASS: rat, vat, vic, IP/TV

  7. Interoperable transport of RTP via multicast UDP

       o  PASS: rat, vat, vic, IP/TV

  8. Interoperable transport of RTP via TCP using the encapsulation
     defined in section 7 of [2].

       o  FAIL: Real have it?

The primary purpose of the audio/video profile is to define the mapping
from payload format to payload type number.   Accordingly, the majority
of the work needed to demonstrate interoperability consists of testing
that media data is exchanged in an interoperable manner using the
full range of codecs enumerated in the profile.

The following codecs are assigned static payload types.   It should
be verified that interoperable implementations exist for each static
payload type:


  1. The 8kHz PCMU codec (payload type 0)

       o  PASS: rat, vat, fphone, IP/TV, Nuera.

  2. The 8kHz 1016 codec (payload type 1)

       o  FAIL

  3. The 8kHz G726-32 codec (payload type 2)

       o  PASS: rat vs Ericsson (tested by Magnus Westerlund)

  4. The 8kHz GSM codec (payload type 3)

       o  PASS: rat, vat, fphone, IP/TV

Perkins                                                       Page 3



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001


  5. The 8kHz G723 codec (payload type 4)

       o  FAIL: Nuera implement, not tested

  6. The 8kHz DVI4 codec (payload type 5)

       o  PASS: rat, vat, fphone, IP/TV

  7. The 16kHz DVI4 codec (payload type 6)

       o  PASS: QuickTime vs rat

  8. The 8kHz LPC codec (payload type 7)

       o  PASS: rat, vat, fphone

  9. The 8kHz PCMA codec (payload type 8)

       o  PASS: Nuera with Lucent

 10. The 8kHz G722 codec (payload type 9)

       o  PASS: Accord have tested with Polycom, VCON and PictureTel.
          RealAudio have an implementation, also.

 11. The 44.1kHz stereo L16 codec (payload type 10)

       o  PASS: RealNetworks with QuickTime

 12. The 44.1kHz mono L16 codec (payload type 11)

       o  PASS: RealNetworks with QuickTime

 13. The 8kHz QCELP codec (payload type 12)

       o  PASS: RealNetworks with QuickTime

 14. The 8kHz CN codec (payload type 13)

       o  RESERVED: no need to test for now?

 15. The MPA codec (payload type 14)

       o  PASS: IP/TV, PixStream, Minerva, LiveCaster

 16. The 8kHz G728 codec (payload type 15)

       o  PASS: Accord have tested with Polycom, VCON and PictureTel.
          Nuera have an implementation, also.

 17. The 11.025kHz DVI4 codec (payload type 16)

       o  PASS: QuickTime vs rat



Perkins                                                       Page 4



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001



 18. The 22.050kHz DVI4 codec (payload type 17)

       o  PASS: QuickTime vs rat

 19. The 8kHz G729 codec (payload type 18)

       o  PASS: Nuera vs Cisco, Nortel, VegaStream (SIP Bakeoff 5)


The following codecs use dynamic payload types.   It should be verified
that some non-RTP means can be used to assign a dynamic payload type
to be used by implementations, and that those implementations can
then interwork.

  1. The GSM-HR codec

       o  FAIL

  2. The GSM-EFR codec

       o  FAIL: Nuera implement

       o  FAIL: Ericsson (Magnus Westerlund) and Cisco (Ling Niu) tried
          to test, but failed due to call setup signalling issues.

  3. The L8 codec

       o  PASS: RealNetworks with QuickTime

  4. The RED codec

       o  PASS: rat, fphone

  5. The VDVI codec

       o  PASS: rat, fphone

Similarly, interoperable implementation of the following video codecs
with static payload type numbers must be demonstrated:


  1. The CellB codec (payload type 25)

       o  PASS: JMF 2.1, VIC 2.8-1.1.3 from UCL, ShowMeTV, NV

  2. The JPEG codec (payload type 26)

       o  PASS: ShowMeTV, Quicktime, vic.

  3. The nv codec (payload type 28)

       o  PASS: nv and vic (confirmed by Ron Frederick)

  4. The H261 codec (payload type 31)

       o  PASS: IP/TV, vic, VCON, Polycom

Perkins                                                       Page 5



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001




  5. The MPV codec (payload type 32)

       o  PASS: IP/TV, PixStream, Minerva

  6. The MP2T codec (payload type 33)

       o  FAIL: Sun have it, and are willing to test if anyone else
          has an implementation.   Jonathan Sergent <sergent@eng.sun.com>

       o  FAIL: Viewgraphics have an implementation?   (Bill Nowicki)

  7. The H263 codec (payload type 34)

       o  FAIL



The following codecs use dynamic payload types.   It should be verified
that some non-RTP means can be used to assign a dynamic payload type
to be used by implementations, and that those implementations can
then interwork.



  1. The BT656 codec

       o  FAIL: no known implementations.

  2. The H263-1998 codec

       o  PASS: RealNetworks with QuickTime

  3. The MP1S codec

       o  FAIL: quicktime has it, anyone else?

  4. The MP2P codec

       o  FAIL: quicktime has it, anyone else?

  5. The BMPEG codec

       o  FAIL



Implementations must also demonstrate interoperable use of the marker
bit.   That is, the M bit is set on the first packet of each talkspurt
for audio and on the last packet of each frame for video.



Perkins                                                       Page 6



INTERNET-DRAFT                                         2 March 2001



3   Author's Address


Colin Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
4350 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 620
Arlington, VA 22203
USA
Email:   csp@isi.edu



4   References



[1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'',
RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996.

[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conferences with Minimal Control'', RFC1890, Internet Engineering
Task Force, January 1996.

[3] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP:
A Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet
Engineering Task Force, January 1996.



Perkins                                                       Page 7