AVT B. VerSteeg
Internet-Draft A. Begen
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: October 28, 2010 T. VanCaenegem
Alcatel-Lucent
Z. Vax
Microsoft Corporation
April 26, 2010
Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions
draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-09
Abstract
When an RTP receiver joins a multicast session, it may need to
acquire and parse certain Reference Information before it can process
any data sent in the multicast session. Depending on the join time,
length of the Reference Information repetition (or appearance)
interval, size of the Reference Information as well as the
application and transport properties, the time lag before an RTP
receiver can usefully consume the multicast data, which we refer to
as the Acquisition Delay, varies and may be large. This is an
undesirable phenomenon for receivers that frequently switch among
different multicast sessions, such as video broadcasts.
In this document, we describe a method using the existing RTP and
RTCP protocol machinery that reduces the acquisition delay. In this
method, an auxiliary unicast RTP session carrying the Reference
Information to the receiver precedes/accompanies the multicast
stream. This unicast RTP flow may be transmitted at a faster than
natural bitrate to further accelerate the acquisition. The
motivating use case for this capability is multicast applications
that carry real-time compressed audio and video. However, the
proposed method can also be used in other types of multicast
applications where the acquisition delay is long enough to be a
problem.
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/.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
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 October 28, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Acquisition of RTP Streams vs. RTP Sessions . . . . . . . 7
1.2. Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Elements of Delay in Multicast Applications . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Protocol Design Considerations and Their Effect on
Resource Management for Rapid Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. Synchronization of Primary Multicast Streams . . . . . . 24
6.4. Burst Shaping and Congestion Control in RAMS . . . . . . 24
6.5. Failure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Encoding of the Signaling Protocol in RTCP . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1.1. Vendor-Neutral Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.1.2. Private Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.2. RAMS Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.3. RAMS Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.4. RAMS Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. SDP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.3. Example and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. NAT Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
11.1. Registration of SDP Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
11.2. Registration of SDP Attribute Values . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.3. Registration of FMT Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.4. SFMT Values for RAMS Messages Registry . . . . . . . . . 44
11.5. RAMS TLV Space Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.6. RAMS Response Code Space Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
14. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
14.1. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-09 . . . . . . . 48
14.2. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-08 . . . . . . . 48
14.3. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-07 . . . . . . . 49
14.4. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-06 . . . . . . . 49
14.5. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-05 . . . . . . . 49
14.6. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-04 . . . . . . . 49
14.7. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-03 . . . . . . . 49
14.8. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-02 . . . . . . . 49
14.9. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-01 . . . . . . . 50
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
14.10. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-00 . . . . . . . 50
14.11. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-03 . . . 50
14.12. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-02 . . . 50
14.13. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-01 . . . 51
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
1. Introduction
Most multicast flows carry a stream of inter-related data. Certain
information must first be acquired by the receivers to start
processing any data sent in the multicast session. This document
refers to this information as Reference Information. The Reference
Information is conventionally sent periodically in the multicast
session (although its content may change over time) and usually
consists of items such as a description of the schema for the rest of
the data, references to which data to process, encryption information
including keys, as well as any other information required to process
the data in the multicast stream [IC2009].
Real-time multicast applications require the receivers to buffer
data. The receiver may have to buffer data to smooth out the network
jitter, to allow loss-repair methods such as Forward Error Correction
and retransmission to recover the missing packets, and to satisfy the
data processing requirements of the application layer.
When a receiver joins a multicast session, it has no control over
what point in the flow is currently being transmitted. Sometimes the
receiver may join the session right before the Reference Information
is sent in the session. In this case, the required waiting time is
usually minimal. Other times, the receiver may join the session
right after the Reference Information has been transmitted. In this
case, the receiver has to wait for the Reference Information to
appear again in the flow before it can start processing any multicast
data. In some other cases, the Reference Information is not
contiguous in the flow but dispersed over a large period, which
forces the receiver to wait for all of the Reference Information to
arrive before starting to process the rest of the data.
The net effect of waiting for the Reference Information and waiting
for various buffers to fill up is that the receivers may experience
significantly large delays in data processing. In this document, we
refer to the difference between the time an RTP receiver joins the
multicast session and the time the RTP receiver acquires all the
necessary Reference Information as the Acquisition Delay. The
acquisition delay may not be the same for different receivers; it
usually varies depending on the join time, length of the Reference
Information repetition (or appearance) interval, size of the
Reference Information as well as the application and transport
properties.
The varying nature of the acquisition delay adversely affects the
receivers that frequently switch among multicast sessions. In this
specification, we address this problem for RTP-based multicast
applications and describe a method that uses the fundamental tools
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
offered by the existing RTP and RTCP protocols [RFC3550]. In this
method, either the multicast source (or the distribution source in a
source-specific multicast (SSM) session) retains the Reference
Information for a period after its transmission, or an intermediary
network element (that we refer to as Retransmission Server) joins the
multicast session and continuously caches the Reference Information
as it is sent in the session and acts as a feedback target (See
[RFC5760]) for the session. When an RTP receiver wishes to join the
same multicast session, instead of simply issuing a Source Filtering
Group Management Protocol (SFGMP) Join message, it sends a request to
the feedback target for the session and asks for the Reference
Information. The retransmission server starts a new unicast RTP
(retransmission) session and sends the Reference Information to the
RTP receiver over that session. If there is spare bandwidth, the
retransmission server may burst the Reference Information faster than
its natural rate. As soon as the receiver acquires the Reference
Information, it can join the multicast session and start processing
the multicast data. A simplified network diagram showing this method
through an intermediary network element is depicted in Figure 1.
This method potentially reduces the acquisition delay. We refer to
this method as Unicast-based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP
Sessions. A primary use case for this method is to reduce the
channel-change times in IPTV networks where compressed video streams
are multicast in different SSM sessions and viewers randomly join
these sessions.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
-----------------------
+--->| Intermediary |
| | Network Element |
| ...|(Retransmission Server)|
| : -----------------------
| :
| v
----------- ---------- ----------
| Multicast | | |---------->| Joining |
| Source |------->| Router |..........>| RTP |
| | | | | Receiver |
----------- ---------- ----------
|
| ----------
+---------------->| Existing |
| RTP |
| Receiver |
----------
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 1: Rapid acquisition through an intermediary network element
A principle design goal in this solution is to use the existing tools
in the RTP/RTCP protocol family. This improves the versatility of
the existing implementations, and promotes faster deployment and
better interoperability. To this effect, we use the unicast
retransmission support of RTP [RFC4588] and the capabilities of RTCP
to handle the signaling needed to accomplish the acquisition.
1.1. Acquisition of RTP Streams vs. RTP Sessions
In this memo we describe a protocol that handles the rapid
acquisition of a single multicast RTP session (called primary
multicast RTP session) carrying one or more RTP streams (called
primary multicast streams). If desired, multiple instances of this
protocol may be run in parallel to acquire multiple RTP sessions
simultaneously.
When an RTP receiver requests the Reference Information from the
retransmission server, it may opt to rapidly acquire a specific
subset of the available RTP streams in the primary multicast RTP
session. Alternatively, it may request the rapid acquisition of all
of the RTP streams in that RTP session. Regardless of how many RTP
streams are requested by the RTP receiver or how many will be
actually sent by the retransmission server, only one unicast RTP
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
session will be established by the retransmission server. This
unicast RTP session is separate from the associated primary multicast
RTP session. As a result, there are always two different RTP
sessions in a single instance of the rapid acquisition protocol: (i)
the primary multicast RTP session with its associated unicast
feedback and (ii) the unicast RTP session.
If the RTP receiver wants to rapidly acquire multiple RTP sessions
simultaneously, separate unicast RTP sessions will be established for
each of them.
1.2. Outline
In the rest of this specification, we have the following outline: In
Section 4, we describe the delay components in generic multicast
applications. Section 5 presents an overview of the protocol design
considerations for rapid acquisition. We provide the protocol
details of the rapid acquisition method in Section 6 and Section 7.
Section 8 and Section 9 discuss the SDP signaling issues with
examples and NAT-related issues, respectively. Finally, Section 10
discusses the security considerations.
Section 3 provides a list of the definitions frequently used in this
document.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Definitions
This document uses the following acronyms and definitions frequently:
(Primary) SSM (or Multicast) Session: The multicast session to which
RTP receivers can join at a random point in time. A primary SSM
session may carry multiple RTP streams.
Primary Multicast RTP Session: The multicast RTP session an RTP
receiver is interested in acquiring rapidly. From the RTP receiver's
viewpoint, the primary multicast RTP session has one associated
unicast RTCP feedback stream to a Feedback Target, in addition to the
primary multicast RTP stream(s).
Primary Multicast (RTP) Streams: The RTP stream(s) carried in the
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
primary multicast RTP session.
Source Filtering Group Management Protocol (SFGMP): Following the
definition in [RFC4604], SFGMP refers to the Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) version 3 [RFC3376] and the Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) version 2 [RFC3810] in the IPv4 and
IPv6 networks, respectively. However, the rapid acquisition method
introduced in this document does not depend on a specific version of
either of these group management protocols. In the remainder of this
document, SFGMP will refer to any group management protocol that has
Join and Leave functionalities.
Feedback Target (FT): Unicast RTCP feedback target as defined in
[RFC5760]. FT_Ap denotes a specific feedback target running on a
particular address and port.
Retransmission (or Burst) Packet: An RTP packet that is formatted as
defined in Section 4 of [RFC4588]. The payload of a retransmission
or burst packet comprises the retransmission payload header followed
by the payload of the original RTP packet.
Reference Information: The set of certain media content and metadata
information that is sufficient for an RTP receiver to start usefully
consuming a media stream. The meaning, format and size of this
information are specific to the application and are out of scope of
this document.
Preamble Information: A more compact form of the whole or a subset
of the Reference Information transmitted out-of-band.
(Unicast) Burst (or Retransmission) RTP Session: The unicast RTP
session used to send one or more unicast burst RTP streams and their
associated RTCP messages. The terms "burst RTP session" and
"retransmission RTP session" can be used interchangeably.
(Unicast) Burst (Stream): A unicast stream of RTP retransmission
packets that enable an RTP receiver to rapidly acquire the Reference
Information associated with a primary multicast stream. Each burst
stream is identified by its SSRC identifier that is unique in the
primary multicast RTP session. Following the session-multiplexing
guidelines in [RFC4588], each unicast burst stream must use the same
SSRC and CNAME as its primary multicast RTP stream.
Retransmission Server (RS): The RTP/RTCP endpoint that can generate
the retransmission packets and the burst streams. RS may also
generate other non-retransmission packets to aid rapid acquisition.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
4. Elements of Delay in Multicast Applications
In a source-specific (SSM) multicast delivery system, there are three
major elements that contribute to the overall acquisition delay when
an RTP receiver switches from one multicast session to another one.
These are:
o Multicast switching delay
o Reference Information latency
o Buffering delays
Multicast switching delay is the delay that is experienced to leave
the current multicast session (if any) and join the new multicast
session. In typical systems, the multicast join and leave operations
are handled by a group management protocol. For example, the
receivers and routers participating in a multicast session may use
the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) version 3 [RFC3376] or
the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) version 2 [RFC3810].
In either of these protocols, when a receiver wants to join a
multicast session, it sends a message to its upstream router and the
routing infrastructure sets up the multicast forwarding state to
deliver the packets of the multicast session to the new receiver.
Depending on the proximity of the upstream router, the current state
of the multicast tree, the load on the system and the protocol
implementation, the join times vary. Current systems provide join
latencies usually less than 200 milliseconds (ms). If the receiver
had been participating in another multicast session before joining
the new session, it needs to send a Leave message to its upstream
router to leave the session. In common multicast routing protocols,
the leave times are usually smaller than the join times, however, it
is possible that the Leave and Join messages may get lost, in which
case the multicast switching delay inevitably increases.
Reference Information latency is the time it takes the receiver to
acquire the Reference Information. It is highly dependent on the
proximity of the actual time the receiver joined the session to the
next time the Reference Information will be sent to the receivers in
the session, whether the Reference Information is sent contiguously
or not, and the size of the Reference Information. For some
multicast flows, there is a little or no interdependency in the data,
in which case the Reference Information latency will be nil or
negligible. For other multicast flows, there is a high degree of
interdependency. One example of interest is the multicast flows that
carry compressed audio/video. For these flows, the Reference
Information latency may become quite large and be a major contributor
to the overall delay.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
The buffering component of the overall acquisition delay is driven by
the way the application layer processes the payload. In many
multicast applications, an unreliable transport protocol such as UDP
[RFC0768] is often used to transmit the data packets, and the
reliability, if needed, is usually addressed through other means such
as Forward Error Correction (e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme]) and retransmission.
These loss-repair methods require buffering at the receiver side to
function properly. In many applications, it is also often necessary
to de-jitter the incoming data packets before feeding them to the
application. The de-jittering process also increases the buffering
delays. Besides these network-related buffering delays, there are
also specific buffering needs that are required by the individual
applications. For example, standard video decoders typically require
an amount, sometimes a significant amount, of coded video data to be
available in the pre-decoding buffers prior to starting to decode the
video bitstream.
5. Protocol Design Considerations and Their Effect on Resource
Management for Rapid Acquisition
Rapid acquisition is an optimization of a system that must continue
to work correctly and properly whether or not the optimization is
effective, or even fails due to lost control and feedback messages,
congestion, or other problems. This is fundamental to the overall
design requirements surrounding the protocol definition and to the
resource management schemes to be employed together with the protocol
(e.g., QoS machinery, server load management, etc). In particular,
the system needs to operate within a number of constraints:
o First, a rapid acquisition operation must fail gracefully. The
user experience must, except perhaps in pathological
circumstances, be not significantly worse for trying and failing
to complete rapid acquisition compared to simply joining the
multicast session.
o Second, providing the rapid acquisition optimizations must not
cause collateral damage to either the multicast session being
joined, or other multicast sessions sharing resources with the
rapid acquisition operation. In particular, the rapid acquisition
operation must avoid interference with the multicast session that
may be simultaneously being received by other hosts. In addition,
it must also avoid interference with other multicast sessions
sharing the same network resources. These properties are
possible, but are usually difficult to achieve.
One challenge is the existence of multiple bandwidth bottlenecks
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
between the receiver and the server(s) in the network providing the
rapid acquisition service. In commercial IPTV deployments, for
example, bottlenecks are often present in the aggregation network
connecting the IPTV servers to the network edge, the access links
(e.g., DSL, DOCSIS) and in the home network of the subscribers. Some
of these links may serve only a single subscriber, limiting
congestion impact to the traffic of only that subscriber, but others
can be shared links carrying multicast sessions of many subscribers.
Also note that the state of these links may be varying over time.
The receiver may have knowledge of a portion of this network, or may
have partial knowledge of the entire network. The methods employed
by the devices to acquire this network state information is out of
scope for this document. The receiver should be able to signal the
server with the bandwidth that it believes it can handle. The server
also needs to be able to rate limit the flow in order to stay within
the performance envelope that it knows about. Both the server and
receiver need to be able to inform the other of changes in the
requested and delivered rates. However, the protocol must be robust
in the presence of packet loss, so this signaling must include the
appropriate default behaviors.
A second challenge is that for some uses (e.g., high-bitrate video)
the unicast burst bitrate is high while the flow duration of the
unicast burst is short. This is because the purpose of the unicast
burst is to allow the RTP receiver to join the multicast quickly and
thereby limit the overall resources consumed by the burst. Such
high-bitrate, short-duration flows are not amenable to conventional
admission control techniques. For example, end-to-end per-flow
signaled admission control techniques such as RSVP have too much
latency and control channel overhead to be a good fit for rapid
acquisition. Similarly, using a TCP (or TCP-like) approach with a
3-way handshake and slow-start to avoid inducing congestion would
defeat the purpose of attempting rapid acquisition in the first place
by introducing many round-trip times (RTT) of delay.
These observations lead to certain unavoidable requirements and goals
for a rapid acquisition protocol. These are:
o The protocol must be designed to allow a deterministic upper bound
on the extra bandwidth used (compared to just joining the
multicast session). A reasonable size bound is e*B, where B is
the nominal bandwidth of the primary multicast streams, and e is
an excess-bandwidth coefficient. The total duration of the
unicast burst must have a reasonable bound; long unicast bursts
devolve to the bandwidth profile of multi-unicast for the whole
system.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
o The scheme should minimize (or better eliminate) the overlap of
the unicast burst and the primary multicast stream. This
minimizes the window during which congestion could be induced on a
bottleneck link compared to just carrying the multicast or unicast
packets alone.
o The scheme must minimize (or better eliminate) any gap between the
unicast burst and the primary multicast stream, which has to be
repaired later, or in the absence of repair, will result in loss
being experienced by the application.
In addition to the above, there are some other protocol design issues
to be considered. First, there is at least one RTT of "slop" in the
control loop. In starting a rapid acquisition burst, this manifests
as the time between the client requesting the unicast burst and the
burst description and/or the first unicast burst packets arriving at
the receiver. For managing and terminating the unicast burst, there
are two possible approaches for the control loop: The receiver can
adapt to the unicast burst as received, converge based on observation
and explicitly terminate the unicast burst with a second control loop
exchange (which takes a minimum of one RTT, just as starting the
unicast burst does). Alternatively, the server generating the
unicast burst can pre-compute the burst parameters based on the
information in the initial request and tell the receiver the burst
duration.
The protocol described in the next section allows either method of
controlling the rapid acquisition unicast burst.
6. Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions
We start this section with an overview of the rapid acquisition of
multicast sessions (RAMS) method.
6.1. Overview
[RFC5760] specifies an extension to the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
to use unicast feedback in an SSM session. It defines an
architecture that introduces the concept of Distribution Source,
which - in an SSM context - distributes the RTP data and
redistributes RTCP information to all RTP receivers. This RTCP
information is retrieved from the Feedback Target, to which RTCP
unicast feedback traffic is sent. The feedback target MAY be
implemented in one or more entities different from the Distribution
Source, and different RTP receivers MAY use different feedback
targets.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
This document builds further on these concepts to reduce the
acquisition delay when an RTP receiver joins a multicast session at a
random point in time by introducing the concept of the Burst Source
and new RTCP feedback messages. The Burst Source has a cache where
the most recent packets from the primary multicast RTP session are
continuously stored. When an RTP receiver wants to receive a primary
multicast stream, it may first request a unicast burst from the Burst
Source before it joins the SSM session. In this burst, the packets
are formatted as RTP retransmission packets [RFC4588] and carry the
Reference Information. This information allows the RTP receiver to
start usefully consuming the RTP packets sent in the primary
multicast RTP session.
Using an accelerated bitrate (as compared to the nominal bitrate of
the primary multicast stream) for the unicast burst implies that at a
certain point in time, the payload transmitted in the unicast burst
is going to be the same as the payload in the associated multicast
stream, i.e., the unicast burst will catch up with the primary
multicast stream. At this point, the RTP receiver no longer needs to
receive the unicast burst and can join the SSM session. This method
is referred to as the Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Sessions (RAMS).
This document proposes extensions to [RFC4585] for an RTP receiver to
request a unicast burst as well as for additional control messaging
that can be leveraged during the acquisition process.
6.2. Message Flows
Figure 2 shows the main entities involved in rapid acquisition and
the message flows. They are
o Multicast Source
o Feedback Target (FT)
o Burst/Retransmission Source (BRS)
o RTP Receiver (RTP_Rx)
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
----------- --------------
| |------------------------------------>| |
| |.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->| |
| | | |
| Multicast | ---------------- | |
| Source | | Retransmission | | |
| |-------->| Server (RS) | | |
| |.-.-.-.->| | | |
| | | ------------ | | |
----------- | | Feedback | |<.=.=.=.=.| |
| | Target | |<~~~~~~~~~| RTP Receiver |
PRIMARY MULTICAST | ------------ | | (RTP_Rx) |
RTP SESSION with | | | |
UNICAST FEEDBACK | | | |
| | | |
- - - - - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - |- - - - - |- - - - - - - |- -
| | | |
UNICAST BURST | ------------ | | |
(or RETRANSMISSION) | | Burst and | |<~~~~~~~~>| |
RTP SESSION | | Retrans. | |.........>| |
| | Source | |<.=.=.=.=>| |
| ------------ | | |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
.=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 2: Flow diagram for unicast-based rapid acquisition
The feedback target (FT) is the entity as defined in [RFC5760], to
which RTP_Rx sends its RTCP feedback messages indicating packet loss
by means of an RTCP NACK message or indicating RTP_Rx's desire to
rapidly acquire the primary multicast RTP session by means of an RTCP
feedback message defined in this document. While the Burst/
Retransmission Source (BRS) is responsible for responding to these
messages and for further RTCP interaction with RTP_Rx in the case of
a rapid acquisition process, it is assumed in the remainder of the
document that these two logical entities (FT and BRS) are combined in
a single physical entity and they share state. In the remainder of
the text, the term Retransmission Server (RS) may be used whenever
appropriate, to refer to this single physical entity.
FT is involved in the primary multicast RTP session and receives
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
unicast feedback for that session as in [RFC5760]. BRS is involved
in the unicast burst (or retransmission) RTP session and transmits
the unicast burst and retransmission packets formatted as RTP
retransmission packets [RFC4588] in a single separate unicast RTP
session to each RTP_Rx. In the unicast burst RTP session, as in any
other RTP session, the BRS and RTP_Rx regularly send the periodic
sender and receiver reports, respectively.
The unicast burst is started by an RTCP feedback message that is
defined in this document based on the common packet format provided
in [RFC4585]. An RTP retransmission is triggered by an RTCP NACK
message defined in [RFC4585]. Both of these messages are sent to FT
of the primary multicast RTP session, and may start the unicast
burst/retransmission RTP session.
In the RTP/AVPF profile, there are certain rules that apply to
scheduling of both of these messages sent to FT in the primary
multicast RTP session, and these are detailed in Section 3.5 of
[RFC4585]. One of the rules states that in a multi-party session
such as the SSM sessions we are considering in this specification, an
RTP receiver cannot send an RTCP feedback message for a minimum of
one second period after joining the session (i.e., Tmin=1.0 second).
While this rule has the goal of avoiding problems associated with
flash crowds in typical multi-party sessions, it defeats the purpose
of rapid acquisition. Furthermore, when RTP receivers delay their
messages requesting a burst by a deterministic or even a random
amount, it still does not make a difference since such messages are
not related and their timings are independent from each other. Thus,
in this specification we initialize Tmin to zero and allow the RTP
receivers to send a burst request message right at the beginning. It
should, however, be emphasized that for the subsequent messages
during rapid acquisition, the timing rules of [RFC4585] still apply.
Figure 3 depicts an example of messaging flow for rapid acquisition.
The RTCP feedback messages are explained below. The optional
messages are indicated in parentheses and they may or may not be
present during rapid acquisition. Note that in a scenario where
rapid acquisition is performed by a feedback target co-located with
the media sender, the same method (with the identical message flows)
still applies.
-------------------------
| Retransmission Server |
----------- | ------ ------------ | -------- ------------
| Multicast | | | FT | | Burst/Ret. | | | | | RTP |
| Source | | | | | Source | | | Router | | Receiver |
| | | ------ ------------ | | | | (RTP_Rx) |
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
----------- | | | | -------- ------------
| ------------------------- | |
| | | | |
|-- RTP Multicast ---------->--------------->| |
|-. RTCP Multicast -.-.-.-.->-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->| |
| | | | |
| | |********************************|
| | |* PORT MAPPING SETUP *|
| | |********************************|
| | | | |
| |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RTCP RAMS-R ~~~|
| | | | |
| | |********************************|
| | |* UNICAST SESSION ESTABLISHED *|
| | |********************************|
| | | | |
| | |~~~ RTCP RAMS-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
| | | | |
| | |... Unicast RTP Burst .........>|
| | | | |
| |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (RTCP RAMS-R) ~~|
| | | | |
| | |~~ (RTCP RAMS-I) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |<= SFGMP Join ==|
| | | | |
|-- RTP Multicast ------------------------------------------->|
|-. RTCP Multicast -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.>|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RTCP RAMS-T ~~~|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
: : : : :
: : : : :
| | |<.=.= Unicast RTCP Reports .=.=>|
: : : (for the unicast session) :
: : : : :
| | | | |
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
.=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages
=======> SFGMP Messages
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 3: Message flows for unicast-based rapid acquisition
This document defines the expected behaviors of RS and RTP_Rx. It is
instructive to have independently operating implementations on RS and
RTP_Rx that request the burst, describe the burst, start the burst,
join the multicast session and stop the burst. These implementations
send messages to each other, but there must be provisions for the
cases where the control messages get lost, or re-ordered, or are not
being delivered to their destinations.
The following steps describe rapid acquisition in detail:
1. Port Mapping Setup: For the primary multicast RTP session, the
RTP and RTCP destination ports are declaratively specified
(Refer to Section 8 for examples in SDP). However, RTP_Rx needs
to choose its RTP and RTCP receive ports in the unicast burst
RTP session. Since this unicast session is established after
RTP_Rx has sent a RAMS-Request (RAMS-R) message as unicast
feedback in the primary multicast RTP session, RTP_Rx MUST first
setup the port mappings between the unicast and multicast
sessions and send this mapping information to FT along with the
RAMS-R message so that BRS knows how to communicate with RTP_Rx.
The details of this setup procedure are explained in
[I-D.ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp]. Other NAT-related
issues are left to Section 9 to keep the present discussion
focused on the RAMS message flows.
2. Request: RTP_Rx sends a rapid acquisition request (RAMS-R) for
the primary multicast RTP session to the unicast feedback target
of that session. The request contains the SSRC identifier of
RTP_Rx (aka SSRC of packet sender) and may contain the media
sender SSRC identifier(s) of the primary multicast stream(s) of
interest (aka SSRC of media source). The RAMS-R message may
contain parameters that constrain the burst, such as the buffer
and bandwidth limits.
Before joining the SSM session, RTP_Rx learns the addresses for
the multicast source, group and RS by out-of-band means. If
RTP_Rx desires to rapidly acquire only a subset of the primary
multicast streams available in the primary multicast RTP
session, the SSRC identifiers for the desired RTP streams MUST
also be obtained out-of-band. Based on this information, RTP_Rx
populates the desired SSRC(s) in the RAMS-R message.
When FT successfully receives the RAMS-R message, BRS responds
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
to it by accepting or rejecting the request. Right before BRS
sends any RTP or RTCP packet(s) described below, it establishes
the unicast burst RTP session.
3. Response: BRS sends RAMS-Information (RAMS-I) message(s) to
RTP_Rx to convey the status for the burst(s) requested by
RTP_Rx.
If the primary multicast RTP session associated with FT_Ap on
which the RAMS-R message was received contains only a single
primary multicast stream, BRS SHALL always use the SSRC of the
RTP stream associated with FT_Ap in the RAMS-I message(s)
regardless of the media sender SSRC requested in the RAMS-R
message. In such cases the 'ssrc' attribute MAY be omitted from
the media description. If the requested SSRC and the actual
media sender SSRC do not match, BRS SHOULD explicitly populate
the correct media sender SSRC in the initial RAMS-I message (See
Section 7.3).
FT_Ap could also be associated with an RTP session that carries
two or more primary multicast streams. If RTP_Rx will issue a
collective request to receive the whole primary multicast RTP
session, it does not need the 'ssrc' attributes to be described
in the media description. Note that if FT_Ap is associated with
two or more RTP sessions, RTP_Rx's request will be ambiguous.
Thus, each FT_Ap MUST be associated with a single RTP session.
If RTP_Rx is willing to rapidly acquire only a subset of the
primary multicast streams, the RAMS-R message MUST explicitly
list the media sender SSRCs. Upon receiving such a message, BRS
MAY accept the request for only the media sender SSRC(s) that
matched the RTP stream(s) it serves. It MUST reject all other
requests with the appropriate response code.
* Reject Responses: BRS MUST take into account any limitations
that MAY have been specified by RTP_Rx in the RAMS-R message
when making a decision regarding the request. If RTP_Rx has
requested to acquire the whole primary multicast RTP session
but BRS cannot provide a rapid acquisition service for any of
the primary multicast streams, BRS MUST reject the request
via a single RAMS-I message with a collective reject response
code and whose media sender SSRC field is set to one of SSRCs
served by this FT_Ap. Upon receiving this RAMS-I message,
RTP_Rx abandons the rapid acquisition attempt and may
immediately join the multicast session by sending an SFGMP
Join message towards its upstream multicast router.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
In all other cases, BRS MUST send a separate RAMS-I message
with the appropriate response code for each primary multicast
stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx but cannot be served
by BRS.
* Accept Responses: BRS MUST send a separate RAMS-I message
with the appropriate response code for each primary multicast
stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx and will be served
by BRS. Such RAMS-I messages comprise fields that can be
used to describe the individual unicast burst streams.
A particularly important field carries the RTP sequence
number of the first packet transmitted in the respective RTP
stream to allow RTP_Rx to detect any missing initial
packet(s). When BRS accepts the request, this field MUST be
populated in the RAMS-I message and the initial RAMS-I
message SHOULD precede the unicast burst or be sent at the
start of the burst so that RTP_Rx may quickly detect any
missing initial packet(s).
Where possible, it is RECOMMENDED to include all RAMS-I messages
in the same compound RTCP packet. However, it is possible that
the RAMS-I message for a primary multicast stream may get
delayed or lost, and RTP_Rx may start receiving RTP packets
before receiving a RAMS-I message. Thus, RTP_Rx SHOULD NOT make
protocol dependencies on quickly receiving the initial RAMS-I
message. For redundancy purposes, it is RECOMMENDED that BRS
repeats the RAMS-I messages multiple times as long as it follows
the RTCP timer rules defined in [RFC4585].
4. Unicast Burst: For the primary multicast stream(s) for which
the request is accepted, BRS starts sending the unicast burst(s)
that comprises one or more RTP retransmission packets sent in
the unicast burst RTP session. In addition, BRS MAY send
preamble information data to RTP_Rx in addition to the requested
burst, to prime the media decoder(s). The format of this data
is RTP-payload specific and not specified here.
5. Updated Request: RTP_Rx MAY send an updated RAMS-R message (as
unicast feedback in the primary multicast RTP session) with a
different value for one or more fields of an earlier RAMS-R
message. If there is already a burst planned for or being
transmitted to a particular RTP_Rx for a particular stream, the
newly arriving RAMS-R is an updated request; otherwise, it is a
new request. BRS determines the identity of the requesting
RTP_Rx by looking at its canonical name identifier (CNAME item
in the SDES source description). To choose a globally unique
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
CNAME identifier, RTP_Rx SHOULD follow the guidelines given in
[RFC3550] Section 6.5.1 as updated by
[I-D.begen-avt-rtp-cnames].
Upon receiving an updated request, BRS may use the updated
values for sending/shaping the burst, or refine the values and
use the refined values for sending/shaping the burst.
Subsequently, BRS MAY send an updated RAMS-I message in the
unicast burst RTP session to indicate the changes it made.
However, the updated RAMS-I message may get lost. It is also
possible that the updated RAMS-R message could have been lost.
Thus, RTP_Rx SHOULD NOT make protocol dependencies on quickly
(or ever) receiving an updated RAMS-I message, or assume that
BRS will honor the requested changes.
RTP_Rx may be in an environment where the available resources
are time-varying, which may or may not deserve sending a new
updated request. Determining the circumstances where RTP_Rx
should or should not send an updated request and the methods
that RTP_Rx can use to detect and evaluate the time-varying
available resources are not specified in this document.
6. Updated Response: BRS may send more than one RAMS-I messages in
the unicast burst RTP session, e.g., to update the value of one
or more fields in an earlier RAMS-I message. The updated RAMS-I
messages may or may not be a direct response to a RAMS-R
message. BRS may also send updated RAMS-I messages to signal
RTP_Rx in real time to join the SSM session. RTP_Rx depends on
BRS to learn the join time, which can be conveyed by the first
RAMS-I message, or can be sent/revised in a later RAMS-I
message. If BRS is not capable of determining the join time in
the initial RAMS-I message, it MUST send another RAMS-I message
(with the join time information) later.
7. Multicast Join Signaling: The RAMS-I message allows BRS to
signal explicitly when RTP_Rx SHOULD send the SFGMP Join
message. If the request is accepted, this information MUST be
conveyed in at least one RAMS-I message and its value MAY be
updated by subsequent RAMS-I messages. If RTP_Rx has received
multiple RAMS-I messages, it SHOULD use the information from the
most recent RAMS-I message.
There may be missing packets if RTP_Rx joins the multicast
session too early or too late. For example, if RTP_Rx starts
receiving the primary multicast stream while it is still
receiving the unicast burst at a high excess bitrate, this may
result in an increased risk of packet loss. Or, if RTP_Rx joins
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
the multicast session some time after the unicast burst is
finished, there may be a gap between the burst and multicast
data (a number of RTP packets may be missing). In both cases,
RTP_Rx may issue retransmissions requests (via RTCP NACK
messages sent as unicast feedback in the primary multicast RTP
session) [RFC4585] to the FT entity of RS to fill the gap. BRS
may or may not respond to such requests. When it responds and
the response causes significant changes in one or more values
reported earlier to RTP_Rx, an updated RAMS-I should be sent to
RTP_Rx.
8. Multicast Receive: After the join, RTP_Rx starts receiving the
primary multicast stream(s).
9. Terminate: BRS may know when it needs to ultimately stop the
unicast burst based on its parameters. However, RTP_Rx may need
to ask BRS to terminate the burst prematurely or at a specific
sequence number. For this purpose, it uses the RAMS-Termination
(RAMS-T) message sent as RTCP feedback in the unicast burst RTP
session. A separate RAMS-T message is sent for each primary
multicast stream served by BRS unless an RTCP BYE message has
been sent in the unicast burst RTP session as described in Step
10. For the burst requests that were rejected by BRS, there is
no need to send a RAMS-T message.
If RTP_Rx wants to terminate a burst prematurely, it SHALL send
a plain RAMS-T message for the SSRC of the primary multicast
stream it wishes to terminate. This message is sent in the
unicast burst RTP session. Upon receiving this message BRS MUST
terminate the unicast burst. If RTP_Rx requested to acquire the
entire primary multicast RTP session but wants to terminate this
request before it learns the individual media sender SSRC(s) via
RAMS-I message(s) or RTP packets, it cannot use RAMS-T
message(s) and thus MUST send an RTCP BYE message in the unicast
burst RTP session to terminate the request.
Otherwise, the default behavior for RTP_Rx is to send a RAMS-T
message in the unicast burst RTP session immediately after it
joins the multicast session and started receiving multicast
packets. In that case, RTP_Rx SHALL send a RAMS-T message with
the sequence number of the first RTP packet received in the
primary multicast stream, and BRS SHOULD terminate the
respective burst after it sends the unicast burst packet whose
Original Sequence Number (OSN) field in the RTP retransmission
payload header matches this number minus one.
RTP_Rx MUST send at least one RAMS-T message for each primary
multicast stream served by BRS (if an RTCP BYE message has not
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
been issued yet as described in Step 10). The RAMS-T message(s)
MUST be addressed to BRS and sent in the unicast burst RTP
session. Against the possibility of a message loss, it is
RECOMMENDED that RTP_Rx repeats the RAMS-T messages multiple
times as long as it follows the RTCP timer rules defined in
[RFC4585].
The binding between RAMS-T and ongoing bursts is achieved
through RTP_Rx's CNAME identifier, and packet sender and media
sender SSRCs. Choosing a globally unique CNAME makes sure that
the RAMS-T messages are processed correctly.
10. Terminate with RTCP BYE: When RTP_Rx is receiving one or more
burst streams, if RTP_Rx becomes no longer interested in
acquiring any of the primary multicast streams, RTP_Rx SHALL
issue an RTCP BYE message for the unicast burst RTP session and
another RTCP BYE message for the primary multicast RTP session.
These RTCP BYE messages are sent to BRS and FT logical entities,
respectively.
Upon receiving an RTCP BYE message, BRS MUST terminate the rapid
acquisition operation, and cease transmitting any further burst
packets and retransmission packets. If support for [RFC5506]
has been signaled, the RTCP BYE message MAY be sent in a
reduced-size RTCP packet. Otherwise, Section 6.1 of [RFC3550]
mandates the RTCP BYE message always to be sent with a sender or
receiver report in a compound RTCP packet (If no data has been
received, an empty receiver report MUST be still included).
With the information contained in the receiver report, RS can
figure out how many duplicate RTP packets have been delivered to
RTP_Rx (Note that this will be an upper-bound estimate as one or
more packets might have been lost during the burst
transmission). The impact of duplicate packets and measures
that can be taken to minimize the impact of receiving duplicate
packets will be addressed in Section 6.4.
Note that an RTCP BYE message issued for the unicast burst RTP
session terminates that session and ceases transmitting any
further packets in that session. Thus, in this case there is no
need for sending explicit RAMS-T messages, which would only
terminate their respective bursts.
For the purpose of gathering detailed information about RTP_Rx's
rapid acquisition experience, [I-D.ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr]
defines an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block. This report is designed
to be payload-independent, thus, it can be used by any multicast
application that supports rapid acquisition. Support for this XR
report is, however, OPTIONAL.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
6.3. Synchronization of Primary Multicast Streams
When RTP_Rx acquires multiple primary multicast streams, it may need
to synchronize them for the playout. This synchronization is
traditionally achieved by the help of the RTCP sender reports
[RFC3550]. If the playout will start before RTP_Rx has joined the
multicast session, RTP_Rx must receive the information reflecting the
synchronization among the primary multicast streams early enough so
that it can play out the media in a synchronized fashion.
The suggested approach is to use the RTP header extension mechanism
[RFC5285] and convey the synchronization information in a header
extension as defined in [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync]. [RFC4588]
says that retransmission packets SHOULD carry the same header
extension carried in the header of the original RTP packets. Thus,
as long as the multicast source emits a header extension with the
synchronization information frequently enough, there is no additional
task that needs to be carried out by BRS. The synchronization
information will be sent to RTP_Rx along with the burst packets. The
frequent header extensions sent in the primary multicast RTP sessions
also allow rapid synchronization of the RTP streams for the RTP
receivers that do not support RAMS or that directly join the
multicast session without running RAMS. Thus, in RAMS applications,
it is RECOMMENDED that the multicast sources frequently send
synchronization information by using header extensions following the
rules presented in [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync]. It should be noted
that the regular sender reports are still sent in the unicast session
by following the rules of [RFC3550].
6.4. Burst Shaping and Congestion Control in RAMS
This section provides informative guidelines about how BRS can shape
the transmission of the unicast burst and how congestion can be dealt
within the RAMS process. Note that if RTP_Rx detects that the
unicast burst is causing severe congestion, it can prefer to send a
RAMS-T message immediately to stop the unicast burst.
A higher bitrate for the unicast burst naturally conveys the
Reference Information and media content to RTP_Rx faster. This way,
RTP_Rx can start consuming the data sooner, which results in a faster
acquisition. A higher bitrate also represents a better utilization
of BRS resources. As the burst may continue until it catches up with
the primary multicast stream, the higher the bursting bitrate, the
less data BRS needs to transmit. However, a higher bitrate for the
burst also increases the chances for congestion-caused packet loss.
Thus, as discussed in Section 5, there must be an upper bound on the
bandwidth used by the burst.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
When BRS transmits the unicast burst, it should take into account all
available information to prevent any packet loss that may take place
during the bursting as a result of buffer overflow on the path
between RS and RTP_Rx and at RTP_Rx itself. The bursting bitrate may
be determined by taking into account the following information, when
available:
a. Information obtained via the RAMS-R message, such as Max RAMS
Buffer Fill Requirement and/or Max Receive Bitrate (See
Section 7.2).
b. Information obtained via RTCP receiver reports provided by RTP_Rx
in the retransmission session, allowing in-session bitrate
adaptations for the burst. When these receiver reports indicate
packet loss, this may indicate a certain congestion state in the
path from RS to RTP_Rx.
c. Information obtained via RTCP NACKs provided by RTP_Rx in the
primary multicast RTP session, allowing in-session bitrate
adaptations for the burst. Such RTCP NACKs are transmitted by
RTP_Rx in response to packet loss detection in the burst. NACKs
may indicate a certain congestion state on the path from RS to
RTP_Rx.
d. There may be other feedback received from RTP_Rx, e.g., in the
form of ECN-CE markings [I-D.ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp] that may
influence in-session bitrate adaptation.
e. Information obtained via updated RAMS-R messages, allowing in-
session bitrate adaptations, if supported by BRS.
f. Transport protocol-specific information. For example, when DCCP
is used to transport the RTP burst, the ACKs from the DCCP client
can be leveraged by the BRS / DCCP server for burst shaping and
congestion control.
g. Pre-configured settings for each RTP_Rx or a set of RTP_Rxs that
indicate the upper-bound bursting bitrates for which no packet
loss will occur as a result of congestion along the path of RS to
RTP_Rx. For example, in managed IPTV networks, where the
bottleneck bandwidth along the end-to-end path is known and where
the network between RS and this link is provisioned and
dimensioned to carry the burst streams, the bursting bitrate does
not exceed the provisioned value. These settings may also be
dynamically adapted using application-aware knowledge.
BRS chooses the initial burst bitrate as follows:
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
o When using RAMS in environments as described in (g), BRS MUST
transmit the burst packets at an initial bitrate higher than the
nominal bitrate, but within the engineered or reserved bandwidth
limit.
o When BRS cannot determine a reliable bitrate value for the unicast
burst (through a or g), BRS should choose an appropriate initial
bitrate not above the nominal bitrate and increase it gradually
unless a congestion is detected.
In both cases, during the burst transmission BRS MUST continuously
monitor for packet losses as a result of congestion by means of one
or more of the mechanisms described in (b,c,d,e,f). When BRS relies
on RTCP receiver reports, sufficient bandwidth must be provided to
RTP Rx for RTCP transmission in the unicast burst RTP session. To
achieve a reasonable fast adaptation against congestion, it is
recommended that RTP_Rx sends a receiver report at least once every
two RTTs between RS and RTP_Rx. Although the specific heuristics and
algorithms that deduce a congestion state and how subsequently BRS
should act are outside the scope of this specification, the following
two practices are recommended:
o Upon detection of a significant packet loss, which BRS attributes
to congestion, BRS should decrease the burst bitrate. The rate by
which BRS increases and decreases the bitrate for the burst may be
determined by a TCP-friendly bitrate adaptation algorithm for RTP
over UDP , or in the case of (f) by the congestion control
algorithms defined in DCCP [I-D.ietf-dccp-rtp].
o If the congestion is persistent and BRS has to reduce the burst
bitrate to a point where the RTP Rx buffer may underrun or the
burst will consume too many resources, BRS should terminate the
burst and transmit a RAMS-I message to RTP Rx with the appropriate
response code. It is then up to RTP Rx to decide when to join the
multicast session.
In case there is no congestion experienced during the burst, a
specific situation occurs near the end of the unicast burst, when BRS
has almost no more additional data to sustain the relatively higher
burst bitrate, thus, the upper-bound burst bitrate automatically gets
limited by the nominal bitrate of the primary multicast stream.
During this time frame, RTP_Rx eventually needs to join the multicast
session. This means that both the burst packets and the multicast
packets may be simultaneously received by RTP_Rx for a period of
time, enhancing the risk of congestion again.
Since BRS signals RTP_Rx when it should send the SFGMP Join message,
BRS may have a rough estimate of when RTP_Rx will start receiving
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
multicast packets in the SSM session. BRS may keep on sending burst
packets but should reduce the bitrate accordingly at the appropriate
instant by taking the bitrate of the whole SSM session into account.
If BRS ceases transmitting the burst packets before the burst catches
up, any gap resulting from this imperfect switch-over by RTP_Rx can
be later repaired by requesting retransmissions for the missing
packets from RS. The retransmissions may be shaped by BRS to make
sure that they do not cause collateral loss in the primary multicast
RTP session and the unicast burst RTP session.
6.5. Failure Cases
In the following, we examine the implications of losing the RAMS-R,
RAMS-I or RAMS-T messages and other failure cases.
When RTP_Rx sends a RAMS-R message to initiate a rapid acquisition
but the message gets lost and FT does not receive it, RTP_Rx will get
neither a RAMS-I message, nor a unicast burst. In this case, RTP_Rx
MAY resend the request when it is eligible to do so based on the RTCP
timer rules defined in [RFC4585]. Or, after a reasonable amount of
time, RTP_Rx may time out (based on the previous observed response
times) and immediately join the SSM session.
In the case RTP_Rx starts receiving a unicast burst but it does not
receive a corresponding RAMS-I message within a reasonable amount of
time, RTP_Rx may either discard the burst data or decide not to
interrupt the unicast burst, and be prepared to join the SSM session
at an appropriate time it determines or as indicated in a subsequent
RAMS-I message (if available). To minimize the chances of losing the
RAMS-I messages, it is RECOMMENDED that BRS repeats the RAMS-I
messages multiple times based on the RTCP timer rules defined in
[RFC4585].
In the failure cases where the RAMS-R message is lost and RTP_Rx
gives up, or the RAMS-I message is lost, RTP_Rx MUST still terminate
the burst(s) it requested by following the rules described in
Section 6.2.
In the case a RAMS-T message sent by RTP_Rx does not reach its
destination, BRS may continue sending burst packets even though
RTP_Rx no longer needs them. In such cases, it is RECOMMENDED that
RTP_Rx repeats the RAMS-T message multiple times based on the RTCP
timer rules defined in [RFC4585]. In the worst case, BRS MUST be
provisioned to deterministically terminate the burst when it can no
longer send the burst packets faster than it receives the primary
multicast stream packets.
Section 6.3.5 of [RFC3550] explains the rules pertaining to timing
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
out an SSRC. When BRS accepts to serve the requested burst(s) and
establishes the retransmission session, it should check the liveness
of RTP_Rx via the RTCP messages and reports RTP_Rx sends. The
default rules explained in [RFC3550] apply in RAMS as well.
7. Encoding of the Signaling Protocol in RTCP
This section defines the formats of the RTCP transport-layer feedback
messages that are exchanged between the retransmission server (RS)
and RTP receiver (RTP_Rx) during rapid acquisition. These messages
are referred to as the RAMS Messages. They are payload-independent
and MUST be used by all RTP-based multicast applications that support
rapid acquisition regardless of the payload they carry.
Payload-specific feedback messages are not defined in this document.
However, further optional payload-independent and payload-specific
information can be included in the exchange.
The common packet format for the RTCP feedback messages is defined in
Section 6.1 of [RFC4585] and is also sketched in Figure 4.
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=2|P| FMT | PT | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of packet sender |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Feedback Control Information (FCI) :
: :
Figure 4: The common packet format for the RTCP feedback messages
Each feedback message has a fixed-length field for version, padding,
feedback message type (FMT), payload type (PT), length, SSRC of
packet sender, SSRC of media sender as well as a variable-length
field for feedback control information (FCI).
In the RAMS messages, the PT field is set to RTPFB (205) and the FMT
field is set to RAMS (6). Individual RAMS messages are identified by
a sub-field called Sub Feedback Message Type (SFMT). Any Reserved
field SHALL be set to zero and ignored.
Depending on the specific scenario and timeliness/importance of a
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
RAMS message, it may be desirable to send it in a reduced-size RTCP
packet [RFC5506]. However, unless support for [RFC5506] has been
signaled, compound RTCP packets MUST be used by following [RFC3550]
rules.
Following the rules specified in [RFC3550], all integer fields in the
messages defined below are carried in network-byte order, that is,
most significant byte (octet) first, also known as big-endian.
Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants are in decimal (base 10).
7.1. Extensions
To improve the functionality of the RAMS method in certain
applications, it may be desirable to define new fields in the RAMS
Request, Information and Termination messages. Such fields MUST be
encoded as TLV elements as described below and sketched in Figure 5:
o Type: A single-octet identifier that defines the type of the
parameter represented in this TLV element.
o Length: A two-octet field that indicates the length (in octets)
of the TLV element excluding the Type and Length fields, and the
8-bit Reserved field between them. Note that this length does not
include any padding that is required for alignment.
o Value: Variable-size set of octets that contains the specific
value for the parameter.
In the extensions, the Reserved field SHALL be set to zero and
ignored. If a TLV element does not fall on a 32-bit boundary, the
last word MUST be padded to the boundary using further bits set to
zero.
In a RAMS message, any vendor-neutral or private extension MUST be
placed after the mandatory fields and mandatory TLV elements (if
any). The extensions MAY be placed in any order. The support for
extensions (unless noted otherwise) is OPTIONAL.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Value :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Structure of a TLV element
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
7.1.1. Vendor-Neutral Extensions
If the goal in defining new TLV elements is to extend the
functionality in a vendor-neutral manner, they MUST be registered
with IANA through the guidelines provided in Section 11.5.
The current document defines several vendor-neutral extensions in the
subsequent sections.
7.1.2. Private Extensions
It is desirable to allow vendors to use private extensions in a TLV
format. For interoperability, such extensions MUST NOT collide with
each other.
A certain range of TLV Types (between - and including - 128 and 254 )
is reserved for private extensions (Refer to Section 11.5). IANA
management for these extensions is unnecessary and they are the
responsibility of individual vendors.
The structure that MUST be used for the private extensions is
depicted in Figure 6. Here, the enterprise numbers are used from
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers. This will ensure
the uniqueness of the private extensions and avoid any collision.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Value :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Structure of a private extension
7.2. RAMS Request
The RAMS Request message is identified by SFMT=1. This message is
sent as unicast feedback in the primary multicast RTP session by
RTP_Rx to request rapid acquisition of a primary multicast RTP
session, or one or more primary multicast streams belonging to the
same primary multicast RTP session. In the RAMS-R message, both the
packet sender SSRC and media sender SSRC fields MUST be set to the
SSRC of RTP_Rx, and RTP_Rx MUST provide explicit signaling as
described below to request stream(s). This minimizes the chances of
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
accidentally requesting a wrong primary multicast stream.
The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Request. The FCI field has
the structure depicted in Figure 7.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFMT=1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Request message
o Requested Media Sender SSRC(s): Mandatory TLV element that lists
the media sender SSRC(s) requested by RTP_Rx. BRS MUST ignore the
media sender SSRC specified in the header of the RAMS-R message.
If the Length field is set to zero (i.e., no media sender SSRC is
listed), it means that RTP_Rx is requesting to rapidly acquire the
entire primary multicast RTP session. Otherwise, RTP_Rx lists the
individual media sender SSRCs in this TLV element and sets the
Length field of the TLV element to 4*n, where n is the number of
SSRC entries.
Type: 1
o Min RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement (32 bits): Optional TLV element
that denotes the minimum milliseconds of data that RTP_Rx desires
to have in its buffer before allowing the data to be consumed by
the application.
RTP_Rx may have knowledge of its buffering requirements. These
requirements may be application and/or device specific. For
instance, RTP_Rx may need to have a certain amount of data in its
application buffer to handle transmission jitter and/or to be able
to support error-control methods. If BRS is told the minimum
buffering requirement of the receiver, it may tailor the burst(s)
more precisely, e.g., by choosing an appropriate starting point.
The methods used by RTP_Rx to determine this value are application
specific, and thus, out of the scope of this document.
If specified, the amount of backfill that will be provided by the
unicast bursts and any payload-specific information MUST NOT be
smaller than the specified value since it will not be able to
build up the desired level of buffer at RTP_Rx and may cause
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
buffer underruns.
Type: 2
o Max RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement (32 bits): Optional TLV element
that denotes the maximum milliseconds of data that RTP_Rx can
buffer without losing the data due to buffer overflow.
RTP_Rx may have knowledge of its buffering requirements. These
requirements may be application or device specific. For instance,
one particular RTP_Rx may have more physical memory than another
RTP_Rx, and thus, can buffer more data. If BRS knows the
buffering ability of the receiver, it may tailor the burst(s) more
precisely. The methods used by the receiver to determine this
value are application specific, and thus, out of scope.
If specified, the amount of backfill that will be provided by the
unicast bursts and any payload-specific information MUST NOT be
larger than this value since it may cause buffer overflows at
RTP_Rx.
Type: 3
o Max Receive Bitrate (64 bits): Optional TLV element that denotes
the maximum bitrate (in bits per second) that the RTP receiver can
process the aggregation of the unicast burst(s) and any payload-
specific information that will be provided by BRS. The limits may
include local receiver limits as well as network limits that are
known to the receiver.
If specified, the total bitrate of the unicast burst(s) plus any
payload-specific information MUST NOT be larger than this value
since it may cause congestion and packet loss.
Type: 4
o Request for Preamble Only (0 bits): Optional TLV element that
indicates that RTP_Rx is only requesting the preamble information
for the desired primary multicast stream(s). If this TLV element
exists in the RAMS-R message, BRS SHOULD NOT send any burst
packets other than the preamble packets. Note that this TLV
element does not carry a Value field. Thus, the Length field MUST
be set to zero.
Type: 5
The semantics of the RAMS-R feedback message is independent of the
payload type.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
7.3. RAMS Information
The RAMS Information message is identified by SFMT=2. This message
is used to describe the unicast burst that will be sent for rapid
acquisition. It also includes other useful information for RTP_Rx as
described below.
A separate RAMS-I message with the appropriate response code is sent
in the unicast burst RTP session by BRS for each primary multicast
stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx. In the RAMS-I messages,
the media sender SSRC and packet sender SSRC fields are both set to
the SSRC of the respective primary multicast stream.
The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Information. The FCI field
has the structure depicted in Figure 8.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFMT=2 | MSN | Response |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Information message
A RAMS-I message has the following fields:
o Message Sequence Number (8 bits) : Mandatory field that denotes
the sequence number of the RAMS-I message for the particular media
sender SSRC specified in the message header. The MSN value SHALL
be set to zero only when a new RAMS request is received. During
rapid acquisition, the same RAMS-I message MAY be repeated for
redundancy purposes without incrementing the MSN value. If an
updated RAMS-I message will be sent (either with a new information
or an updated information), the MSN value SHALL be incremented by
one. In the MSN field, the regular wrapping rules apply.
o Response (16 bits): Mandatory field that denotes the response
code for this RAMS-I message. This document defines several
initial response codes and registers them with IANA. If a new
vendor-neutral response code will be defined, it MUST be
registered with IANA through the guidelines specified in
Section 11.6. If the new response code is intended to be used
privately by a vendor, there is no need for IANA management.
Instead, the vendor MUST use the private extension mechanism
(Section 7.1.2) to convey its message and MUST indicate this by
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
putting zero in the Response field.
The following TLV elements have been defined for the RAMS-I messages:
o Media Sender SSRC (32 bits): Optional TLV element that specifies
the media sender SSRC of the unicast burst stream. While this
information is already available in the message header, it may be
useful to repeat it in an explicit field. For example, if FT_Ap
that received the RAMS-R message is associated with a single
primary multicast stream but the requested media sender SSRC does
not match the SSRC of the RTP stream associated with this FT_Ap,
BRS SHOULD include this TLV element in the initial RAMS-I message
to let RTP_Rx know that the media sender SSRC has changed. If the
two SSRCs match, there is no need to include this TLV element.
Type: 31
o RTP Seqnum of the First Packet (16 bits): TLV element that
specifies the RTP sequence number of the first packet that will be
sent in the respective RTP stream. This allows RTP_Rx to know
whether one or more packets sent by BRS have been dropped at the
beginning of the stream. If BRS accepts the RAMS request, this
element MUST exist. If BRS rejects the RAMS request, this element
SHALL NOT exist.
Type: 32
o Earliest Multicast Join Time (32 bits): TLV element that
specifies the delta time (in ms) between the arrival of the first
RTP packet in the RTP stream (which could be a burst packet or a
payload-specific packet) and the earliest time instant when RTP_Rx
SHOULD send an SFGMP Join message to join the multicast session.
A zero value in this field means that RTP_Rx may send the SFGMP
Join message right away.
If the RAMS request has been accepted, BRS MUST send this field at
least once, so that RTP_Rx knows when to join the multicast
session. If the burst request has been rejected as indicated in
the Response field, this field MUST be set to zero. In that case,
it is up to RTP_Rx when or whether to join the multicast session.
It should be noted that when BRS serves two or more bursts and
sends a separate RAMS-I message for each burst, the join times
specified in these RAMS-I messages should correspond to more or
less the same time instant, and RTP_Rx sends the SFGMP Join
message based on the earliest join time.
Type: 33
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
o Burst Duration (32 bits): Optional TLV element that denotes the
duration of the burst, i.e., the delta difference between the
first and the last burst packet, that BRS is planning to send (in
ms) in the respective RTP stream. In the absence of additional
stimulus, BRS will send a burst of this duration. However, the
burst duration may be modified by subsequent events, including
changes in the primary multicast stream and reception of RAMS-T
messages.
Note that BRS MUST terminate the flow in a deterministic
timeframe, even if it does not get a RAMS-T or a BYE from RTP_Rx.
It is OPTIONAL to send this field in a RAMS-I message when the
burst request is accepted. If the burst request has been rejected
as indicated in the Response field, this field MAY be omitted or
set to zero.
Type: 34
o Max Transmit Bitrate (64 bits): Optional TLV element that denotes
the maximum bitrate (in bits per second) that will be used by BRS
for the RTP stream associated with this RAMS-I message.
Type: 35
The semantics of the RAMS-I feedback message is independent of the
payload type.
The initial RAMS-I message SHOULD precede the unicast burst or be
sent at the start of the burst. Subsequent RAMS-I message(s) MAY be
sent during the unicast burst and convey changes in any of the
fields.
7.4. RAMS Termination
The RAMS Termination message is identified by SFMT=3.
The RAMS Termination is used to assist BRS in determining when to
stop the burst. A separate RAMS-T message is sent in the unicast
burst RTP session by RTP_Rx for each primary multicast stream that
has been served by BRS. Each of these RAMS-T messages has the
appropriate media sender SSRC populated in its message header.
If RTP_Rx wants BRS to stop a burst prematurely, it sends a plain
RAMS-T message as described below. Upon receiving this message, BRS
stops the respective burst immediately. If RTP_Rx wants BRS to
terminate all of the bursts, it should send all of the respective
RAMS-T messages in a single compound RTCP packet.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
The default behavior for RTP_Rx is to send a RAMS-T message
immediately after it joined the multicast session and started
receiving multicast packets. In that case, RTP_Rx includes the
sequence number of the first RTP packet received in the primary
multicast stream in the RAMS-T message. With this information, BRS
can decide when to terminate the unicast burst.
The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Termination. The FCI field
has the structure depicted in Figure 9.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFMT=3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Termination message
o Extended RTP Seqnum of First Multicast Packet (32 bits): Optional
TLV element that specifies the extended RTP sequence number of the
first packet received from the SSM session for a particular
primary multicast stream. The low 16 bits contain the sequence
number of the first packet received from the SSM session, and the
most significant 16 bits extend that sequence number with the
corresponding count of sequence number cycles, which may be
maintained according to the algorithm in Appendix A.1 of
[RFC3550].
Type: 61
The semantics of the RAMS-T feedback message is independent of the
payload type.
8. SDP Signaling
8.1. Definitions
The syntax of the 'rtcp-fb' attribute has been defined in [RFC4585].
Here we add the following syntax to the 'rtcp-fb' attribute (the
feedback type and optional parameters are all case sensitive):
(In the following ABNF [RFC5234], fmt, SP and CRLF are used as
defined in [RFC4566].)
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
rtcp-fb-syntax = "a=rtcp-fb:" rtcp-fb-pt SP rtcp-fb-val CRLF
rtcp-fb-pt = "*" ; wildcard: applies to all formats
/ fmt ; as defined in SDP spec
rtcp-fb-val = "nack" SP "rai"
The following parameter is defined in this document for use with
'nack':
o 'rai' stands for Rapid Acquisition Indication and indicates the
use of RAMS messages as defined in Section 7.
This document also defines a new media-level SDP attribute ('rams-
updates') that indicates whether BRS supports updated request
messages or not. This attribute is used in a declarative manner and
no Offer/Answer Model behavior is specified. If BRS supports updated
request messages and this attribute is included in the SDP
description, RTP_Rx may send updated requests. BRS may or may not be
able to accept value changes in every field in an updated RAMS-R
message. However, if the 'rams-updates' attribute is not included in
the SDP description, RTP_Rx SHALL NOT send updated requests (RTP_Rx
MAY still repeat its initial request without changes, though).
8.2. Requirements
The use of SDP to describe the RAMS entities normatively requires the
support for:
o The SDP grouping framework and flow identification (FID) semantics
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]
o The RTP/AVPF profile [RFC4585]
o The RTP retransmission payload format [RFC4588]
o The RTCP extensions for SSM sessions with unicast feedback
[RFC5760]
o Multiplexing RTP and RTCP on a single port on both endpoints in
the unicast session[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux]
The support for the source-specific media attributes [RFC5576] and
multicast RTCP port attribute [I-D.begen-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm] may
also be needed.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
8.3. Example and Discussion
This section provides a declarative SDP [RFC4566] example for
enabling rapid acquisition of multicast RTP sessions.
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 rams.example.com
s=Rapid Acquisition Example
t=0 0
a=group:FID 1 2
a=rtcp-unicast:rsi
m=video 41000 RTP/AVPF 98
i=Primary Multicast Stream
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/255
a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.2 198.51.100.1
a=rtpmap:98 MP2T/90000
a=multicast-rtcp:42000
a=rtcp:43000 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=rtcp-fb:98 nack
a=rtcp-fb:98 nack rai
a=ssrc:123321 cname:iptv-ch32@rams.example.com
a=rams-updates
a=mid:1
m=video 51000 RTP/AVPF 99
i=Unicast Retransmission Stream (Ret. and Rapid Acq. Support)
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=sendonly
a=rtpmap:99 rtx/90000
a=rtcp-mux
a=fmtp:99 apt=98;rtx-time=5000
a=mid:2
Figure 10: Example SDP for a single-channel RAMS scenario
In this example SDP description, we have a primary multicast (source)
stream and a unicast retransmission stream. The source stream is
multicast from a distribution source (with a source IP address of
198.51.100.1) to the multicast destination address of 233.252.0.2 and
port 41000. The corresponding RTCP traffic is multicast to the same
multicast destination address at port 42000. Here, we are assuming
that the multicast RTP and RTCP ports are carefully chosen so that
different RTP and RTCP streams do not collide with each other.
The feedback target (FT_Ap) residing on the retransmission server
(with an address of 192.0.2.1) at port 43000 is declared with the
"a=rtcp" line [RFC3605]. The support for the conventional
retransmission is indicated through the "a=rtcp-fb:98 nack" line.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
The RTP receiver(s) can report missing packets on the source stream
to the feedback target and request retransmissions. Note that this
SDP includes the "a=sendonly" line for the media description of the
retransmission stream since the retransmissions are sent in only one
direction.
The support for rapid acquisition is indicated through the "a=rtcp-
fb:98 nack rai" line. The parameter 'rtx-time' applies to both the
conventional retransmissions and rapid acquisition. However, when
rapid acquisition is enabled, the standard definition for the
parameter 'rtx-time' given in [RFC4588] is not followed. Instead,
when rapid acquisition support is enabled, 'rtx-time' specifies the
time in milliseconds that the retransmission server keeps an RTP
packet in its cache available for retransmission (measured from the
time the packet was received by the retransmission server, not from
the time indicated in the packet timestamp).
Once an RTP receiver has acquired an SDP description, it may ask for
rapid acquisition before it joins a primary multicast RTP session.
To do so, it sends a RAMS-R message to the feedback target of that
primary multicast RTP session. If FT_Ap is associated with only one
RTP stream, the RTP receiver does not need to learn the SSRC of that
stream via an out-of-band method. If BRS accepts the rapid
acquisition request, it will send an RAMS-I message with the correct
SSRC identifier. If FT_Ap is associated with a multi-stream RTP
session and the RTP receiver is willing to request rapid acquisition
for the entire session, the RTP receiver again does not need to learn
the SSRCs via an out-of-band method. However, if the RTP receiver
intends to request a particular subset of the primary multicast
streams, it must learn their SSRC identifiers and list them in the
RAMS-R message. Since this RTP receiver has not yet received any RTP
packets for the primary multicast stream(s), the RTP receiver must in
this case learn the SSRC value(s) from the 'ssrc' attribute of the
media description [RFC5576]. In addition to the SSRC value, the
'cname' source attribute must also be present in the SDP description
[RFC5576].
Note that listing the SSRC values for the primary multicast streams
in the SDP file does not create a problem in SSM sessions when an
SSRC collision occurs. This is because in SSM sessions, an RTP
receiver that observed an SSRC collision with a media sender MUST
change its own SSRC [RFC5760] by following the rules defined in
[RFC3550].
A feedback target that receives a RAMS-R feedback message becomes
aware that the prediction chain at the RTP receiver side has been
broken or does not exist anymore. If the necessary conditions are
satisfied (as outlined in Section 7 of [RFC4585]) and available
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
resources exist, BRS may react to the RAMS-R message by sending any
transport-layer (and optional payload-specific, when allowed)
feedback message(s) and starting the unicast burst.
In this section, we considered the simplest scenario where the
primary multicast RTP session carried only one stream and the RTP
receiver wanted to rapidly acquire this stream only. Best practices
for scenarios where the primary multicast RTP session carries two or
more streams or the RTP receiver wants to acquire one or more streams
from multiple primary multicast RTP sessions at the same time are
presented in [I-D.begen-avt-rams-scenarios].
9. NAT Considerations
For a variety of reasons, one or more NAPT devices (hereafter simply
called NAT) may exist between RTP_Rx and RS. NATs have a variety of
operating characteristics for UDP traffic [RFC4787]. For a NAT to
permit traffic from BRS to arrive at RTP_Rx, the NAT(s) must first
either:
a. See UDP traffic sent from RTP_Rx (which is on the 'inside' of the
NAT) to BRS (which is on the 'outside' of the NAT). This traffic
is sent to the same transport address as the subsequent response
traffic, or;
b. Be configured to forward certain ports (e.g., using HTML
configuration, UPnP IGD [UPnP-IGD], DLNA [DLNA]). Details of
this are out of scope of this document.
For both (a) and (b), RTP_Rx is responsible for maintaining the NAT's
state if it wants to receive traffic from the BRS on that port. For
(a), RTP_Rx MUST send UDP traffic to keep the NAT binding alive, at
least every 30 seconds [RFC4787]. Note that while (a) is more like
an automatic/dynamic configuration, (b) is more like a manual/static
configuration.
When RTP_Rx sends a RAMS-R message to FT as unicast feedback in the
primary multicast RTP session, and the request is received by FT, a
new unicast burst RTP session will be established between BRS and
RTP_Rx.
While the FT and BRS ports on RS are already signaled via out-of-band
means (e.g., SDP), RTP_Rx needs to convey the RTP and RTCP ports it
wants to use on its side for the new session. Since there are two
RTP sessions involved during this process and one of them is
established upon a feedback message sent in the other one, this
requires an explicit port mapping method. This problem equally
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
applies to scenarios where the RTP media is multicast in an SSM
session, and an RTP receiver requests retransmission from a local
repair server by using the RTCP NACK messages for the missing packets
and the repair server retransmits the requested packets over a
unicast session. Thus, instead of laying out a specific solution for
the RAMS applications, a general solution is introduced in
[I-D.ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp]. This generic solution
implies the exchange of port mapping RTCP messages between RTP_Rx and
BRS.
Applications using RAMS MUST support this solution both on the RS and
RTP_Rx side to allow RTP receivers to use their desired ports and to
support RAMS behind NAT devices. The port mapping message exchange
needs to take place whenever RTP_Rx intends to make use of the RAMS
protocol for rapidly acquiring a specific multicast RTP session,
prior to joining the associated SSM session.
10. Security Considerations
Applications that are using RAMS make heavy use of the unicast
feedback mechanism described in [RFC5760], the payload format defined
in [RFC4588] and the port mapping solution specified in
[I-D.ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp]. Thus, these applications
are subject to the general security considerations discussed in
[RFC5760], [RFC4588] and [I-D.ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp].
In this section, we give an overview of the guidelines and
suggestions described in these specifications from a RAMS
perspective. We also discuss the security considerations that
explicitly apply to applications using RAMS.
First of all, much of the session description information is
available in the SDP descriptions that are distributed to the media
senders, retransmission servers and RTP receivers. Adequate security
measures are RECOMMENDED to ensure the integrity and authenticity of
the SDP descriptions so that transport addresses of the media
senders, distribution sources, feedback targets as well as other
session-specific information can be authenticated.
Compared to an RTCP NACK message that triggers one or more
retransmissions, a RAMS Request (RAMS-R) message may trigger a new
burst stream to be sent by the retransmission server. Depending on
the application-specific requirements and conditions existing at the
time of the RAMS-R reception by the retransmission server, the
resulting burst stream may contain potentially a large number of
retransmission packets. Since these packets are sent at a faster
than the nominal rate, RAMS consumes more resources on the
retransmission server, the RTP receiver and the network. This may
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
particularly make denial-of-service attacks more intense, and hence,
more harmful than attacks that target ordinary retransmission
sessions.
Following the suggestions given in [RFC4588], counter-measures SHOULD
be taken to prevent tampered or spoofed RTCP packets. Tampered
RAMS-R messages may trigger inappropriate burst streams or alter the
existing burst streams in an inappropriate way. For example, if the
Max Receive Bitrate field is altered by a tampered RAMS-R message,
the updated burst may overflow the buffer at the receiver side, or
oppositely, may slow down the burst to the point that it becomes
useless. Tampered RAMS Termination (RAMS-T) messages may terminate
valid burst streams prematurely resulting in gaps in the received RTP
packets. RAMS Information (RAMS-I) messages contain fields that are
critical for a successful rapid acquisition. Any tampered
information in the RAMS-I message may easily cause the RTP receiver
to make wrong decisions. Consequently, the RAMS operation may fail.
While most of the denial-of-service attacks can be prevented by the
integrity and authenticity checks enabled by Secure RTP (SRTP)
[RFC3711], an attack can still be started by legitimate endpoints
that send several valid RAMS-R messages to a particular feedback
target in a synchronized fashion and very short amount of time.
Since a RAMS operation may temporarily consume a large amount of
resources, a series of the RAMS-R messages may temporarily overload
the retransmission server. In these circumstances, the
retransmission server may, for example, reject incoming RAMS requests
until its resources become available again. One means to ameliorate
this threat is to apply a per-endpoint policing mechanism on the
incoming RAMS requests. A reasonable policing mechanism should
consider application-specific requirements and minimize false
negatives.
In addition to the denial-of-service attacks, man-in-the-middle and
replay attacks can also be harmful. However, RAMS itself does not
bring any new risks or threats other than the ones discussed in
[RFC5760].
[RFC4588] RECOMMENDS that the cryptography mechanisms are used for
the retransmission payload format to provide protection against known
plain-text attacks. As discussed in [RFC4588], the retransmission
payload format sets the timestamp field in the RTP header to the
media timestamp of the original packet and this does not compromise
the confidentiality. Furthermore, if cryptography is used to provide
security services on the original stream, then the same services,
with equivalent cryptographic strength, MUST be provided on the
retransmission stream per [RFC4588].
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
To protect the RTCP messages from man-in-the-middle and replay
attacks, the RTP receivers and retransmission server SHOULD perform a
DTLS-SRTP handshake [I-D.ietf-avt-dtls-srtp] over the RTCP channel.
Because there is no integrity-protected signaling channel between an
RTP receiver and the retransmission server, the retransmission server
MUST maintain a list of certificates owned by legitimate RTP
receivers, or their certificates MUST be signed by a trusted
Certificate Authority. Once the DTLS-SRTP security is established,
non-SRTCP-protected messages received from a particular RTP receiver
are ignored by the retransmission server. To reduce the impact of
DTLS-SRTP overhead when communicating with different feedback targets
on the same retransmission server, it is RECOMMENDED that RTP
receivers and the retransmission server both support TLS Session
Resumption without Server-side State [RFC5077].
11. IANA Considerations
The following contact information shall be used for all registrations
in this document:
Ali Begen
abegen@cisco.com
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Note to the RFC Editor: In the following, please replace "XXXX" with
the number of this document prior to publication as an RFC.
11.1. Registration of SDP Attributes
This document registers a new attribute name in SDP.
SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
Attribute name: rams-updates
Long form: Support for Updated RAMS Request Messages
Type of name: att-field
Type of attribute: Media level
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: See this document
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
Values: None
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
11.2. Registration of SDP Attribute Values
This document registers a new value for the 'nack' attribute to be
used with the 'rtcp-fb' attribute in SDP. For more information about
the 'rtcp-fb' attribute, refer to Sections 4.2 and 6.2 of [RFC4585].
Value name: rai
Long name: Rapid Acquisition Indication
Usable with: nack
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
11.3. Registration of FMT Values
Within the RTPFB range, the following format (FMT) value is
registered:
Name: RAMS
Long name: Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Sessions
Value: 6
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
11.4. SFMT Values for RAMS Messages Registry
This document creates a new sub-registry for the sub-feedback message
type (SFMT) values to be used with the FMT value registered for RAMS
messages. The registry is called the SFMT Values for RAMS Messages
Registry. This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to
the Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].
The length of the SFMT field in the RAMS messages is a single octet,
allowing 256 values. The registry is initialized with the following
entries:
Value Name Reference
----- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
0 Reserved [RFCXXXX]
1 RAMS Request [RFCXXXX]
2 RAMS Information [RFCXXXX]
3 RAMS Termination [RFCXXXX]
4-254 Assignable - Specification Required
255 Reserved [RFCXXXX]
The SFMT values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Any registration for an unassigned SFMT value MUST contain the
following information:
o Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
at least name, address, and email.
o A detailed description of what the new SFMT represents and how it
shall be interpreted.
Note that new RAMS functionality should be introduced by using the
extension mechanism within the existing RAMS message types not by
introducing new message types unless it is absolutely necessary.
11.5. RAMS TLV Space Registry
This document creates a new IANA TLV space registry for the RAMS
extensions. The registry is called the RAMS TLV Space Registry.
This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to the
Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].
The length of the Type field in the TLV elements is a single octet,
allowing 256 values. The Type values 0 and 255 are reserved for
future use. The Type values between (and including) 128 and 254 are
reserved for private extensions.
The registry is initialized with the following entries:
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Type Description Reference
---- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
0 Reserved [RFCXXXX]
1 Requested Media Sender SSRC(s) [RFCXXXX]
2 Min RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement [RFCXXXX]
3 Max RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement [RFCXXXX]
4 Max Receive Bitrate [RFCXXXX]
5 Request for Preamble Only [RFCXXXX]
6-30 Assignable - Specification Required
31 Media Sender SSRC [RFCXXXX]
32 RTP Seqnum of the First Packet [RFCXXXX]
33 Earliest Multicast Join Time [RFCXXXX]
34 Burst Duration [RFCXXXX]
35 Max Transmit Bitrate [RFCXXXX]
36-60 Assignable - Specification Required
61 Extended RTP Seqnum of First Multicast Packet [RFCXXXX]
62-127 Assignable - Specification Required
128-254 No IANA Maintenance
255 Reserved [RFCXXXX]
Any registration for an unassigned Type value MUST contain the
following information:
o Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
at least name, address, and email.
o A detailed description of what the new TLV element represents and
how it shall be interpreted.
11.6. RAMS Response Code Space Registry
This document creates a new IANA TLV space registry for the RAMS
response codes. The registry is called the RAMS Response Code Space
Registry. This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to
the Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].
The length of the Response field is two octets, allowing 65536 codes.
However, the response codes have been classified and registered
following an HTTP-style code numbering in this document. New
response codes SHALL follow the guidelines below:
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Code Level Purpose
---------- ---------------
1xx Informational
2xx Success
3xx Redirection
4xx RTP Receiver Error
5xx Retransmission Server Error
The Response code 65536 is reserved for future use.
The registry is initialized with the following entries:
Code Description Reference
----- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
0 A private response code is included in the message [RFCXXXX]
100 Parameter update for RAMS session [RFCXXXX]
200 RAMS request has been accepted [RFCXXXX]
201 Unicast burst has been completed [RFCXXXX]
400 Invalid RAMS-R message syntax
401 Invalid min buffer requirement in RAMS-R message [RFCXXXX]
402 Invalid max buffer requirement in RAMS-R message [RFCXXXX]
403 Invalid max bitrate requirement in RAMS-R message [RFCXXXX]
500 An unspecified BRS internal error has occurred [RFCXXXX]
501 BRS has insufficient bandwidth to start RAMS
session [RFCXXXX]
502 Burst is terminated due to network congestion [RFCXXXX]
503 BRS has insufficient CPU cycles to start RAMS
session [RFCXXXX]
504 RAMS functionality is not available on BRS [RFCXXXX]
505 RAMS functionality is not available for RTP_Rx [RFCXXXX]
506 RAMS functionality is not available for
the requested multicast stream [RFCXXXX]
507 BRS has no valid starting point available for
the requested multicast stream [RFCXXXX]
508 BRS has no reference information available for
the requested multicast stream [RFCXXXX]
509 BRS has no RTP stream matching the requested SSRC [RFCXXXX]
510 RAMS request to acquire the entire session
has been denied [RFCXXXX]
511 Only the preamble information is sent [RFCXXXX]
512 RAMS request has been denied due to a policy [RFCXXXX]
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Any registration for an unassigned Response code MUST contain the
following information:
o Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
at least name, address, and email.
o A detailed description of what the new Response code describes and
how it shall be interpreted.
12. Contributors
Dave Oran, Magnus Westerlund and Colin Perkins have contributed
significantly to this specification by providing text and solutions
to some of the issues raised during the development of this
specification.
13. Acknowledgments
The following individuals have reviewed the earlier versions of this
specification and provided helpful comments: Colin Perkins, Joerg
Ott, Roni Even, Dan Wing, Tony Faustini, Peilin Yang, Jeff Goldberg,
Muriel Deschanel, Orit Levin, Guy Hirson, Tom Taylor, Xavier Marjou,
Ye-Kui Wang, Zixuan Zou, Ingemar Johansson, Haibin Song, Ning Zong,
Jonathan Lennox, Jose Rey and Sean Sheedy.
14. Change Log
14.1. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-09
The following are the major changes compared to version 08:
o Further fixes and changes requested by Magnus W. and Colin P. have
been addressed throughout the document.
14.2. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-08
The following are the major changes compared to version 07:
o Fixes and changes requested by Magnus W. and Jose R. have been
addressed throughout the document.
o Some references have been updated.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
14.3. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-07
The following are the major changes compared to version 06:
o Congestion control considerations text has been added to Section
6.4.
14.4. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-06
The following are the major changes compared to version 05:
o Comments from WGLC have been addressed. See the mailing list for
the list of changes.
o Support for multi-stream RTP sessions has been added.
o NAT section has been revised.
14.5. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-05
The following are the major changes compared to version 04:
o Editorial changes throughout the document.
14.6. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-04
The following are the major changes compared to version 03:
o Clarifications for the definition of RS.
o Response codes have been defined.
14.7. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-03
The following are the major changes compared to version 02:
o Clarifications for the RAMS-I message.
o Type values have been assigned.
14.8. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-02
The following are the major changes compared to version 01:
o Port mapping discussion has been removed since it will be
discussed in a separate draft.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
o Security considerations section has been added.
o Burst shaping section has been completed.
o Most of the outstanding open issues have been addressed.
14.9. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-01
The following are the major changes compared to version 00:
o Formal definitions of vendor-neutral and private extensions and
their IANA registries have been added.
o SDP examples were explained in more detail.
o The sub-FMT field has been introduced in the RAMS messages for
message type identification.
o Some terminology has been fixed.
o NAT considerations section has been added.
14.10. draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-00
This is a resubmission of version 03 as a WG item.
14.11. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-03
The following are the major changes compared to version 02:
o The title and message names have been changed.
o RTCP message semantics have been added. RAMS protocol has been
revised to handle updated requests and responses.
o Definitions have been revised.
o RTP/RTCP muxing reference has been added.
14.12. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-02
The following are the major changes compared to version 01:
o The discussion around MPEG2-TS has been moved to another document.
o The RAMS-R, RAMS-I and RAMS-T messages have been extensively
modified and they have been made mandatory.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
o IANA Considerations section has been updated.
o The discussion of RTCP XR report has been moved to another
document.
o A new section on protocol design considerations has been added.
14.13. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-01
The following are the major changes compared to version 00:
o The core of the rapid synchronization method is now payload-
independent. But, the draft still defines payload-specific
messages that are required for enabling rapid synch for the RTP
flows carrying MPEG2-TS.
o RTCP APP packets have been removed, new RTCP transport-layer and
payload-specific feedback messages have been defined.
o The step for leaving the current multicast session has been
removed from Section 6.2.
o A new RTCP XR (Multicast Join) report has been defined.
o IANA Considerations section have been updated.
o Editorial changes to clarify several points.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]
Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The SDP (Session
Description Protocol) Grouping Framework",
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-04 (work in progress),
November 2009.
[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,
July 2006.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
July 2006.
[RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.
[RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
October 2003.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.
[RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.
[I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync]
Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
Flows", draft-ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-09 (work in
progress), January 2010.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux]
Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port",
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-07 (work in progress),
August 2007.
[I-D.ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp]
Begen, A. and B. Steeg, "Port Mapping Between Unicast and
Multicast RTP Sessions",
draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-01 (work in
progress), April 2010.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[I-D.ietf-avt-dtls-srtp]
McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-07 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
Server-Side State", RFC 5077, January 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[I-D.begen-avt-rams-scenarios]
Begen, A., "Considerations for RAMS Scenarios",
draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-00 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr]
Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "Multicast Acquisition Report
Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-00
(work in progress), February 2010.
[I-D.begen-avt-rtp-cnames]
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Begen, A. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Choosing an RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) for Hosts
with Private IP Addresses", draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-00
(work in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp]
Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., and K.
Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP
over UDP", draft-ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp-01 (work in
progress), March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme]
Begen, A., "RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity
FEC", draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-09 (work
in progress), January 2010.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[I-D.begen-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm]
Begen, A., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Port for Multicast
Sessions", draft-begen-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-01 (work in
progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-dccp-rtp]
Perkins, C., "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP)", draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-07 (work in
progress), June 2007.
[UPnP-IGD]
Forum, UPnP., "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet
Gateway Device (IGD)", November 2001.
[DLNA] , DLNA., "http://www.dlna.org/home".
[IC2009] Begen, A., Glazebrook, N., and W. VerSteeg, "Reducing
Channel Change Times in IPTV with Real-Time Transport
Protocol (IEEE Internet Computing)", May 2009.
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions April 2010
Authors' Addresses
Bill VerSteeg
Cisco
5030 Sugarloaf Parkway
Lawrenceville, GA 30044
USA
Email: billvs@cisco.com
Ali Begen
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: abegen@cisco.com
Tom VanCaenegem
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerpen, 2018
Belgium
Email: Tom.Van_Caenegem@alcatel-lucent.be
Zeev Vax
Microsoft Corporation
1065 La Avenida
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: zeevvax@microsoft.com
VerSteeg, et al. Expires October 28, 2010 [Page 55]
