Audio Video Transport Working                              M. Westerlund
Group                                                           Ericsson
Internet-Draft                                         February 25, 2008
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 28, 2008

                   How to Write an RTP Payload Format

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008


   This document contains information on how to best write an RTP
   payload format.  Reading tips, design practices, and practical tips
   on how to quickly and with good results produce an RTP payload format
   specification.  A template is also included with instructions that
   can be used when writing an RTP payload format.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   3.  Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Recommend Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.1.  IETF Process and Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.2.  RTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Important RTP details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.1.  The RTP Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.2.  RTP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.2.3.  RTP Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       3.2.4.  RTP Synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.3.  Signalling Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.3.1.  Media Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.3.2.  Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     3.4.  Transport Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       3.4.1.  Path MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   4.  Specification Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.1.  IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       4.1.1.  Steps from Idea to Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       4.1.2.  WG meetings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.1.3.  Draft Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.1.4.  How to speed up the process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     4.2.  Other Standards bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     4.3.  Propreitary and Vendor Specific  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   5.  Designing Payload Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     5.1.  Features of RTP payload formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       5.1.1.  Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       5.1.2.  Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       5.1.3.  Interleaving and Transmission Re-Scheduling  . . . . . 28
       5.1.4.  Media Back Channels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

       5.1.5.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       5.1.6.  High Packet Rates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

   6.  Current Trends in Payload Format Design  . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     6.1.  Audio Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     6.2.  Video  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     6.3.  Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

   7.  Important Specification Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     7.1.  Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     7.2.  Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     7.3.  IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

   8.  Authoring Tools  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     8.1.  Editing Tools  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     8.2.  Verification Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

   9.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

   12. RFC Editor Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

   13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

   14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

   Appendix A.  RTP Payload Format Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     A.1.  Title  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     A.2.  Front page boilerplate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     A.3.  Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     A.4.  Table of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     A.5.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     A.6.  Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . 47
     A.7.  Media Format Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     A.8.  Payload format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
       A.8.1.  RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       A.8.2.  Payload Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       A.8.3.  Payload Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     A.9.  Payload Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     A.10. Congestion Control Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     A.11. Payload Format Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       A.11.1. Media Type Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       A.11.2. Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     A.12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     A.13. Securtiy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

     A.14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
       A.14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
       A.14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     A.15. Author Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     A.16. IPR Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     A.17. Copyright Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 54

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

1.  Introduction

   RTP [RFC3550] payload formats define how a specific real-time data
   format is structured in the payload of an RTP packet.  A real-time
   data format without a payload format specification can't be
   transported using RTP.  This creates an interest from many
   individuals/organizations with media encoders or other types of real-
   time data to define RTP payload formats.  The specification of a well
   designed RTP payload format is non-trivial and requires knowledge of
   both RTP and the real-time data format.

   This document intends to help any author of an RTP payload format to
   make important design decisions, consider important features of RTP,
   security, etc.  The document is also intended to be a good starting
   point for any person with little experience in IETF and/or RTP to
   learn the necessary steps.

   This document extends and updates the information that are available
   in "Guidelines for Writers of RTP Payload Format Specifications"
   [RFC2736].  Since this RFC was written further experience has been
   gained on the design and specification of RTP payload format.
   Several new RTP profiles, and robustness tools has also been defined,
   which needs to be considered.

   We also discuss the possible venues of defining an RTP payload
   format, in IETF, by other standard bodies and proprietary ones.
   Independent on the intended venue of specification, all will gain
   from this document.

1.1.  Structure

   This document has several different parts discussing different
   aspects of the creation of an RTP payload format specification.
   After the introduction and definitions there are a section discussing
   the preparations the author(s) should do before start writing.  The
   following section discusses the different processes used when
   specifying and completing an payload format, with focus on working
   inside the IETF.  Section 5 discusses the design of payload formats
   themselves in detail.  Section 6 discusses the current design trends
   and provides good examples of practices that should be followed when
   applicable.  Following that there is a discussion on important
   sections in the RTP payload format specification itself, like
   security and IANA considerations.  This document ends with an
   appendix containing an template that can be used when writing RTP
   payload formats.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

2.  Terminology

2.1.  Definitions

   Media Stream:  A sequence of RTP packets that together provides all
      or parts of a media.  It is scoped in RTP by the RTP session and a
      single sender source.

   RTP Session:  An association among a set of participants
      communicating with RTP.  The distinguishing feature of an RTP
      session is that each maintains a full, separate space of SSRC
      identifiers.  See also Section (Section 3.2.1).

   RTP Payload Format:  The RTP Payload format specifies how a specific
      media format is put into the RTP Payloads.  Thus enabling the
      format to be used in RTP sessions.

2.2.  Acronyms

   ABNF:  Augmented Backus-Naur Form

   ADU:  Application Data Unit

   ALF:  Application Level Framing

   ASM:  Any-Source Multicast

   AVT:  Audio Video Transport

   BCP:  Best Current Practice

   ID:  Internet Draft

   MTU:  Maximum Transmission Unit

   WG:  Working Group

   QoS:  Quality of Service

   RFC:  Request For Comment

   RTP:  Real-time Transport Protocol

   RTCP:  RTP Control Protocol

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   RTT:  Round Trip Time

   SSM:  Source Specific Multicast

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

3.  Preparations

   RTP is a complex real-time media delivery framework and it has a lot
   of details to consider when writing an RTP payload format.  There is
   also important to have a good understanding of the media codec/format
   so that all its important features and properties are considered.
   First when one has sufficient understanding of both parts can one
   produce an RTP payload format of high quality.  On top of this, one
   needs to understand the process within IETF and especially the AVT WG
   to quickly go from initial idea to a finished RFC.  This and the next
   section helps an author prepare himself in those regards.

3.1.  Recommend Reading

   In the below sub sections there are a number of documents listed.
   Not all needs to be read in full detail.  However, an author
   basically needs to be aware of everything listed below.

3.1.1.  IETF Process and Publication

   For newcomers to IETF it is strongly recommended that one reads the
   "Tao of the IETF" [RFC4677] that goes through most things that one
   needs to know about the IETF.  It contains information about history,
   organisational structure, how the WG and meetings work and many more

   The main part of the IETF process is defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
   In addition an author needs to understands the IETF rules and rights
   associated with copyright and IPR documented in BCP 78 [RFC3978] and
   BCP 79 [RFC3979].  RFC 2418 [RFC2418] describes the WG process, the
   relation between the IESG and the WG, and the responsibilities of WG
   chairs and participants.

   It is important to note that the RFC series contains documents of
   several different classifications; standards track, informational,
   experimental, best current practice (BCP), and historic.  The
   standard tracks contains documents of three different maturity
   classifications, proposed, draft and Internet Standard.  A standards
   track document must start as proposed, after proved interoperability
   of all the features it can be moved to draft standard, and final when
   further experience has been gathered it can be moved to Internet
   standard.  As the content of the RFCs are not allowed to be changed,
   the only way of updating an RFC is to write and publish a new one
   that either updates or replaces the old one.  Therefore it is
   important to both consider the Category field in the header and check
   if the RFC one is reading or going to reference is the latest and
   valid.  One way of checking the current status of an RFC is to use
   the RFC-editor's RFC search engine, which displays the current status

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   and which if any RFCs that updates or obsolete it.

   Before starting to write an draft one should also read the Internet
   Draft writing guidelines
   (, the ID checklist
   ( and "Instructions to Request
   for Comments (RFC) Authors" [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis].  Another
   document that can be useful is the "Guide for Internet Standards
   Writers" [RFC2360].

   There are also a number of documents to consider in process of
   writing of drafts intended to become RFCs.  These are important when
   writing certain type of text.

   RFC 2606:  When writing examples using DNS names in Internet drafts,
      those name shall be using the,, and domains.

   RFC 3849:  Defines the range of IPv6 unicast addresses (2001:
      DB8::/32) that should be used in any examples.

   RFC 3330:  Defines the range of IPv4 unicast addresses reserved for
      documentation and examples:

   RFC 5234:  Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) is often used when
      writing text field specifications.  Not that commonly used in RTP
      payload formats but may be useful when defining Media Type
      parameters of some complexity.

3.1.2.  RTP

   The recommended reading for RTP consist of several different parts;
   design guidelines, the RTP protocol, profiles, robustness tools, and
   media specific recommendations.

   Any author of RTP payload formats should start with reading RFC 2736
   [RFC2736] which contains an introduction to the application layer
   framing (ALF) principle, the channel characteristics of IP channels,
   and design guidelines for RTP payload formats.  The goal of ALF is to
   be able to transmit Application Data Units (ADUs) that are
   independently usable by the receiver in individual RTP packets.  Thus
   minimizing dependencies between RTP packets and the effects of packet

   Then it is suitable to learn more about the RTP protocol, by studying
   the RTP specification RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and the existing profiles.
   As a complement to the standards document there exist a book totally
   dedicated to RTP [CSP-RTP].  There exist several profiles for RTP

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   today, but all are based on the "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
   Conferences with Minimal Control" (RFC 3551) [RFC3551] (abbreviated
   AVP).  The other profiles that one should known about are Secure RTP
   (SAVP) [RFC3711], "Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback"
   [RFC4585] and "Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
   (RTP/SAVPF)" [RFC5124].  It is important to understand RTP and the
   AVP profile in detail.  For the other profiles it is sufficient to
   have an understanding on what functionality they provided and the
   limitations they create.

   There has been developed a number of robustness tools for RTP.  The
   tools are for different use cases and real-time requirements.

   RFC 2198:  The "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data" [RFC2198]
      provides functionalities to provided redundant copies of audio or
      text payloads.  These redundant copies are sent together with an
      primary format in the same RTP payload.  This format relies on the
      RTP timestamp to determine where data belongs in a sequence and
      therefore is usually primarily suitable to be used with audio.
      However also the RTP Payload format for T.140 [RFC4103] text
      format uses this format.  The formats major property is that it
      only preserves the timestamp of the redundant payloads, not the
      original sequence number.  Thus making it unusable for most video
      formats.  This format is also only suitable for media formats that
      produce relatively small RTP payloads.

   RFC 5109:  The "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
      Correction" [RFC5109] provides an XOR based FEC of the whole or
      parts of a the packets for a number of RTP packets.  These FEC
      packets are sent in a separate stream or as a redundant encoding
      using RFC 2198.  This FEC scheme has certain restrictions in the
      number of packets it can protect.  It is suitable for low to
      medium delay tolerant applications with limited amount of RTP

   RTP Retransmission:  The RTP retransmission scheme [RFC4588] is used
      for semi-reliability of the most important RTP packets in a media
      stream.  The scheme is not intended, nor suitable, to provide full
      reliability.  It requires the application to be quite delay
      tolerant as a minimum of one round-trip time plus processing delay
      is required to perform an retransmission.  Thus it is mostly
      suitable for streaming applications but may also be usable in
      certain other cases when operating on networks with short RTT.

   RTP over TCP:  RFC 4571 [RFC4571] defines how one sends RTP and RTCP
      packet over conenction oriented transports like TCP.  If one uses
      TCP one gets reliability for all packets but loose some of the
      real-time behavior that RTP was designed to provide.  Issues with

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

      TCP transport of real-time media include head of line blocking and
      wasting resources on retransmission of already late data.  TCP is
      also limited to point-to-point connections which further restricts
      its applicability.

   There has also been discussion and also design of RTP payload
   formats, e.g AMR and AMR-WB[RFC4867], supporting the unequal error
   detection provided by UDP-Lite [RFC3828].  The idea is that by not
   having a checksum over part of the RTP payload one can allow bit-
   errors from the lower layers.  By allowing bit-errors one can
   increase the efficiency of some link layers, and also avoid
   unnecesary discards of data when the payload and media codec could
   get at least some utility from the data.  The main issue is that one
   has no idea on the level of bit-errors present in the unprotected
   part of the payload.  Which makes it hard or impossible to determine
   if one can design something usable or not.  Payload format designers
   are recommended against considering features for unequal error
   detection unless very clear requirements exist.

   There also exist some management and monitoring extensions.

   RFC 2959:  The RTP protocol Management Information Database (MIB)
      [RFC2959] that is used with SNMP [RFC3410] to configure and
      retrieve information about RTP sessions.

   RFC 3611:  The RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR) [RFC3611] consist of a
      framework for reports sent within RTCP.  It can easily be extended
      by defining new report formats in future.  The report formats that
      are defined are providing report information on; packet loss
      vectors, packet duplication, packet reception times, RTCP
      statistics summary and VoIP Quality.  It also defines a mechanism
      that allows receivers to calculate the RTT to other session
      participants when used.

   RMONMIB:  The remote monitoring work group has defined a mechanism
      [RFC3577] based on usage of the MIB that can be an alternative to
      RTCP XR.

   There has also been developed a number of transport optimizations
   that are used in certain environments.  They are all intended to be
   transparent and not need special consideration by the RTP payload
   format writer.  Thus they are primarily listed here for informational
   reasons and do not require deeper studies.

   RFC 2508:  Compressing IP/UDP/RTP headers for slow serial links
      (CRTP) [RFC2508] is the first IETF developed RTP header
      compression mechanism.  It provides quite good compression however
      it has clear performance problems when subject to packet loss or

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

      reordering between compressor and decompressor.

   RFC 3095:  Is the base specification of the robust header compression
      (ROHC) protocol [RFC3095].  This solution was created as a result
      of CRTP's lack of performance when subject to losses.

   RFC 3545:  Enhanced compressed RTP (E-CRTP) [RFC3545] was developed
      to provide extensions to CRTP that allows for better performance
      over links with long RTTs, packet loss and/or reordering.

   RFC 4170:  Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP (TCRTP) [RFC4170] is
      a solution that allows header compression within a tunnel carrying
      multiple multiplexed RTP flows.  This is primarily used in voice

   There exist a couple of different security mechanisms that may be
   used with RTP.  All generic mechanisms need to be transparent for the
   RTP payload format and nothing that needs special consideration.  The
   main reason that there exist different solutions is that different
   applications have different requirements thus different solutions
   have been developed.  The main properties for a RTP security
   mechanism are to provide confidentiality for the RTP payload,
   integrity protection to detect manipulation of payload and headers,
   and source authentication.  Not all mechanism provides all of these
   features which will need to be considered when used.

   RTP Encryption:  Section 9 of RFC 3550 describes a mechanism to
      provide confidentiality of the RTP and RTCP packets, using per
      default DES encryption.  It may use other encryption algorithms if
      both end-points agree on it.  This mechanism is not recommend due
      to its weak security properties of the used encryption algorithms.
      It also lacks integrity and source authentication mechanisms.

   SRTP:  The profile for Secure RTP (SAVP) [RFC3711] and the derived
      profile (SAVPF [RFC5124]) is a solution that provides
      confidentiality, integrity protection and partial source

   IPsec:  IPsec [RFC4301] may also be used to protect RTP and RTCP

   TLS:  TLS [RFC4346] may also be used to provide transport security
      between two end-point of the TLS connection for a flow of RTP
      packets that are framed over TCP.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   DTLS:  Datagram TLS [RFC4347] is an alternative to TLS that allow TLS
      to be used over datagrams, like UDP.  Thus it has the potential
      for being used to protect RTP over UDP.  However the necessary
      signalling mechanism for using it that has not yet been developed
      in any of the IETF real-time media application signalling

3.2.  Important RTP details

   This section does not remove the necessity of reading up on RTP.
   However it does point out a couple of important details to remember
   when designing the payload format.

3.2.1.  The RTP Session

   The definition of the RTP session from RFC 3550 is:

   "An association among a set of participants communicating with RTP.
   A participant may be involved in multiple RTP sessions at the same
   time.  In a multimedia session, each medium is typically carried in a
   separate RTP session with its own RTCP packets unless the encoding
   itself multiplexes multiple media into a single data stream.  A
   participant distinguishes multiple RTP sessions by reception of
   different sessions using different pairs of destination transport
   addresses, where a pair of transport addresses comprises one network
   address plus a pair of ports for RTP and RTCP.  All participants in
   an RTP session may share a common destination transport address pair,
   as in the case of IP multicast, or the pairs may be different for
   each participant, as in the case of individual unicast network
   addresses and port pairs.  In the unicast case, a participant may
   receive from all other participants in the session using the same
   pair of ports, or may use a distinct pair of ports for each.

   The distinguishing feature of an RTP session is that each maintains a
   full, separate space of SSRC identifiers (defined next).  The set of
   participants included in one RTP session consists of those that can
   receive an SSRC identifier transmitted by any one of the participants
   either in RTP as the SSRC or a CSRC (also defined below) or in RTCP.
   For example, consider a three-party conference implemented using
   unicast UDP with each participant receiving from the other two on
   separate port pairs.  If each participant sends RTCP feedback about
   data received from one other participant only back to that
   participant, then the conference is composed of three separate point-
   to-point RTP sessions.  If each participant provides RTCP feedback
   about its reception of one other participant to both of the other
   participants, then the conference is composed of one multi-party RTP
   session.  The latter case simulates the behavior that would occur
   with IP multicast communication among the three participants.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   The RTP framework allows the variations defined here, but a
   particular control protocol or application design will usually impose
   constraints on these variations."

3.2.2.  RTP Header

   The RTP header contains two fields that require additional
   specification by the RTP payload format, namely the RTP Timestamp and
   the marker bit.  Certain RTP payload formats also uses the RTP
   sequence number to realize certain functionalities.  The payload type
   is used to indicate the used payload format.

   Marker bit:  A single bit normally used to provide important
      indications.  In audio it is normally used to indicate the start
      of an talk burst.  This to enable jitter buffer adaptation prior
      to this with minimal audio quality impact.  In video the marker
      bit is normally used to indicate the last packet part of an frame.
      This enables an decoder to finish decoding the picture, where it
      otherwise may need to wait for the next packet to explicitly know

   Timestamp:  The RTP timestamp indicate the time instance the media
      belongs to.  For discrete media, like video it normally indicates
      when the media (frame) was sampled.  For continuous media it
      normally indicates the first time instance the media present in
      the payload represents.  For audio this is the sampling time of
      the first sample.  All RTP payload formats must specify the
      meaning of the timestamp value and which clock rates that are
      allowed.  Note that clock rates below 1000 Hz is not appropriate
      due to RTCP measurements function that in that case lose

   Sequence number:  The sequence number are monotonically increasing
      and set as packets are sent.  That property is used in many
      payload formats to recover the order of everything from the whole
      stream down to fragments of ADUs and the order they shall be

   Payload Type:  Commonly the same payload type is used for a media
      stream for the whole duration of a session.  However in some cases
      it may be required to change the payload format or its
      configuration during the session.  The payload type is used to
      indicate on a per packet basis which format is used.  Thus certain
      major configuration information can be bound to a payload type
      value by out-of-band signalling.  Examples of this would be video
      decoder configuration information.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   SSRC:  The Sender Source ID is normally not used by a payload format
      other than identifying the RTP timestamp and sequence number space
      a packet belongs to, allowing the simultaneously reception of
      multiple senders.  However there are certain of the mechanisms the
      make RTP robuster that are RTP payloads that have used multiple
      SSRCs and bound them together to correctly separate original data
      and repair or redundant data.

   The remaining fields are commonly not influencing the RTP payload
   format.  The padding bit is worth clarifying as it indicates that one
   or more bytes are appended after the RTP payload.  This padding must
   be removed by a receiver before payload format processing can occur.
   Thus it is completely separate from any padding that may occur within
   the payload format itself.

3.2.3.  RTP Multiplexing

   RTP has three multiplexing points that are used for different
   purposes.  A proper understanding of this is important to correctly
   utilized them.

   The first one is separation of media streams of different types,
   which is accomplished using different RTP sessions.  So for example
   in the common multi-media session with audio and video, RTP multiplex
   audio and video on different RTP sessions.  To achieve this
   separation, transport level functionalities are use, normally UDP
   port numbers.  Different RTP sessions are also used to realize
   layered scalability as it allows a receiver to select one or more
   layers for multicasted RTP sessions simply by joining the multicast
   groups the desired layers are transported over.  This also allows
   different Quality of Service (QoS) be applied to different media.

   The next point is separation of different sources within a RTP
   session.  Here RTP uses the SSRC (Sender Source) which identifies
   individual sources.  An example of individual sources in audio RTP
   session, would be different microphones, independent of if they are
   from the same host or different hosts.  For each SSRC a unique RTP
   sequence number and timestamp space is used.

   The third multiplexing point is the RTP headers payload type field.
   The payload type identifies what format the content in the RTP
   payload has.  This includes different payload format configurations,
   different codecs, and also usage of robustness mechanisms like the
   one described in RFC 2198 [RFC2198].

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

3.2.4.  RTP Synchronization

   There are several types of synchronization and we will here describe
   how RTP handles the different types:

   Intra media:  The synchronization within a media stream from a source
      is accomplished using the RTP timestamp field.  Each RTP packet
      carry the RTP timestamp that specifies the media contained in this
      packets position in relation to other media on the time line.
      This is especially useful in cases of discontinues transmissions.
      Discontinues can also be caused by the network and with extensive
      losses the RTP timestamp tells the receiver how much later than
      previously received media the media shall be played out.

   Inter media:  As applications commonly has a desire to use several
      media types at the same time there exist a need to synchronize
      also the different medias from the same source.  This puts two
      requirements on RTP; possibility to determine which media is from
      the same source and if they should be synchronized with each
      other; and the functionality to facilitate the synchronization

   The first part of Inter media synchronization is to determine which
   SSRCs in each session that should be synchronized with each other.
   This is accomplished by comparing the RTCP SDES CNAME field.  SSRCs
   with the same CNAME in different RTP session should be synchronized.

   The actual RTCP mechanism for inter media synchronization is based on
   that each media stream provide a position on the media specific time
   line (measured in RTP timestamp ticks) and a common reference time
   line.  The common reference time line is in RTCP expressed as an wall
   clock time in the Network Time Protocol (NTP) format.  It is
   important to notice that the wall clock time is not required to be
   synchronized between hosts, for example by using NTP [RFC1305] .  It
   can even have nothing at all to do with the actual time, for example
   the host system's uptime can be used for this purpose.  The important
   factor is that all media streams from a particular source that are
   being synchronized uses the same reference clock to derive there
   relative RTP timestamp time scales.

   In the below Figure (Figure 1) it is depicted how if one receives
   RTCP Sender Report (SR) packet P1 in one media stream and RTCP SR
   packet P2 in the other session, then one can calculate the
   corresponding RTP timestamp values for any arbitrary point in time T.
   However to be able to do that it is also required to know the RTP
   timestamp rates for each media currently used in the sessions

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   TS1   --+---------------+------->
           |               |
          P1               |
           |               |
   NTP  ---+-----+---------T------>
                 |         |
                P2         |
                 |         |
   TS2  ---------+---------+---X-->

                      Figure 1: RTCP Synchronization

   Lets assume that media 1 uses a RTP Timestamp clock rate of 16 kHz,
   and media 2 a rate of 90 kHz.  Then the TS1 and TS2 for point T can
   be calculated in the following way: TS1(T) = TS1(P1) + 16000 *
   (NTP(T)-NTP(P1)) and TS2(T) = TS2(P2) + 90000 * (NTP(T)-NTP(P2)).
   This calculation is useful as it allows to generate a common
   synchronization point for which all time values are provided (TS1(T),
   TS2(T) and T).  So when one like to calculate at which NTP time the
   TS present in packet X corresponds to one can do that in the
   following way: NTP(X) = NTP(T) + (TS2(X) - TS2(T))/90000.

3.3.  Signalling Aspects

   RTP payload formats are used in the context of application signalling
   protocols such as SIP [RFC3261] using SDP [RFC4566] with Offer/Answer
   [RFC3264], RTSP [RFC2326] or SAP [RFC2326].  These examples all uses
   SDP to indicate which and how many media streams that are desired to
   be used in the session and their configuration.  To be able to
   declare or negotiate which media format and RTP payload packetization
   the payload format must be given an identifier.  In addition to the
   identifier many payload formats also have the need to carry further
   configuration information out-of-band in regards to the RTP payloads
   prior to the media transport session.

   The above examples of session establishing protocols all use SDP,
   however also other session description formats may be used.  For
   example there have been discussion on a new Session Description
   format within IETF (SDP-NG).  To prevent locking the usage of RTP to
   SDP based out-of-band signalling, the payload formats are identified
   using an separate definition format for the identifier and
   parameters.  That format is the Media Type.

3.3.1.  Media Types

   Media types [RFC4288] was originally created for identifying media
   formats included in email.  Media types are today also used in HTTP
   [RFC2616], MSRP [RFC4975] and many other protocols to identify

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   arbitrary content carried within the protocols.  Media types also
   provide a media hierarchy that fits RTP payload formats well.  Media
   type names are two-part and consist of content type and sub-type
   separated with a slash, e.g. "audio/PCMA" or "video/h263-2000".  It
   is important to choose the correct content-type when creating the
   media type identifying an RTP payload format.  However in most cases
   there is little doubt what content type the format belongs to.
   Guidelines for choosing the correct media type and registration rules
   are present in RFC 4288 [RFC4288].  The additional rules for media
   types for RTP payload formats are present in RFC 4855 [RFC4855].

   Media types are allowed any number of parameters which are divided
   into two groups, required and optional parameters.  They are always
   on the form name=value.  There exist no restriction on how the value
   is defined from media types perspective, except that parameters must
   have value.  However the carrying of media types in SDP etc. has
   resulted in the following restrictions that needs to be followed to
   make media types for RTP payload format usable:

   1.  Arbitrary binary content in the parameters are allowed but needs
       to be encoded so that they can be placed within text based
       protocols.  Base64 [RFC4648] is recommended, but for shorter
       content BASE16 may be more appropriate as it is simpler to
       interpret by humans.  This needs to be explicitly stated when
       defining a media type parameter with binary value.

   2.  The end of the value needs to be easily found when parsing a
       message.  Thus parameter values that are continuous and non
       interrupted by common text separators, such as space and semi-
       colon are recommended.  If that is not possible some type of
       escaping should be used.  Usage of " (double quote) is

   3.  A common representation form of the media type and its parameters
       is on a single line.  In those cases the media type is followed
       by a semi-colon separated list of the parameter value pair, e.g.
       audio/amr octet-align=0; mode-set=0,2,5,7; mode-change-period=2.

3.3.2.  Mapping to SDP

   As SDP [RFC4566] is so commonly used as an out-of-band signalling
   channel, a mapping of the media type exist.  The details on how to
   map the media type and its parameters into SDP are described in RFC
   4855 [RFC4855].  However this is not sufficient to explain how
   certain parameter shall be interpreted for example in the context of
   Offer/Answer negotiation [RFC3264].

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008  The Offer/Answer Model

   The Offer/Answer (O/A) model allows SIP to negotiate media formats
   and which payload formats and their configuration is used in a
   session.  However O/A does not define a default behavior and instead
   points out the need to define how parameters behave.  To make things
   even more complex the direction of media within a session do have
   impact on these rules, thus some cases may require description
   separately for peers that are send only, receiver only or both
   senders and receivers as identified by the SDP attributes a=sendonly,
   a=recvonly, and a=sendrecv.  In addition any usage of multicast puts
   a further limitations as the same media stream is delivered to all
   participants.  If those restrictions are to limiting also to be used
   in unicast then separate rules for unicast and multicast will be

   The most common O/A interpretation and the simplest is for
   declarative parameters, i.e. the sending entity can declare a value
   and that has no direct impact on the other agents values.  This
   declared value applies to all media that are going to be sent to the
   declaring entity.  For example most video codecs has level parameter
   which tells the other participants the highest complexity the video
   decoder supports.  The level parameter can be declared independently
   by two participants in a unicast session as it will be the media
   sender responsibility to transmit a video stream that fulfills the
   limitation the other has declared.  However in multicast it will be
   necessary to send a stream that follows the limitation of the weakest
   receiver, i.e. the one that has supports the lowest level.  To
   simplify the negotiation in these cases it is common to require any
   answerer to a multicast session to take a yes or no approach to

   "Negotiated" parameters are another type of parameters, for which
   both sides needs to agree on their values.  Such parameter requires
   that the answerer either accept as they are offered or remove the
   payload type the parameter belonged to.  The removal of the payload
   type from the answer indicates to the offerer the lack of support.
   An unfortunate implications of the need to use complete payload types
   to indicate each configuration possible to achieve interoperability,
   is that the number of payload types necessary can quickly grow big.
   This is one reason to keep the total number of set of capabilities
   that may be implemented limited.

   The most problematic type of parameters are those that relates with
   the transmission the entity performs.  They do not really fit the O/A
   model but can be shoe-horned in.  Example of such parameters can be
   found in the H.264 video code's payload format [RFC3984], where the
   name of all parameters with this property starts sprop-.  The issue

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   that exist is that they declare properties for a media stream one
   don't yet know if the other party accept.  The best one can make of
   the situation is to explain the assumption that the other party will
   accept the same reception parameter as the offerer of the session.
   If the answerer needs to change any declarative parameter then the
   offerer may be required to make an new offer to update the parameter
   values for its outgoing media stream.

   Another issue to consider is the sendonly media streams in offers.
   For all parameters that relates to what one accepts to receive those
   don't have any meaning other than provide a template for the
   answering entity.  It is worth pointing out in the specification that
   these provides recommended set of parameter values by the sender.
   Note that sendonly streams in answers will need to indicate the
   offerers parameters to ensure that the offerer can match the answer
   to the offer.

   A further issue with offer/answer which complicates things is that it
   is allowed to renumber the payload types between offer and answer.
   This is not recommended but allowed for support of gateways to the
   ITU conferencing suit.  Which means that answers for payload types
   needs to be possible to bind to the ones in the offer even when the
   payload type number has been changed, and some of the proposed
   payload types have been removed.  This must normally be done based on
   configurations offered, thus negotiated parameters becomes vital.  Declarative usage in RTSP and SAP

   SAP (Session Announcement Protocol) [RFC2974] is used for announcing
   multicast sessions.  Independently of the usage of Source Specific
   Multicast (SSM) [RFC3569] or Any-Source Multicast (ASM), the SDP
   provided by SAP applies to all participants.  All media that is sent
   to the session must follow the media stream definition as specified
   by the SDP.  Thus enabling everyone to receive the session if they
   support the configuration.  Here SDP provides a one way channel with
   no possibility to affect the configuration defined by SDP that the
   session creator has decided upon.  Any RTP Payload format that
   requires parameters for the send direction and which needs individual
   values per implementation or instance will fail in a SAP session for
   a multicast session allowing anyone to send.

   Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [RFC2326] allows the negotiation
   of transport parameters for media streams part of a streaming session
   between a server and client.  RTSP has divided the transport
   parameters from the media configuration.  SDP is commonly used for
   media configuration in RTSP and is sent to the client prior to
   session establishment, either through the usage of the DESCRIBE
   method or an out-of-band channel like HTTP, email etc.  The SDP is

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   used to determine which media streams and what formats are being used
   before the session establishment.

   Thus both SAP and RTSP uses SDP to configure receivers and senders
   with a predetermined configuration including the payload format and
   any of its parameters of a media stream.  Thus all parameters are
   used in a declarative fashion.  This can result in different
   treatment of parameters between offer/answer and declarative usage in
   RTSP and SAP.  This will then need to be pointed out by the payload
   format specification.

3.4.  Transport Characteristics

   The general channel characteristics that RTP flows are experiencing
   are documented in Section 3 of RFC2736 [RFC2736].  Below additional
   information is discussed.

3.4.1.  Path MTU

   At the time of writing the most common IP Maximum Transmission Unit
   (MTU) of used link layers is 1500 bytes (Ethernet data payload).
   However there exist links with both smaller MTU and much larger MTUs.
   Certain parts of Internet do already today support IP MTU of 9000
   bytes or more.  There is an slow ongoing evolution towards larger MTU
   sizes.  This should be considered in the design, especially in
   regards to features such as aggregation of independently decodable
   data units.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

4.  Specification Process

   This section discusses the recommended process to produce an RTP
   payload format in the described venues.  This is to document the best
   current practice on how to get a well designed and specified payload
   format as quickly as possible.  For specifications that are
   proprietary or defined by other standards bodies than IETF the
   primary milestone is registration of the RTP payload format name.
   However there is also the issue of ensuring best possible quality of
   any specification.

4.1.  IETF

   Specification in IETF is recommended for all standardized media
   formats.  The main reason is to provide an openly available RTP
   payload format specification that also has been reviewed by people
   experienced with RTP Payload formats.  This also assumes that the AVT
   WG exist.

4.1.1.  Steps from Idea to Publication

   There are a number of steps that an RTP payload format should go
   through from the initial idea until it is published.  This also
   documents the process that the AVT working group applies when working
   with RTP payload formats.

   1.  Idea: Determined the need for an RTP payload format as an IETF

   2.  Initial effort: Using this document as guideline one should be
       able to get started on the work.  If one's media codec doesn't
       fit any of the common design patterns or one has problems
       understanding what the most suitable way forward is, then one
       should contact the AVT working group and/or the WG chairs.  The
       goal of this stage is to have an initial individual draft.  This
       draft needs to focus on the introduction parts that describe the
       real-time media format and the basic idea on how to packetize it.
       All the details are not required to be filled in.  However
       security chapter is not something that one should skip even
       initially.  It is important to consider already from the start
       any serious security risks that needs to be solved.  This step is
       completed when one has a draft that is sufficient detailed for a
       first review by the WG.  The less confident one is of the
       solution, the less work should be spent on details, instead
       concentrate on the codec properties and what is required to make
       it work.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   3.  Submission of first version.  When one has performed the above
       one submits the draft as an individual draft.  This can be done
       at any time except the 3 weeks (current deadline at the time of
       writing, consult current announcements) prior to an IETF meeting.
       When the IETF draft announcement has been sent out on the draft
       announcement list, forward it to the AVT WG and request that it
       is reviewed.  In the email outline any issues the authors
       currently have with the design.

   4.  Iterative improvements: Taking the feedback into account one
       updates the draft and try resolve any issues.  New revision of
       the draft can be submitted at any time.  It is recommended to do
       it whenever one has made major updates or have new issues that
       are easiest to discuss in the context of a new draft version.

   5.  Becoming WG document: Due to that the definition of RTP payload
       formats are part of the AVT's charter, RTP payload formats that
       are going to be published as standards track RFCs needs to become
       WG documents.  Becoming WG document means that the chairs are
       responsible for administrative handling, like publication
       requests.  However be aware that making a document into a WG
       document changes the formal ownership and responsibility from the
       individual authors to the WG.  The initial authors will continue
       being document editor, unless unusual circumstances occur.  The
       AVT WG accepts new RTP payload formats based on their suitability
       and document maturity.  The document maturity is a requirement to
       ensure that there are dedicated document editors and that there
       exist a good solution.

   6.  Iterative improvements: The updates and review cycles continues
       until the draft the has reached the maturity suitable for

   7.  WG last call: WG last call of at least 2 weeks are always
       performed for payload formats in the AVT WG.  The authors request
       WG last call for a draft when they think it i mature enough for
       publication.  The chairs perform a review to check if they agree
       with the authors assessment.  If the chairs agree on the
       maturity, the WG last call is announced on the WG mailing list.
       If there are issues raised these needs to be addressed with an
       updated draft version.  For any more substantial updates of
       draft, a new WG last call is announced for the updated version.
       Minor changes, like editorial on can be progressed without an
       additional WG last call.

   8.  Publication Requested: For WG documents the chairs request
       publication of the draft.  After this the approval and
       publication process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026] are

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

       performed.  The status after the publication has been requested
       can be tracked using the IETF data tracker.  Documents do not
       expire as normal after publication has been requested.  In
       addition any submission of document updates requires the approval
       of WG chair(s).  The authors are commonly asked to address
       comments or issues raised by the IESG.  The authors also review
       the document prior to publication as an RFC to ensure its

4.1.2.  WG meetings

   WG meetings are for discussing issues, not presentations.  This means
   that most RTP payload format should never need to be discussed in a
   WG meeting.  RTP payload formats that would be discussed are either
   controversial issues that failed to be resolved on the mailing list,
   or includes new design concepts worth a general discussion.

   There exist no requirement to present or discuss a draft at a WG
   meeting before it becoming published as an RFC.  Thus even authors
   that lack the possibility to go to WG meetings should be able to
   successfully specify an RTP payload format in IETF.  WG meetings may
   only become required if the draft get stuck in a serious debate that
   isn't easily resolved.

4.1.3.  Draft Naming

   To simplify the work of the AVT WG chairs and its WG members a
   specific draft file naming convention shall be used for RTP payload
   formats.  Individual submissions shall be named draft-<lead author
   family name>-avt-rtp-<descriptive name>-<version>.  The WG documents
   shall be named according to this template:
   draft-ietf-avt-rtp-<descriptive name>-<version>.  The inclusion of
   "avt" in the draft filename ensures that the search for "avt-" will
   find all AVT related drafts.  Inclusion of "rtp" tells us that it is
   an RTP payload format draft.  The descriptive name should be as short
   as possible while still describe what the payload format is for.  It
   is recommended to use the media format or codec acronym.  Please note
   that the version must start at 00 and is increased by one for each
   submission to the IETF secretary of the draft.  No version numbers
   may be skipped.

4.1.4.  How to speed up the process

   There a number of ways of losing a lot of time in the above process.
   This section discuss what to do and what to avoid.

   o  Do not only update the draft to the meeting deadline.  An update
      to each meeting automatically limits the draft to 3 updates per

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

      year.  Instead ignore the meeting schedule and publish new
      versions as soon as possible.

   o  Try to avoid requesting review when people are busy, like the
      weeks before a meeting.  Review should be asked at all possible
      times and it is actually more likely that people has more time for
      them directly after a meeting.

   o  Perform draft updates quickly.  A common mistake is that the
      authors lets the draft slip.  By performing updates to the draft
      text directly after getting resolution on an issue, speeds things
      up.  This as it minimizes the delay that the author has direct
      control over.  Waiting for reviews, responses from area directors
      and chairs, etc can be much harder to speed up.

   o  Failing to take the human nature into account.  It happens that
      people forget or needs to be reminded about tasks.  Send people
      you are waiting for a kindly reminder if things takes longer than
      expected.  To avoid annoying people ask for a time estimate from
      people when they expect to fulfill the requested task.

   o  Not enough review.  It is common that documents take a long time
      and many iterations because not enough review is performed in each
      iteration.  To improve the amount of review you get on your own
      document, trade review time with other document authors.  Make a
      deal with some other document authors that you will review his
      draft(s) if he reviews yours.  Even inexperience reviewers can
      help with language, editorial or clarity issues.  Try also
      approaching the more experienced people in the WG and get them to
      commit to a review.  The WG chairs cannot, even if desirable, be
      expected to review all versions.  Due to workload the chairs may
      need to concentrate on key points in a draft evolution, like
      initial submissions, if ready to become WG document and WG last

4.2.  Other Standards bodies

   Other standard bodies may define RTP payload in their own
   specifications.  When they do this they are strongly recommend to
   contact the AVT WG chairs and request review of the work.  It is
   recommended that at least two review steps are performed.  One early
   in the process when more fundamental issues easily can be resolved
   without abandoning a lot of effort.  Then when nearing completion,
   but while still possible to update the specification as second review
   should be scheduled.  In that pass the quality can be assessed and
   hopefully no updates are needed.  Using this procedure can avoids
   both conflicting definitions and serious mistakes, like breaking
   certain aspects of the RTP model.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   RTP payload Media Types may be registered in the standards tree by
   other standard bodies.  The requirements on the organization are
   outlined in the media types registration document (RFC 4855 [RFC4855]
   and RFC 4288 [RFC4288]).  This registration requires a request to the
   IESG, which ensures that the registration template is acceptable.  To
   avoid last minute problems with these registration the registration
   template must be sent for review both to the AVT WG and the media
   types list ( and is something that should be
   included in the IETF reviews of the payload format specification.

   Registration of the RTP payload name is something that is required to
   avoid name collision in the future.  Do also note that "x-" names are
   not suitable for any documented format as they have the same problem
   with name collision and can't be registered.  The list of already
   registered media types can be found at IANA (

4.3.  Propreitary and Vendor Specific

   Proprietary RTP payload formats are commonly specified when the real-
   time media format is proprietary and not intended to be part of any
   standardized system.  However there exist many reasons why also
   proprietary formats should be correctly documented and registered;

   o  Usage in standardized signalling environment such as SIP/SDP.  RTP
      needs to be configured regarding used RTP profiles, payload
      formats and their payload types.  To accomplish this there is an
      need for registered names to ensure that the names do not collide
      with other formats.

   o  Sharing with business partners.  As RTP payload formats are used
      for communication, situations where business partners like to
      support one proprietary format often arises.  Having a well
      written specification of the format will save time and money for
      both one selves and ones partner, as interoperability will much
      easier to accomplish.

   o  To ensure interoperability between different implementations on
      different platforms.

   To avoid name collisions there is a central register keeping tracks
   of the registered Media Type names used by different RTP payload
   formats.  When it comes to proprietary formats they should be
   registered in the vendors own tree.  All vendor specific
   registrations uses sub-type names that start with "vnd.<vendor-
   name>".  All names that uses names in the vendors own trees are not
   required to be registered with IANA.  However registration is
   recommended if used at all in public environments.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

5.  Designing Payload Formats

   The best summary of payload format design is KISS (Keep It Simple,
   Stupid).  A simple payload format makes it easy to review for
   correctness, implement, and have low complexity.  Unfortunately
   contradicting requirements sometime makes it hard to do things
   simple.  Complexity issues and problems that occur for RTP payload
   formats are:

   Too many configurations:  Contradicting requirements results in that
      one configuration for each conceivable case is created.  Such
      contradicting requirements are often between functionality and
      bandwidth.  This has two big negatives.  First all configurations
      needs to be implemented.  Secondly the using application must
      select the most suitable configuration.  Selecting the best
      configuration can be very difficult and in negotiating
      applications, this can create interoperability problems.  The
      recommendation is to try to select a very limited (preferable one)
      configuration that preforms the most common case well and is
      capable of handling the other cases, but maybe less well.

   Hard to implement:  Certain payload formats may become difficult to
      implement both correctly and efficient.  This needs to be
      considered in the design.

   Interaction with general mechanisms:  Special solutions may create
      issues with deployed tools for RTP, like tools for robuster
      transport of RTP.  For example the requirement of non broken
      sequence space creates issues with using both payload type
      switching and interleaving any mechanism for media independent
      resilience within the stream.

5.1.  Features of RTP payload formats

   There are number of common features in RTP payload formats.  There
   are no general requirement to support these features, instead their
   applicability must be considered for each payload format.  It might
   in fact be that certain features are not even applicable.

5.1.1.  Aggregation

   Aggregation allows for the inclusion of multiple ADUs within the same
   RTP payload.  This is commonly supported for codec that produce ADUs
   of sizes smaller than the IP MTU.  Do remember that the MTU may be
   significantly larger than 1500 bytes, 9000 bytes is available today
   and a MTU of 64k may be available in the future.  Many speech codecs
   have the property of ADUs of a few fixed sizes.  Video encoders
   generally may produce ADUs of quite flexible size.  Thus the need for

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   aggregation may be less.  However in certain use cases the
   possibility to aggregate multiple ADUs especially for different
   playback times are useful.

   The main disadvantage of aggregation is the extra delay introduced,
   due to buffering until sufficient amount of ADUs have been collected
   and reduced robustness against packet loss.  It also introduces
   buffering requirements on the receiver.

5.1.2.  Fragmentation

   If the real-time media format has the property that it may produce
   ADUs that are larger than common MTUs sizes then fragmentation
   support should be considered.  An RTP Payload format may always fall
   back on IP fragmentation, however as discussed in RFC 2736 this have
   some drawbacks.  The usage of RTP payload format level fragmentation,
   does primarily allow for more efficient usage of RTP packet loss
   recovery mechanisms.  However it may in some cases also allow usage
   of the partial ADU by doing media specific fragmentation at media
   specific boundaries.

5.1.3.  Interleaving and Transmission Re-Scheduling

   Interleaving has been implemented in a number of payload formats to
   allow for less quality reduction when packet loss occurs.  When
   losses are bursty and several consecutive packets are lost, the
   impact on quality can be quite severe.  Interleaving is used to
   convert that burst loss to several spread out individual losses.  It
   can also be used when several ADUs are aggregated in the same
   packets.  A loss of an RTP packet with several ADUs in the payload
   has the same affect as a burst loss if the ADUs would have been
   transmitted in individual packets.  To reduce the burstiness of the
   loss, the data present in an aggregated payload may be interleaved,
   thus spread the loss over a longer time period.

   A requirement for doing interleaving within an RTP payload format is
   the aggregation of multiple ADUs.  For formats that don't use
   aggregation there is still the possibility to implement an
   transmission order re-scheduling mechanism.  That have the effect
   that packets transmitted next to each other originates from different
   points in the media stream.  This can be used to mitigate burst
   losses, which may be useful if one transmit packets with small
   intervals.  However it may also be used to transmit more significant
   data earlier in combination with RTP retransmission to allow for more
   graceful degradation and increased possibilities to receive the most
   important data, e.g.  Intra frames of video.

   The drawbacks of interleaving is the significantly increased

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   transmission buffering delay, making it mostly useless for low delay
   applications.  It also creates significant buffering requirements on
   the receiver.  That buffering also is problematic as it is usually
   difficult to indicate when a receiver may start consume data and
   still avoid buffer underrun caused by the interleaving mechanism
   itself.  The transmission re-scheduling is only useful in a few
   specific cases, like in streaming with retransmissions.  This must be
   weighted against the complexity of these schemes.

5.1.4.  Media Back Channels

   A few RTP payload format have implemented back channels within the
   media format.  Those have been for specific features, like the AMR
   [RFC4867] codec mode request (CMR) field.  The CMR field is used in
   gateway operations to circuit switched voice to allow an IP terminal
   to react to the CS networks need for a specific encoder mode.  A
   common property for the media back channels is the need to have this
   signalling in direct relation to the media or the media path.

   If back channels are considered for an RTP payload format they should
   be for specific mechanism and which can't be easily satisfied by more
   generic mechanisms within RTP or RTCP.

5.1.5.  Scalability

   There exist some codecs that supports some type of scalability, i.e.
   where additional data can be used to improve media stream properties,
   but the additional data isn't required for decoding.  This quality
   improvements has been so far been in a number of different types:

   Temporal:  For video codecs increased frame rate is one way to
      improve the quality.  Audio codecs could provide increase sampling

   Spatial:  Video codecs with scalability may increase the resolution
      or image size.

   Quality:  The perceived quality of the media stream can be improved
      without affecting the temporal or spatial properties of the media.
      This is usually done by improving the signal to noise ration
      within the content.

   Codecs that support scalability are at the time of writing this
   having a bit of revival.  It has been realized that getting the need
   functionality for the media stream in the RTP framework is quite
   challanging.  The author hopes to be able to provide some lessons
   from this work in this document in the future.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

5.1.6.  High Packet Rates

   Some media codecs requires high packet rates, and in these cases the
   RTP sequence number wraps to quickly.  As rule of thumd, the sequence
   number space must not be possible to wrap in less than 2 minutes (TCP
   maximum segement lifetime).  If that may occur then the payload
   format should specify a extended sequence number field to allow the
   receiver to determine where a specific payload belongs in the
   sequence also in the face of extensive reordering.  The RTP payload
   format for uncompressed video [RFC4175] can be used as an example for
   such a field.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

6.  Current Trends in Payload Format Design

   This section provides a few examples of payload formats that is worth
   noting for good design in general or specific details.

6.1.  Audio Payloads

   The AMR [RFC4867], AMR-WB [RFC4867], EVRC [RFC3558], SMV [RFC3558]
   payload format are all quite similar.  They are all for frame based
   audio codecs and use a table of content structure.  Each frame has a
   table of contents entry that indicate the type of the frame and if
   additional frames are present.  This is quite flexible but produces
   unnecessary overhead if the ADU is fixed size and when aggregating
   multiple ones they are commonly of the same type.  In that case a
   solution like that in AMR-WB+ [RFC4352] maybe more suitable.

   AMR-WB+ does contain one less good feature which is depending on the
   media codec itself.  The media codec produces a large range of
   different frame lengths in time perspective.  The RTP timestamp rate
   is selected to the very unusual value of 72 kHz despite that output
   normally is at sample rate 48kHz.  This timestamp rate is the
   smallest found value that would make all of the frames the codec
   could produce results in integer frame length in RTP timestamp ticks.
   That way a receiver can always correctly place the frames in relation
   to any other frame, also at frame length changes.  The down side is
   that the decoder output for certain frame lengths are in fact partial
   samples.  Resulting in that the output in samples from the codec will
   vary from frame to frame, potentially making implementation more

   The RTP payload format for MIDI [RFC4695] contains some interesting
   features.  MIDI is an audio format sensitive to packet losses, as the
   loss of a note off command will result in that a note will be stuck
   in an on state.  To counter this a recovery journal is defined that
   provides a summarized state that allows the receiver to recover from
   packet losses quickly.  It also uses RTCP and the reported highest
   sequence number to be able to prune the state the recovery journal
   needs to contain.  These features appears limited in applicability
   for media formats that are highly stateful and primarily uses
   symbolic media representations.

6.2.  Video

   The definition of RTP payload formats for video has seen an evolution
   from the early ones such as H.261 towards the latest for VC-1 and

   The H.264 RTP payload format [RFC3984] can be seen as a smorgasbord

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   of functionality, some pretty advanced as the interleaving.  The
   reason for this was to ensure that the majority of applications
   considered by the ITU-T and MPEG that can be supported by RTP was
   supported.  This has created a payload format that rarely is
   implemented in its completness.  Despite that no major issues with
   interoperability has been reported.  However, there are common
   complaints about its complexity.

   The RTP payload format for uncompressed video [RFC4175] is basically
   required to be mentioned in this context as it contains a special
   feature not commonly seen in RTP payload formats.  Due to the high
   bit-rate and thus packet rate of uncompressed video (gigabits rather
   than megabits) the payload format include a field to extend the RTP
   sequence number as the normal 16-bit one can wrap in below a second.
   It also specifies a registry of different color sub-sampling that can
   be re-used in other video RTP payload formats.

6.3.  Text

   There would be overstating that there exist a trend in text payload
   formats as only a single format actually carrying a text format has
   been standardized in IETF, namely T.140 [RFC4103].  The 3GPP Timed
   Text format [RFC4396] could be considered to be text, despite it in
   the end was registered as a video format.  This is decorated text,
   usable for subtitles and other embelishments of video which is why it
   ended up being registered as video format.  However, it has many of
   the properties that text formats in generally have.

   The RTP payload format for T.140 was designed with high reliability
   in mind as real-time text commonly are a extremely low-bit rate
   application.  Thus, it recommends the use of RFC 2190 with many
   redundancy generations.  However, the format failed to provide a text
   block specific sequence number and relies instead of the RTP one to
   detection loss.  This makes detection of missing text blocks
   unecessarily difficult and hinders the deployement with other
   robustness mechanisms that would switch the payload type as that may
   result in erronous error marking in the T.140 text stream.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

7.  Important Specification Sections

   There a number of sections in the payload format draft that needs
   some special considerations.  These include security and IANA

7.1.  Security Consideration

   All Internet drafts requires a Security Consideration section.  The
   security consideration section in an RTP payload format needs to
   concentrate on the security properties this particular format has.
   Some payload format has very little specific issues or properties and
   can fully fall back on the general RTP and used profile's security
   considerations.  Due to that these are always applicable a reference
   to these are normally placed first in the security consideration

   The security issues of confidentiality, integrity protection and
   source authentication are common issues for all payload formats.
   These should be solved by payload external mechanism and does not
   need any special consideration in the payload format except for an
   reminder on these issues.  A suitable stock text to inform people
   about this is included in the template.

   Potential security issues with an RTP payload format and the media
   encoding that needs to be considered are:

   1.  That the decoding of the payload format or its media shows
       substantial non-uniformity, either in output or in complexity to
       perform the decoding operation.  For example a generic non-
       destructive compression algorithm may provide an output of almost
       infinite size for a very limited input.  Thus consuming memory or
       storage space out of proportion with what the receiving
       application expected causing some sort of disruption, i.e. a
       denial of service attack on the receiver by preventing that host
       to produce any good put.  Certain decoding operations may also
       have variable consumption of amount of processing needed to
       perform such operations dependent on the input.  This may also be
       a security risk if that processing load is possible to raise
       significantly from nominal simply by designing a malicious input
       sequence.  If such potential exist this must be expressed in the
       security consideration section to make implementers aware of the
       need to take precautions against such behavior.

   2.  The inclusion of active content in the media format or its
       transport.  With active content means scripts etc that allows an
       attacker to perform potentially arbitrary operations on the
       receiver.  Most active content have limited possibility to access

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

       the system or perform operations outside a protected sandbox.
       However if active content may be included the potential risk must
       be noted.  It is also strongly recommend that references to any
       security model applicable for such content is referenced.

   3.  Some media formats allows for the carrying of "user data", or
       types of data which is not known at the time of the specification
       of the payload format.  Such data may be a security risk and
       should be mentioned.

   Suitable stock text for the security consideration is provided in the
   template.  However the authors do need to actively consider any
   security issues from the start.  Failure to address these issues is
   blocking approval and publication.

7.2.  Congestion Control

   RTP and its profiles do discuss congestion control.  Congestion
   control is an important issue in any usage in non-dedicated networks.
   For that reason all RTP payload formats are recommended to discuss
   the possibilities that exist to regulate the bit-rate of the
   transmissions using the described RTP payload format.  Some formats
   may have limited or step wise regulation of bit-rate.  Such limiting
   factor should be discussed.

7.3.  IANA Consideration

   Due to that all RTP Payload format contains a Media Type
   specification they also need an IANA consideration section.  The
   media type name must be registered and this is done by requesting
   that IANA register that media name.  When that registration request
   is written it shall also be requested that the media type is included
   under the "RTP Payload Format MIME types" list part of the RTP

   In addition to the above request for media type registration some
   payload formats may have parameters where in the future new parameter
   values needs to be added.  In these cases a registry for that
   parameter must be created.  This is done by defining the registry in
   the IANA consideration section.  BCP 26 (RFC 2434) [RFC2434] provides
   guidelines to writing such registries.  Care should be taken when
   defining the policy for new registrations.

   Before writing a new registry it is worth checking the existing ones
   in the IANA "MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter Registries".  For example
   video formats needing a media parameter expressing color sub-sampling
   may be able to reuse those defined for video/raw [RFC4175].

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

8.  Authoring Tools

   This section informs and recommends some tools that may be used.
   Don't be pressured to follow these recommendation.  There exist a
   number of alternatives.  But these suggestion is worth checking out
   before deciding that the field is greener somewhere else.

8.1.  Editing Tools

   There is many choices when it comes to tools to choose for authoring
   Internet drafts.  However in the end they needs to be able to produce
   a draft that conforms to the Internet drafts requirements.  If you
   don't have any previous experience with authoring Internet drafts
   XML2RFC do have some advantages.  It helps creating a lot of the
   necessary boiler plate in accordance with the latest rules.  Thus
   reducing the effort.  It also speeds up the publication after
   approval as the RFC-editor can use the source XML document to quicker
   produce the RFC.

   Another common choice is to use Microsoft Word and a suitable
   template, see [RFC3285] to produce the draft and print that using the
   generic text printer.  It has some advantage when it comes to spell
   checking and change bars.  However Word may also produce some
   problems, like changing formating, inconsistent result between what
   one sees in the editor and in the generated text document, at least
   according to the authors personal experience.

8.2.  Verification Tools

   There are few tools that are very good to know about when writing an
   draft.  These help check and verify parts of ones work.  These tools
   can be found at

   o  ID Nits checker.  It checks that the boiler plate and some other
      things that are easily verifiable by machine is okay in your
      draft.  Always use it before submitting a draft to avoid direct
      refusal in the submission step.

   o  ABNF Parser and verification.  Used to check that your ABNF parses
      correctly and warns about loose ends, like undefined symbols.
      However the actual content can only be verified by humans knowing
      what it intends to describe.

   o  RFC diff.  A diff tool that is optimized for drafts and RFC.  For
      example it doesn't point out that the foot and header has moved in
      relation to the text on every page.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

9.  Open Issues

   This document currently has a few open issues that needs resolving
   before publication:

   o  Should any procedure for the future when the AVT WG is closed be

   o  The section of current examples of good work needs to be filled

   o  Consider mention RFC-errata

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

11.  Security Considerations

   As this is an informational document on the writing of drafts
   intended to be RFCs there is no direct security considerations.
   However the document does discuss the writing of security
   consideration sections and what should be particular considered when
   specifying RTP payload formats.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

12.  RFC Editor Consideration

   Note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed after carrying out
   all the instructions of this section.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

13.  Acknowledgements

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

14.  Informative References

   [CSP-RTP]  Colin , "RTP: Audio and Video for the Internet",
              June 2003.

              Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
              Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08
              (work in progress), July 2004.

              Apple Knowledge Base Article
              55381<>, "Mac OS:
              File Type and Creator Codes, and File Formats", 1993.

   [RFC1305]  Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
              Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2198]  Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
              Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
              Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2326]  Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
              Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.

   [RFC2360]  Scott, G., "Guide for Internet Standards Writers", BCP 22,
              RFC 2360, June 1998.

   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2508]  Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
              Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508,
              February 1999.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2736]  Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

              Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736,
              December 1999.

   [RFC2959]  Baugher, M., Strahm, B., and I. Suconick, "Real-Time
              Transport Protocol Management Information Base", RFC 2959,
              October 2000.

   [RFC2974]  Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
              Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [RFC3095]  Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
              Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
              K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
              Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
              Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
              ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3285]  Gahrns, M. and T. Hain, "Using Microsoft Word to create
              Internet Drafts and RFCs", RFC 3285, May 2002.

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

   [RFC3545]  Koren, T., Casner, S., Geevarghese, J., Thompson, B., and
              P. Ruddy, "Enhanced Compressed RTP (CRTP) for Links with
              High Delay, Packet Loss and Reordering", RFC 3545,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3558]  Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Enhanced Variable Rate
              Codecs (EVRC) and Selectable Mode Vocoders (SMV)",

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

              RFC 3558, July 2003.

   [RFC3569]  Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
              Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.

   [RFC3577]  Waldbusser, S., Cole, R., Kalbfleisch, C., and D.
              Romascanu, "Introduction to the Remote Monitoring (RMON)
              Family of MIB Modules", RFC 3577, August 2003.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
              Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,
              November 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC3828]  Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
              G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
              (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.

   [RFC3978]  Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
              RFC 3978, March 2005.

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.

   [RFC3984]  Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M., Stockhammer, T., Westerlund,
              M., and D. Singer, "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video",
              RFC 3984, February 2005.

   [RFC4103]  Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
              Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005.

   [RFC4170]  Thompson, B., Koren, T., and D. Wing, "Tunneling
              Multiplexed Compressed RTP (TCRTP)", BCP 110, RFC 4170,
              November 2005.

   [RFC4175]  Gharai, L. and C. Perkins, "RTP Payload Format for
              Uncompressed Video", RFC 4175, September 2005.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC4347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

   [RFC4352]  Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and S. Wenger,
              "RTP Payload Format for the Extended Adaptive Multi-Rate
              Wideband (AMR-WB+) Audio Codec", RFC 4352, January 2006.

   [RFC4396]  Rey, J. and Y. Matsui, "RTP Payload Format for 3rd
              Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Timed Text",
              RFC 4396, February 2006.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4571]  Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
              and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection-
              Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, July 2006.

   [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.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.

   [RFC4677]  Hoffman, P. and S. Harris, "The Tao of IETF - A Novice's
              Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force", RFC 4677,
              September 2006.

   [RFC4695]  Lazzaro, J. and J. Wawrzynek, "RTP Payload Format for
              MIDI", RFC 4695, November 2006.

   [RFC4855]  Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
              Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007.

   [RFC4867]  Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie,
              "RTP Payload Format and File Storage Format for the
              Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband
              (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 4867, April 2007.

   [RFC4975]  Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

              Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.

   [RFC5109]  Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
              Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007.

   [RFC5124]  Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
              Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
              (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

Appendix A.  RTP Payload Format Template

   This section contains a template for writing an RTP payload format in
   form as a Internet draft.  Text within [...] are instructions and
   must be removed.  Some text proposals that are included are
   conditional. "..." is used to indicate where further text should be

A.1.  Title

   [The title shall be descriptive but as compact as possible.  RTP is
   allowed and recommended abbreviation in the title]

   RTP Payload format for ...

A.2.  Front page boilerplate

   Status of this Memo

   [Insert the IPR notice boiler plate from BCP 79 that applies to this

   [Insert the current Internet Draft document explanation.  At the time
   of publishing it was:]

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

   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."

   [Insert the ID list and shadow list reference.  At the time of
   publishing it was:]

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   [Optionally: Select either of these paragraphs depending on draft

   This document is an individual submission to the IETF.  Comments

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   should be directed to the authors.

   This document is a submission of the IETF AVT WG.  Comments should be
   directed to the AVT WG mailing list,

A.3.  Abstract

   [An payload format abstract should mention the capabilities of the
   format, for which media format is used, and a little about that codec
   formats capabilities.  Any abbreviation used in the payload format
   must be spelled out here except the very well known like RTP.  No
   references are allowed, no use of RFC 2119 language either.]

A.4.  Table of Content

   [All drafts over 15 pages in length must have an Table of Content.]

A.5.  Introduction

   [The introduction should provide a background and overview of the
   payload formats capabilities.  No normative language in this section,
   i.e. no MUST, SHOULDS etc.]

A.6.  Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms

   [Define conventions, definitions and acronyms used in the document in
   this section.  The most common definition used in RTP Payload formats
   are the RFC 2119 definitions of the upper case normative words, e.g.
   MUST and SHOULD.]

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

A.7.  Media Format Background

   [The intention of this section is to enable reviewers and persons to
   get an overview of the capabilities and major properties of the media
   format.  It should be kept short and concise and is not a complete
   replacement for reading the media format specification.]

A.8.  Payload format

   [Overview of payload structure]

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

A.8.1.  RTP Header Usage

   [RTP header usage needs to be defined.  The fields that absolutely
   need to be defined are timestamp and marker bit.  Further field may
   be specified if used.  All the rest should be left to their RTP
   specification definition]

   The remaining RTP header fields are used as specified in RFC 3550.

A.8.2.  Payload Header

   [Define how the payload header, if it exist, is structured and used.]

A.8.3.  Payload Data

   [The payload data, i.e. what the media codec has produced.  Commonly
   done through reference to media codec specification which defines how
   the data is structured.  Rules for padding may need to be defined to
   bring data to octet alignment.]

A.9.  Payload Examples

   [One or more examples are good to help ease the understanding of the
   RTP payload format.]

A.10.  Congestion Control Considerations

   [This section is to describe the possibility to vary the bit-rate as
   a response to congestion.  Below is also a proposal for an initial
   text that reference RTP and profiles definition of congestion

   Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RFC 3550
   [RFC3550], and with any applicable RTP profile; e.g., RFC 3551
   [RFC3551].  An additional requirement if best-effort service is being
   used is: users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to
   ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters.

A.11.  Payload Format Parameters

   This RTP payload format is identified using the ... media type which
   is registered in accordance with RFC 4855 [RFC4855] and using the
   template of RFC 4288 [RFC4288].

A.11.1.  Media Type Definition

   [Here the media type registration template from RFC 4288 is placed
   and filled out.  This template is provided with some common RTP

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008


   Type name:

   Subtype name:

   Required parameters:

   Optional parameters:

   Encoding considerations:

   This media type is framed and binary, see section 4.8 in RFC4288

   Security considerations:

   Interoperability considerations:

   Published specification:

   Applications that use this media type:

   Additional information:

   Magic number(s):

   File extension(s):

   Macintosh file type code(s):

   Person & email address to contact for further information:

   Intended usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE.)

   Restrictions on usage:

   [The below text is for media types that is only defined for RTP
   payload formats.  There exist certain media types that are defined
   both as RTP payload formats and file transfer.  The rules for such
   types are documented in RFC 4855 [RFC4855].]

   This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined for
   transfer via RTP [RFC3550].  Transport within other framing protocols
   is not defined at this time.


Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   Change controller:

   IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the IESG.

   (Any other information that the author deems interesting may be added
   below this line.)

   [From RFC 4288: Some discussion of Macintosh file type codes and
   their purpose can be found in [MACOSFILETYPES].  Additionally, please
   refrain from writing "none" or anything similar when no file
   extension or Macintosh file type is specified, lest "none" be
   confused with an actual code value.]

A.11.2.  Mapping to SDP

   The mapping of the above defined payload format media type and its
   parameters SHALL be done according to Section 3 of RFC 4855

   [More specific rules only need to be included if some parameter does
   not match these rules.]

A.11.2.1.  Offer/Answer Considerations

   [Here write your offer/answer consideration section, please see
   Section Section for help.]

A.11.2.2.  Declarative SDP Considerations

   [Here write your considerations for declarative SDP, please see
   Section Section for help.]

A.12.  IANA Considerations

   This memo requests that IANA registers [insert media type name here]
   as specified in Appendix A.11.1.  The media type is also requested to
   be added to the IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format MIME types"

   [See Section Section 7.3 and consider if any of the parameter needs a
   registered name space.]

A.13.  Securtiy Considerations

   [See Section Section 7.1]

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

   specification [RFC3550] , and in any applicable RTP profile.  The
   main security considerations for the RTP packet carrying the RTP
   payload format defined within this memo are confidentiality,
   integrity and source authenticity.  Confidentiality is achieved by
   encryption of the RTP payload.  Integrity of the RTP packets through
   suitable cryptographic integrity protection mechanism.  Cryptographic
   system may also allow the authentication of the source of the
   payload.  A suitable security mechanism for this RTP payload format
   should provide confidentiality, integrity protection and at least
   source authentication capable of determining if an RTP packet is from
   a member of the RTP session or not.

   Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and
   payloads following this memo may vary.  It is dependent on the
   application, the transport, and the signalling protocol employed.
   Therefore a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if suitable
   the usage of SRTP [RFC3711] is recommended.  Other mechanism that may
   be used are IPsec [RFC4301] and TLS [RFC4346] (RTP over TCP), but
   also other alternatives may exist.

   [Fill in here any further potential security threats]

A.14.  References

   [References must be classified as either normative or informative and
   added to the relevant section.  References should use descriptive
   reference tags.]

A.14.1.  Normative References

   [Normative references are those that are required to be used to
   correctly implement the payload format.]

A.14.2.  Informative References

   [All other references.]

A.15.  Author Addresses

   [All Authors need to include their Name and email addresses as a
   minimal.  Commonly also surface mail and possibly phone numbers are

A.16.  IPR Notice

   [Use the appropriate boilerplate from Section 5 of BCP 79 [RFC3979].]

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

A.17.  Copyright Notice

   [Use the boilerplate from Section 5.4 and 5.5 of BCP 78 [RFC3978].]

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

Author's Address

   Magnus Westerlund
   Torshamgatan 23
   Stockholm,   SE-164 80

   Phone: +46 8 7190000
   Fax:   +46 8 757 55 50

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft         HOWTO: RTP Payload Formats          February 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Westerlund               Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 54]