INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
Colin Perkins
USC/ISI
RTP Interoperability Statement
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07.txt
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It
is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as work in progress.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the
IETF Audio/Video Transport working group's mailing list at rem-conf@es.net.
Abstract
It is required to demonstrate interoperability of RTP implementations
in order to move the RTP specification to draft standard. This memo
outlines those features to be tested, as the first stage of an
interoperability statement.
1 Introduction
The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements
on a standards track protocol specification. In particular, when
advancing a protocol from proposed standard to draft standard it
Perkins Page 1
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and interoperable
implementations, from different code bases, of all options and features
of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or more options or
features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the draft standard
level only if those options or features are removed. The Real-time
Transport Protocol, RTP, was originally specified in RFC1889 as a
proposed standard [2]. The revision of this specification for draft
standard status is now well underway, so it has become necessary
to conduct such an interoperability demonstration.
This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP specification
which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration. Due to the
nature of RTP there are necessarily two types of test described: those
which directly affect the interoperability of implementations at a ``bits
on the wire level'' and those which affect scalability and safety of the
protocol but do not directly affect interoperability. A related memo [4]
describes a testing framework which may aid with interoperability testing.
This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard
of any kind.
2 Features and options required to demonstrate interoperability
In order to demonstrate interoperability it is required to produce
a statement of interoperability for each feature noted below. Such
a statement should note the pair of implementations tested, including
version numbers, and a pass/fail statement for each feature. It
is not expected that every implementation will implement every feature,
but each feature needs to be demonstrated by some pair of applications.
Note that some of these tests depend on the particular profile used,
or upon options in that profile. For example, it will be necessary
to test audio and video applications operating under [3] separately.
1. Interoperable exchange of data packets using the basic RTP header
with no header extension, padding or CSRC list.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
2. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use padding.
o PASS: IP/TV vs rat
Perkins Page 2
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
3. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use a header extension.
There are three possibilities here: a) if both implementations
use a header extension in the same manner, it should be verified
that the receiver correctly receives the information contained
in the extension header; b) If the sender uses a header extension
and the receiver does not, it should be verified that the receiver
ignores the extension; c) If neither implementation implements
an extended header, this test is considered a failure.
o PASS: jrtplib-2.4 vs UCL RTP library v1.2.2
4. Interoperable exchange of data packets using the marker bit as
specified in the profile.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vic
5. Interoperable exchange of data packets using the payload type
field to differentiate multiple payload formats according to
a profile definition.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
6. Interoperable exchange of data packets containing a CSRC list.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
7. Interoperable exchange of RTCP packets, which must be compound
packets containing at least an initial SR or RR packet and an
SDES CNAME packet. Other RTCP packet types may be included,
but this is not required for this test.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
8. Interoperable exchange of sender report packets when the receiver
of the sender reports is not also a sender (ie: sender reports
which only contain sender info, with no report blocks).
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
9. Interoperable exchange of sender report packets when the receiver
of the sender reports is also a sender (ie: sender reports
which contain one or more report blocks).
Perkins Page 3
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic (IP/TV never sends SR with report
blocks, but does successfully receive them from vic/vat).
10. Interoperable exchange of receiver report packets.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
11. Interoperable exchange of receiver report packets when not receiving
data (ie: the empty receiver report which has to be sent first
in each compound RTCP packet when no-participants are transmitting
data).
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
12. Interoperable and correct choice of CNAME, according to the rules
in the RTP specification and profile (applications using the
audio/video profile [3] under IPv4 should typically generate
a CNAME of the form `example@10.0.0.1', or `10.0.0.1' if they
are on a machine which no concept of usernames).
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
13. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a CNAME item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
14. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a NAME item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
15. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
an EMAIL item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
16. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a PHONE item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
Perkins Page 4
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
17. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a LOC item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
18. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a TOOL item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
19. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a NOTE item.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
20. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a PRIV item.
o FAIL: need to test rtplib against rtpdump?
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation, Magnus Westerlund
will test against rat.
21. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing a single SSRC.
o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
22. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing multiple SSRCs.
o FAIL: rat can send these, but vat only accepts the first
SSRC
o FAIL: IP/TV sends only one SSRC in BYE, but should accept
multiple
o FAIL: need to test rat-3.0.x against rtplib
23. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional
reason for leaving text.
o PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates
and displays them.
Perkins Page 5
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
24. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As
with the RTP header extension this test takes two forms: if
both implementations implement the same application defined packet
it should be verified that those packets can be interoperably
exchanged. If only one implementation uses application defined
packets, it should be verified that the other implementation
can receive compound RTCP packets containing an APP packet whilst
ignoring the APP packet. If neither implementation implements
APP packets this test is considered a failure.
o PASS: jrtplib-2.4 vs UCL RTP library v1.2.2
25. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTP packets using DES encryption
in CBC mode.
o PASS: rat vs vat
26. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption
in CBC mode.
o PASS (sort of): rat vs vat (vat gets the padding wrong
in some cases, but mostly it works).
3 Features and options relating to scalability
In addition to the basic interoperability tests, RTP includes a number of
features relating to scaling of the protocol to large groups. Since these
features are those which have undergone the greatest change in the update
of the RTP specification, it is considered important to demonstrate their
correct implementation. However, since these changes do not affect the
bits-on-the-wire behaviour of the protocol, it is not possible to perform a
traditional interoperability test. As an alternative to such testing we
require that multiple independent implementations complete the following
demonstrations.
1. Demonstrate correct implementation of basic RTCP transmission
rules: periodic transmission of RTCP packets at the minimum
(5 second) interval and randomisation of the transmission interval.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV
2. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff
algorithm as a receiver.
o PASS: rat, rtplib
Perkins Page 6
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
3. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff
algorithm as a sender.
o PASS: rat, rtplib
4. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval
acording to the group size.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV
5. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval
acording to the group size with compensation for the number of
senders.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV
6. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP reverse reconsideration
algorithm.
o FAIL: rat is correct,
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration
algorithm.
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout
algorithm.
o PASS: IP/TV, vat, rat
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
9. Demonstrate random choice of SSRC.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV, LiveCaster
10. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP sequence number.
o PASS: rat, LiveCaster
11. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP timestamp.
o PASS: rat, LiveCaster
12. Demonstrate correct implementation of the SSRC collision/loop
detection algorithm.
o PASS: IP/TV, vat
Perkins Page 7
INTERNET-DRAFT 2 March 2001
13. Demonstrate correct generation of reception report statistics
in SR/RR packets.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV
14. Demonstrate correct generation of the sender info block in SR
packets.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV
4 Author's Address
Colin Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
4350 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 620
Arlington, VA 22203
USA
Email: csp@isi.edu
5 References
[1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'',
RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996.
[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP: A
Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet
Engineering Task Force, January 1996.
[3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January 2000.
[4] C. S. Perkins, J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Testing
Strategies'', draft-ietf-avt-rtptest-04.txt, November 2000.
Perkins Page 8
Datatracker
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07
Internet-Draft
