[Search] [txt|ps|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
  Internet Engineering Task Force           Civanlar-AT&T/Balabanian-Nortel
  INTERNET DRAFT                            Basso-AT&T/Casner-Cisco
  File: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mpeg4-01.txt     Herpel-Thomson/Perkins-UCL
                                            February 25, 1999
                                            Expires: August 25, 1999



                  RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams


                           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.


                                 Abstract

  This document describes a payload format for transporting MPEG-4
  encoded data using RTP. MPEG-4 is a recent standard from ISO/IEC for
  the coding of natural and synthetic audio-visual data. Several
  services provided by RTP are beneficial for MPEG-4 encoded data
  transport over the Internet. Additionally, the use of RTP makes it
  possible to synchronize MPEG-4 data with other real-time data types.

  This specification is a product of the Audio/Video Transport working
  group within the Internet Engineering Task Force and ISO/IEC MPEG-4 ad
  hoc group on MPEG-4 over Internet. Comments are solicited and should
  be addressed to the working group's mailing list at rem-conf@es.net
  and/or the authors.





Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


  1. Introduction

  MPEG-4 is a recent standard from ISO/IEC for the coding of natural and
  synthetic audio-visual data in the form of audiovisual objects that
  are arranged into an audiovisual scene by means of a scene description
  [1][2][3][4]. This draft specifies an RTP [5] payload format for
  transporting MPEG-4 encoded data streams.

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [6].

  The benefits of using RTP for MPEG-4 data stream transport include:

    i. Ability to synchronize MPEG-4 streams with other RTP payloads

    ii. Monitoring MPEG-4 delivery performance through RTCP

    iii. Combining MPEG-4 and other real-time data streams received
    from multiple end-systems into a set of consolidated streams
    through RTP mixers

    iv. Converting data types, etc. through the use of RTP translators.

 1.1 Overview of MPEG-4 End-System Architecture

 Fig. 1 below shows the general layered architecture of MPEG-4
 terminals. The Compression Layer processes individual audio-visual
 media streams. The MPEG-4 compression schemes are defined in the
 ISO/IEC specifications 14496-2 [2] and 14496-3 [3]. The compression
 schemes in MPEG-4 achieve efficient encoding over a bandwidth ranging
 from several Kbps to many Mbps. The audio-visual content compressed by
 this layer is organized into Elementary Streams (ESs). The MPEG-4
 standard specifies MPEG-4 compliant streams. Within the constraint of
 this compliance the compression layer is unaware of a specific delivery
 technology, but it can be made to react to the characteristics of a
 particular delivery layer such as the path-MTU or loss characteristics.
 Also, some compressors can be designed to be delivery specific for
 implementation efficiency.  In such cases the compressor may work in a
 non-optimal fashion with delivery technologies that are different than
 the one it is specifically designed to operate with.

 The hierarchical relations, location and properties of ESs in a
 presentation are described by a dynamic set of Object Descriptors
 (ODs). Each OD groups one or more ES Descriptors referring to a single
 content item (audio-visual object). Hence, multiple alternative or
 hierarchical representations of each content item are possible.




Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


 ODs are themselves conveyed through one or more ESs. A complete set of
 ODs can be seen as an MPEG-4 resource or session description at a
 stream level. The resource description may itself be hierarchical, i.e.
 an ES conveying an OD may describe other ESs conveying other ODs.

 The session description is accompanied by a dynamic scene description,
 Binary Format for Scene (BIFS), again conveyed through one or more ESs.
 At this level, content is identified in terms of audio-visual objects.
 The spatiotemporal location of each object is defined by BIFS. The
 audio-visual content of those objects that are synthetic and static are
 described by BIFS also. Natural and animated synthetic objects may
 refer to an OD that points to one or more ESs that carry the coded
 representation of the object or its animation data.

 By conveying the session (or resource) description as well as the scene
 (or content composition) description through their own ESs, it is made
 possible to change portions of the content composition and the number
 and properties of media streams that carry the audio-visual content
 separately and dynamically at well known instants in time.

 One or more initial Scene Description streams and the corresponding OD
 streams has to be pointed to by an initial object descriptor (IOD). The
 IOD needs to be made available to the receivers through some out-of-
 band means which are not defined in this document.

 A homogeneous encapsulation of ESs carrying media or control (ODs,
 BIFS) data is defined by the Sync Layer (SL) that primarily provides
 the synchronization between streams. The Compression Layer organizes
 the ESs in Access Units (AU), the smallest elements that can be
 attributed individual timestamps. Integer or fractional AUs are then
 encapsulated in SL packets.  All consecutive data from one stream is
 called an SL-packetized stream at this layer. The interface between the
 compression layer and the SL is called the Elementary Stream Interface
 (ESI). The ESI is informative.

 The Delivery Layer in MPEG-4 consists of the Delivery Multimedia
 Integration Framework defined in ISO/IEC 14496-6 [4]. This layer is
 media unaware but delivery technology aware. It provides transparent
 access to and delivery of content irrespective of the technologies
 used.  The interface between the SL and DMIF is called the DMIF
 Application Interface (DAI). It offers content location independent
 procedures for establishing MPEG-4 sessions and access to transport
 channels. The specification of this payload format is considered as a
 part of the MPEG-4 Delivery Layer.







Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


 media aware        +-----------------------------------------+
 delivery unaware   |           COMPRESSION LAYER             |
 14496-2 Visual     |streams from as low as Kbps to multi-Mbps|
 14496-3 Audio      +-----------------------------------------+  Elementary
                                                                 Stream
 ================================================================Interface
                                                                 (ESI)
                   +-------------------------------------------+
 media and         |              SYNC LAYER                   |
 delivery unaware  | manages elementary streams, their synch-  |
 14496-1 Systems   | ronization and hierarchical relations     |
                   +-------------------------------------------+ DMIF
                                                                 Application
 ================================================================Interface
                                                                 (DAI)
                   +-------------------------------------------+
 delivery aware    |               DELIVERY LAYER              |
 media  unaware    |provides transparent access to and delivery|
 14496-6 DMIF      | of content irrespective of delivery       |
                   |                technology                 |
                   +-------------------------------------------+

                 Figure 1: General MPEG-4 terminal architecture

 1.2 MPEG-4 Elementary Stream Data Packetization

 The ESs from the encoders are fed into the SL with indications of AU
 boundaries, random access points, desired composition time and the
 current time.

 The Sync Layer fragments the ESs into SL packets, each containing a
 header which encodes information conveyed through the ESI. If the AU is
 larger than an SL packet, subsequent packets containing remaining parts
 of the AU are generated with subset headers until the complete AU is
 packetized.

 The syntax of the Sync Layer is not fixed and can be adapted to the
 needs of the stream to be transported. This includes the possibility to
 select the presence or absence of individual syntax elements as well as
 configuration of their length in bits. The configuration for each
 individual stream is conveyed in an SLConfigDescriptor, which is an
 integral part of the ES Descriptor for this stream.

 2. Analysis of the alternatives for carrying MPEG-4 over IP

 2.1 MPEG-4 over UDP

 Considering that the MPEG-4 SL defines several transport related



Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


 functions such as timing, sequence numbering, etc., this seems to be
 the most straightforward alternative for carrying MPEG-4 data over IP.
 One group of problems with this approach, however, stems from the
 monolithic architecture of MPEG-4. No other multimedia data stream
 (including those carried with RTP) can be synchronized with MPEG-4 data
 carried directly over UDP. Furthermore, the dynamic scene and session
 control concepts can't be extended to non-MPEG-4 data.

 Even if the coordination with non-MPEG-4 data is overlooked, carrying
 MPEG-4 data over UDP has the following additional shortcomings:

   i. Mechanisms need to be defined to protect sensitive parts of
   MPEG-4 data. Some of these (like FEC) are already defined for
   RTP.

   ii. There is no defined technique for synchronizing MPEG-4
   streams from different servers in the variable delay environment
   of the Internet.

   iii. MPEG-4 streams originating from two servers may collide (their
   sources may become unresolvable at the destination) in a multicast
   session.

   iv. An MPEG-4 backchannel needs to be defined for quality
   feedback similar to that provided by RTCP.

   v. RTP mixers and translators can't be used.

The backchannel problem may be alleviated by developing a reception
reporting protocol like RTCP. Such an effort may benefit from RTCP
design knowledge, but needs extensions.

2.2 RTP header followed by full MPEG-4 headers

This alternative may be implemented by using the send time or the
composition time coming from the reference clock as the RTP timestamp.
This way no new feedback protocol needs to be defined for MPEG-4's
backchannel, but RTCP may not be sufficient for MPEG-4's feedback
requirements which are still in the definition stage. Additionally, due
to the duplication of header information, such as the sequence numbers
and time stamps, this alternative causes unnecessary increases in the
overhead. Scene description or dynamic session control can't be extended
to non-MPEG-4 streams also.

2.3 MPEG-4 ESs over RTP with individual payload types

This is the most suitable alternative for coordination with the existing
Internet multimedia transport techniques and does not use MPEG-4 systems



Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


at all. Complete implementation of it requires definition of potentially
many payload types and might lead to constructing new session and scene
description mechanisms. Considering the size of the work involved which
essentially reconstructs MPEG-4 systems, this may only be a long term
alternative if no other solution can be found.

2.4 RTP header followed by a reduced SL header

The inefficiency of the approach described in 2.2 can be fixed by using
a reduced SL header that does not carry duplicate information following
the RTP header.

2.5 Recommendation

Based on the above analysis, the best compromise is to map the MPEG-4 SL
packets onto RTP packets, such that the common pieces of the headers
reside in the RTP header that is followed by an optional reduced SL
header providing the MPEG-4 specific information. The details of this
payload format are described in the next section.

3. Payload Format

The RTP Payload consists of a single SL packet, including an SL packet
header without the sequenceNumber and compositionTimeStamp fields. Use
of all other fields in the SL packet headers that the RTP header does
not duplicate (including the decodingTimeStamp) is OPTIONAL. Packets
SHOULD be sent in the decoding order.

If the resulting, smaller, SL packet header consumes a non-integer
number of bytes, zero padding bits MUST be inserted at the end of the SL
header to byte-align the SL packet payload.

The size of the SL packets SHOULD be adjusted such that the resulting
RTP packet is not larger than the path-MTU. To handle larger packets,
this payload format relies on lower layers for fragmentation which may
not be desirable.















Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


0                   1                   2                   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P|X|  CC   |M|     PT      |       sequence number         | RTP
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           timestamp                           | Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
:            contributing source (CSRC) identifiers             :
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
|SL Packet Header (variable # of bytes)         |               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               | RTP
|                                                               |
|       SL Packet Payload (byte aligned)                        | Payload
|                                                               |
|                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 2 - An RTP packet for MPEG-4

3.1 RTP Header Fields Usage:

Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new
packet format is outside the scope of this document, and will not be
specified here. It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular
class of applications will assign a payload type for this encoding, or
if that is not done then a payload type in the dynamic range shall be
chosen.

Marker (M) bit: Set to one to mark the last fragment (or only fragment)
of an AU.

Extension (X) bit: Defined by the RTP profile used.

Sequence Number: Derived from the sequenceNumber field of the SL packet
by adding a constant random offset. If the sequenceNumber has less than
16-bit length, the MSBs MUST initially be filled with a random value
that is incremented by one each time the sequenceNumber value of the SL
packet returns to zero. If the value sequenceNumber=0 is encountered in
multiple consecutive SL packets, indicating a deliberate duplication of
the SL packet, the sequence number SHOULD be incremented by one for each
of these packets after the first one.

In implementations where full SL packets are generated first and then
packetised in RTP, the sequenceNumber MUST be removed from the SL packet
header by bit-shifting the subsequent header elements towards the
beginning of the header. When unpacking the RTP packet this process can



Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


be reversed with the knowledge of the SLConfigDescriptor. For using this
payload format, MPEG-4 implementations that do not produce the full SL
packet in the first place, but rather produce the RTP header and
stripped down (perhaps null) SL header directly are preferable.

However, the choice between generating SL packets and converting, or
generating RTP directly is an implementation detail, and does not affect
what goes on the wire. Both forms will interwork.

If no sequenceNumber field is configured for this stream (no
sequenceNumber field present in the SL packet header), then the RTP
packetizer MUST generate its own sequence numbers.

Timestamp: Set to the value in the compositionTimeStamp field of the SL
packet, if present. If compositionTimeStamp has less than 32 bits
length, the MSBs of timestamp MUST be set to zero.

Although it is available from the SL configuration data, the resolution
of the timestamp may need to be conveyed explicitly through some out-
of-band means to be used by network elements which are not MPEG-4 aware.

If compositionTimeStamp has more than 32 bits length, this payload
format cannot be used.

In case compositionTimeStamp is not present in the current SL packet,
but has been present in a previous SL packet, this same value MUST be
taken again as the timestamp.

If compositionTimeStamp is never present in SL packets for this stream,
the RTP packetizer SHOULD convey a reading of a local clock at the time
the RTP packet is created.

Similar to handling of the sequence numbers in implementations that
generate full SL packets, the compositionTimeStamp, if present, MUST
then be removed from the SL packet header by bit-shifting the subsequent
header elements towards the beginning of the SL packet header. When
unpacking the RTP packet this process can be reversed with the knowledge
of the SLConfigDescriptor and by evaluating the
compositionTimeStampFlag.

Timestamps are recommended to start at a random value for security
reasons [5, Section 5.1].

SSRC: set as described in RFC1889 [5]. A mapping between the ES
identifiers (ESIDs) and SSRCs should be provided through out-of-band
means.

CC and CSRC fields are used as described in RFC 1889 [5].



Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


RTCP SHOULD be used as defined in RFC 1889 [5].

4. Multiplexing

Since a typical MPEG-4 session may involve a large number of objects,
that may be as many as a few hundred, transporting each ES as an
individual RTP session may not always be practical. Allocating and
controlling hundreds of destination addresses for each MPEG-4 session
may pose insurmountable session administration problems.  The
input/output processing overhead at the end-points will be extremely
high also. Additionally, low delay transmission of low bitrate data
streams, e.g. facial animation parameters, results in extremely high
header overheads.

To solve these problems, MPEG-4 data transport requires a multiplexing
scheme that allows selective bundling of several ESs. This is beyond the
scope of the payload format defined here. MPEG-4's Flexmux multiplexing
scheme may be used for this purpose by defining an additional RTP
payload format for "multiplexed MPEG-4 streams." On the other hand,
considering that many other payload types may have similar needs, a
better approach may be to develop a generic RTP multiplexing scheme
usable for MPEG-4 data. The generic multiplexing scheme reported in [7]
is a candidate for this approach.

For MPEG-4 applications, the multiplexing technique needs to address the
following requirements:

  i. The ESs multiplexed in one stream can change frequently during
  a session. Consequently, the coding type, individual packet size
  and temporal relationships between the multiplexed data units must
  be handled dynamically.

  ii. The multiplexing scheme should have a mechanism to determine
  the ES identifier (ES_ID) for each of the multiplexed packets.
  ES_ID is not a part of the SL header.

  iii. In general, an SL packet does not contain information about its
  size. The multiplexing scheme should be able to delineate the
  multiplexed packets whose lengths may vary from a few bytes to
  close to the path-MTU.

5. Security Considerations

RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are
subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [5]. This implies that confidentiality of the media
streams is achieved by encryption. Because the data compression used
with this payload format is applied end-to-end, encryption may be



Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


performed on the compressed data so there is no conflict between the two
operations.

This payload type does not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in the
receiver side computational complexity for packet processing  to cause a
potential denial-of-service threat.

6. References

  [1] ISO/IEC 14496-1 FDIS MPEG-4 Systems November 1998

  [2] ISO/IEC 14496-2 FDIS MPEG-4 Visual November 1998

  [3] ISO/IEC 14496-3 FDIS MPEG-4 Audio November 1998

  [4] ISO/IEC 14496-6 FDIS Delivery Multimedia Integration
  Framework, November 1998.

  [5] Schulzrinne, Casner, Frederick, Jacobson RTP: A
  Transport Protocol for Real Time Applications  RFC 1889,
  Internet Engineering Task Force, January 1996.

  [6] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
  Requirement Levels, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [7] M. Handley, "GeRM: Generic RTP Multiplexing," work
  in progress, draft-ietf-avt-germ-00.txt, November 1998.

7. Authors' Addresses

M. Reha Civanlar
AT&T Labs - Research
100 Schultz Drive
Red Bank, NJ 07701
USA
e-mail: civanlar@research.att.com

Vahe Balabanian
Nortel
P.O.Box 3511, St. C
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1Y 4H7
e-mail: balabani@nortelnetworks.com








Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT     RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Streams   February 1999


Andrea Basso
AT&T Labs - Research
100 Schultz Drive
Red Bank, NJ 07701
USA
e-mail: basso@research.att.com

Stephen L. Casner
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
e-mail: casner@cisco.com

Carsten Herpel
THOMSON multimedia
Karl-Wiechert-Allee 74
30625 Hannover
Germany
e-mail: herpelc@thmulti.com

Colin Perkins
Department of Computer Science
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
United Kingdom
e-mail: C.Perkins@cs.ucl.ac.uk























Civanlar/Balabanian/Basso/Casner/Herpel/Perkins                [Page 11]