Network Working Group S. Wenger
Internet-Draft Y.-K. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia
Expires: January 09, 2008 T. Schierl
Fraunhofer HHI
July 09, 2007
RTP Payload Format for SVC Video
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-02.txt
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-
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 09, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Abstract
This memo describes an RTP payload format for the scalable extension
of the ITU-T Recommendation H.264 video codec which is technically
identical to ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10. The RTP
payload format allows for packetization of one or more Network
Abstraction Layer (NAL) units, produced by the video encoder, in
each RTP payload. The payload format has wide applicability, such
as low bit-rate conversational, Internet video streaming, or high
bit-rate entertainment quality video.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Table of Content
RTP Payload Format for SVC Video...................................1
1. Introduction..................................................5
1.1. SVC -- the scalable extension of H.264/AVC.................5
2. Conventions...................................................5
3. The SVC Codec.................................................6
3.1. Overview...................................................6
3.2. Parameter Set Concept......................................7
3.3. Network Abstraction Layer Unit Header......................8
4. Scope........................................................11
5. Definitions and Abbreviations................................12
5.1. Definitions...............................................12
5.1.1. Definitions per SVC specification.........................12
5.1.2. Definitions local to this memo............................13
5.2. Abbreviations.............................................14
6. RTP Payload Format...........................................14
6.1. Design Principles.........................................14
6.2. RTP Header Usage..........................................15
6.3. Common Structure of the RTP Payload Format................15
6.4. NAL Unit Header Usage.....................................15
6.5. Packetization Modes.......................................16
6.6. Decoding Order Number (DON)...............................17
6.7. Aggregation Packets.......................................17
6.8. Fragmentation Units (FUs).................................18
6.9. Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit..18
7. Packetization Rules..........................................22
8. De-Packetization Process (Informative).......................23
9. Payload Format Parameters....................................23
9.1. MIME Registration.........................................24
9.2. SDP Parameters............................................26
9.2.1. Mapping of MIME Parameters to SDP.........................26
9.2.2. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model.....................26
9.2.3. Usage with Session multiplexing...........................26
9.2.4. Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions.................27
9.3. Examples..................................................27
9.4. Parameter Set Considerations..............................27
10. Security Considerations......................................27
11. Congestion Control...........................................27
12. IANA Consideration...........................................28
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
13. Informative Appendix: Application Examples...................28
13.1. Introduction..............................................28
13.2. Layered Multicast.........................................29
13.3. Streaming of an SVC scalable stream.......................30
13.4. Multicast to MANE, SVC scalable stream to endpoint........30
13.5. Scenarios currently not considered for complexity reasons.32
13.6. Scenarios currently not considered for being unaligned with
IP philosophy.....................................................33
13.7. SSRC Multiplexing.........................................34
14. References...................................................35
14.1. Normative References......................................35
14.2. Informative References....................................36
15. Author's Addresses...........................................36
16. Copyright Statement..........................................37
17. Disclaimer of Validity.......................................37
18. Intellectual Property Statement..............................37
19. Acknowledgement..............................................38
20. RFC Editor Considerations....................................38
21. Open Issues..................................................38
22. Changes Log..................................................38
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
1. Introduction
1.1. SVC -- the scalable extension of H.264/AVC
This memo specifies an RTP [RFC3550] payload format for a
forthcoming new mode of the H.264/AVC video coding standard, known
as Scalable Video Coding (SVC). Formally, SVC takes the form of
Amendment 3 to ISO/IEC 14496 Part 10 [MPEG4-10], and ITU-T Rec.
H.264 [H.264].
The current specification of SVC is available in [SVC]. In this
memo, SVC is used as an acronym for the mentioned scalable extension
of H.264/AVC as defined in the new Annex G of ISO/IEC 14496 Part 10
and ITU-T Rec. H.264. In that, SVC is a superset of H.264/AVC.
SVC covers the whole application ranges of H.264/AVC. This range is
considerable, starting with low bit-rate Internet streaming
applications to HDTV broadcast and Digital Cinema with nearly
lossless coding and requiring dozens or hundreds of MBit/s.
This memo tries to follow a backward compatible enhancement
philosophy similar to what the video coding standardization
committees implement, by keeping as close an alignment to the
H.264/AVC payload format [RFC3984] as possible. It documents the
enhancements relevant from an RTP transport viewpoint, defines
signaling support for SVC, and deprecates the single NAL unit
packetization mode of RFC 3984.
2. Conventions
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
This specification uses the notion of setting and clearing a bit
when bit fields are handled. Setting a bit is the same as assigning
that bit the value of 1 (On). Clearing a bit is the same as
assigning that bit the value of 0 (Off).
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
3. The SVC Codec
3.1. Overview
SVC provides scalable video bitstreams. In SVC, a scalable video
bitstream contains a base layer conforming to the profiles of H.264
as defined in Annex A of [H.264], and one or more enhancement
layers, denoted as Layers. A Layer may be the base Layer or enhance
the temporal resolution (i.e. the frame rate), the spatial
resolution, or the quality of the video content, relative to the
quality represented without the Layer. Note, that the definition of
Layer in this memo encompasses temporal, spatial and fidelity
enhancements.
Each RTP session can carry NAL units belonging to one or more
Layers. The NAL unit headers include information associating a
given NAL unit to a Layer. Therefore, extracting individual Layers
from an RTP session containing more than one Layer is a lightweight
operation, involving only fixed length bit fields in the header, as
documented in this memo and in [SVC].
Multiple RTP sessions, regardless of whether they carry a single
Layer or multiple Layers as discussed above, can meaningfully be
used to transport the whole scalable bitstream, or Operation Points
thereof. An Operation Point consists of only those Layers necessary
to reconstruct a given quality (in temporal, spatial and fidelity
dimensions).
The concept of video coding layer (VCL) and network abstraction
layer (NAL) is inherited from H.264. The VCL contains the signal
processing functionality of the codec; mechanisms such as transform,
quantization, motion-compensated prediction, loop filtering and
inter-layer prediction. A coded picture in H.264 consists of one or
more slices. Within one access unit, a coded picture representing
an Operation Point consists of all the coded slices required for
decoding up to a particular Layer at the time instance corresponding
to the access unit. The Network Abstraction Layer (NAL)
encapsulates each slice generated by the VCL into one or more
Network Abstraction Layer Units (NAL units). Please consult RFC
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
3984 for a more in-depth discussion of the NAL unit concept. SVC
specifies the decoding order of the NAL units.
"Layer" in the terms "Video Coding Layer" and "Network Abstraction
Layer" refers to a conceptual distinction, and is closely related to
syntax layers (block, macroblock, slice, ... layers). "Layer" here
describes a syntax level of the bitstream in contrast to a part of
the layered bitstream, which may be discarded. It should not be
confused with base and enhancement Layers.
The concept of temporal scalability is not newly introduced by SVC,
as profiles conforming to Annex A of [H.264] already support it. In
[H.264], sub-sequences have been introduced in order to allow
optional use of temporal layers. SVC extends this approach by
advertising the temporal scalability information within the NAL unit
header, or prefix NAL units, as discussed in section 3.3 of this
memo and in [SVC].
The concept of scaling the visual content quality in the granularity
of complete enhancement Layers, i.e. through omitting the transport
and decoding of entire Layers, is denoted as spatial scalability or
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) scalability, the latter is also know as
Coarse-Grained Scalability (CGS). This is what is commonly
understood as scalability in the IETF community. In addition, SVC
also offers the concept another type of SNR scalability, the Medium-
Grained Scalability (MGS). MGS involves selectively omitting the
reconstruction of NAL units belonging to the MGS layer. The
selection of the NAL units to omit can be based on fixed length
fields in the NAL unit header.
3.2. Parameter Set Concept
The parameter set concept is inherited from [H.264]. Please refer
to section 1.2 of RFC 3984 for more details.
In SVC, pictures from different layers, defined as layer
representations in [SVC] (Note: A layer representation in [SVC] is
identified by a single value of dependency_id and a single value of
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
quality_id), may use the same sequence or picture parameter set, but
may also use different sequence or picture parameter sets. If
different sequence parameter sets are used, then, at any time
instant during the decoding process, there may be one active
sequence parameter set (for the layer representation with the
highest dependency_id) and one or more active layer sequence
parameter set(s) (for lower layer representations). Any specific
active sequence parameter set and active layer sequence parameter
set remains unchanged throughout a coded video sequence in the Layer
in which the active sequence parameter set is referred to. The
active picture parameter set remains unchanged within a coded
picture.
3.3. Network Abstraction Layer Unit Header
An SVC NAL unit (type 20) consists of a header of four octets and
the payload byte string. It encapsulates VCL data as defined in
Annex G of [SVC]. A special type of an SVC NAL unit is the prefix
NAL unit (type 14) that includes descriptive information of the
following NAL unit.
SVC extends the NAL unit header defined for NAL units conforming to
profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264] by three additional octets.
The header indicates the type of the NAL unit, the (potential)
presence of bit errors or syntax violations in the NAL unit payload,
information regarding the relative importance of the NAL unit for
the decoding process, the layer decoding dependency information, and
other fields as discussed below. This RTP payload specification is
designed to be unaware of the octet string in the NAL unit payload.
The NAL unit header co-serves as the payload header of this RTP
payload format. The payload of a NAL unit follows immediately.
The syntax and semantics of the NAL unit header are formally
specified in [SVC], but the essential properties of the NAL unit
header are summarized below.
The first byte of the NAL unit header has the following format (the
bit fields are the same as defined for NAL units conforming to
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264] and [RFC3984], while the
semantics have changed slightly, in a backward compatible way):
+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|NRI| Type |
+---------------+
F: 1 bit
forbidden_zero_bit. H.264 declares a value of 1 as a syntax
violation.
NRI: 2 bits
nal_ref_idc. A value of 00 indicates that the content of the NAL
unit is not used to reconstruct reference pictures for future
prediction. Such NAL units can be discarded without risking the
integrity of the reference pictures in the same Layer. Values
greater than 00 indicate that the decoding of the NAL unit is
required to maintain the integrity of reference pictures, or that
the NAL unit contains parameter sets.
Type: 5 bits
nal_unit_type. This component specifies the NAL unit payload type
as defined in table 7-1 of [SVC], and later within this memo. For a
reference of all currently defined NAL unit types and their
semantics, please refer to section 7.4.1 in [SVC].
Previously, NAL unit types 14, 15 and 20 have been reserved for
future extensions. SVC is using these three NAL unit types. NAL
unit type 14 is used for the prefix NAL unit, NAL unit type 15 is
used for SVC sequence parameter sets and NAL unit type 20 is used
for coded slice in scalable extension (see section 7.4.1 in [SVC]).
NAL unit types 14 and 20 indicate the presence of three additional
octets in the NAL unit header, as shown below.
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|I| PRID |N| DID | QID | TID |U|D|O| RR|
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
R: 1 bit
reserved_one_bit. Reserved bit for future extension. R MUST be
equal to one.
I: 1 bit
idr_flag. This component specifies whether the layer picture is an
instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) layer picture (when equal to 1)
or not (when equal to 0).
PRID: 6 bits
priority_id. This flag specifies a priority identifier for the NAL
unit. A lower value of PRID indicates a higher priority.
N: 1 bit
no_inter_layer_pred_flag. This flag specifies, when present in a
coded slice NAL unit, whether inter-layer prediction may be used for
decoding the coded slice (when equal to 1) or not (when equal to 0).
DID: 3 bits
dependency_id. This component denotes the inter-layer coding
dependency hierarchy. At any access unit, a layer picture with a
less dependency_id may be used for inter-layer prediction for coding
of a layer picture with a greater dependency_id, while a layer
picture with a greater dependency_id shall not be used for inter-
layer prediction for coding of a layer picture with a less
dependency_id.
QID: 4 bits
quality_id. This component designates the quality level hierarchy
of a MGS layer picture. At any access unit and with identical
dependency_id value, a layer picture with quality_id equal to ql
uses a layer picture with quality_id equal to ql-1 for inter-layer
prediction.
TID: 3 bits
temporal_id. This component indicates the temporal layer (or frame
rate) hierarchy. Informally put, a layer consisted of pictures with
a less temporal_id has a lower frame rate. A given temporal layer
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
typically depends on the lower temporal layers (i.e. the temporal
layers with less temporal_id) but never depends on any higher
temporal layer.
U: 1 bit
use_ref_base_pic_flag. A value of 1 indicates that only reference
base pictures are used during the inter prediction process. A value
of 0 indicates that the reference base pictures are not used during
the inter prediction process.
D: 1 bit
discardable_flag. A value of 1 indicates that the current NAL unit
is not used for decoding NAL units of the current access unit and
all subsequent access units that have a greater value of
dependency_id than the current NAL unit. Such NAL units can be
discarded without risking the integrity of higher layers with
greater dependency_id. discardable_flag equal to 0 indicates that
the decoding of the NAL unit is required to maintain the integrity
of higher layers with greater dependency_id.
O: 1 bit
output_flag: Affects the decoded picture output process as defined
in Annex C of [SVC].
RR: 2 bits
reserved_three_2bits. Reserved bits for future extension. RR MUST
be equal to three.
This memo introduces the same additional NAL unit types as RFC 3984,
which are presented in section 6.3. The NAL unit types defined in
this memo are marked as unspecified in [SVC]. Moreover, this
specification extends the semantics of F, NRI, I, PRID, DID, QID,
TID, U, and D as described in section 6.4.
4. Scope
This payload specification can only be used to carry the "naked" NAL
unit stream over RTP, and not the byte stream format according to
Annex B of [SVC]. Likely, the applications of this specification
will be in the IP based multimedia communications fields including
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
conversational multimedia, video telephony or video conferencing,
Internet streaming and TV over IP.
This specification allows, in a given RTP session, to encapsulate
NAL units belonging to
o the base Layer only, detailed specification in [RFC3984], or
o one or more enhancement Layers, or
o the base Layer and one or more enhancement Layers
5. Definitions and Abbreviations
5.1. Definitions
5.1.1. Definitions per SVC specification
This document uses the definitions of [SVC]. The following terms,
defined in [SVC], are summed up for convenience:
scalable bitstream: A bitstream with the property that one or more
bitstream subsets that are not identical to the scalable bitstream
form another bitstream that conforms to the SVC specification.
prefix NAL unit: A NAL unit with nal_unit_type equal to 14 that
immediately precedes a NAL unit with nal_unit_type equal to 1, 5,
or 12. The NAL unit that succeeds the prefix NAL unit is also
referred to as the associated NAL unit. The prefix NAL unit
contains data associated with the associated NAL unit, which are
considered to be part of the associated NAL unit.
access unit: A set of NAL units pertaining to a certain temporal
location. An access unit includes the coded slices of all the
scalable layers at that temporal location and possibly other
associated data, e.g. SEI messages and parameter sets.
coded video sequence: A sequence of access units that consists, in
decoding order, of an instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) access
unit followed by zero or more non-IDR access units including all
subsequent access units up to but not including any subsequent IDR
access unit.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
IDR access unit: An access unit in which the layer picture with the
maximum present value of dependency_id is an IDR picture.
IDR picture: A coded picture in which all slices with the maximum
present value of dependency_id within the access unit are I or EI
slices that causes the decoding process to mark all reference
pictures as "unused for reference" immediately after decoding the
IDR picture. After the decoding of an IDR picture all following
coded pictures in decoding order can be decoded without inter
prediction from any picture decoded prior to the IDR picture. The
first picture of each coded video sequence is an IDR picture.
5.1.2. Definitions local to this memo
Layer: A Layer may be the base Layer or an enhancement Layer that
enhances the temporal resolution (i.e. the frame rate), the spatial
resolution, or the quality of the video content, relative to the
quality represented without the Layer.
base Layer: The base Layer is typically representing the minimal
spatial resolution, the minimal fidelity, and the minimal frame rate
of an SVC bitstream. In other words, the base Layer consists of all
the VCL NAL units with dependency_id, quality_id and temporal_level
equal to 0 and the associated non-VCL NAL units. The bitstream
containing the base Layer and the temporal enhancement Layers with
dependency_id and quality_id both equal to 0, which is referred as
the full base Layer, must only contain NAL units conforming to
profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264]. The base Layer is
independently decodable without the requirement of using any other
Layer of the SVC bitstream. In SVC context each slice NAL unit in
the base Layer is associated with a prefix NAL unit, which has a
four bytes NAL unit header containing all the syntax elements
described in section 3.3. Note that this definition is different
from the definition of "base layer" in Annex G of [SVC].
enhancement Layer: An SVC enhancement Layer is identified by
temporal_level, dependency_id, and quality_level as defined in Annex
G of [SVC] and summarized in section 3.3.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Operation Point: An Operation Point of a SVC bitstream represents a
certain level of temporal, spatial and quality scalability. An
Operation Point contains only those NAL units required for restoring
a valid bitstream (conforming to profiles defined in Annex A or
Annex G of [SVC]) to represent a certain quality. The Operation
Point is described by the maximum present value of dependency_id,
and, within that maximum present value of dependency_id, by the
maximum quality_id and temporal_id.
RTP packet stream: A sequence of RTP packets with increasing
sequence numbers, identical PT and SSRC, carried in one RTP session.
Within the scope of this memo, one RTP packet stream is utilized to
transport an integer number of SVC Layers.
Session multiplexing: The scalable SVC bitstream is distributed
onto different RTP sessions, whereby each RTP session carries a
single RTP packet stream. Each RTP session requires a separate
signaling and has a separate Timestamp, Sequence Number, and SSRC
space. Dependency between sessions MUST be signaled according to
[I-D.schierl-mmusic-layered-codec] and this memo.
5.2. Abbreviations
In addition to the abbreviations defined in [RFC3984], the following
ones are defined.
CGS: Coarse-Grain Scalability
MGS: Medium-Grain Scalability
6. RTP Payload Format
6.1. Design Principles
The following design principles have been observed:
o Backward compatibility with [RFC3984] wherever possible.
o As the SVC full base Layer is H.264/AVC compatible, we assume the
full base
Layer or any subset (when transmitted in its own session) to be
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
encapsulated using [RFC3984]. Requiring this has the desirable
side effect that it can be used by [RFC3984] legacy devices.
o MANEs are signaling aware and rely on signaling information.
MANEs have state.
o MANEs can terminate RTP sessions, and create different RTP
sessions with perhaps modified content. This form of a MANE acts
as an RTP mixer.
o MANEs can also act as RTP translators. The perhaps most likely
use case is media-aware stream thinning. By using the payload
header information identifying Layers within an RTP session,
MANEs are able to remove packets from the RTP session while
otherwise keeping the session intact. This implies rewriting
the RTP headers of the outgoing packet stream and rewriting of
RTCP Receiver Reports.
6.2. RTP Header Usage
Please see section 5.1 of [RFC3984]. The following applies in
addition.
6.3. Common Structure of the RTP Payload Format
Please see section 5.2 of [RFC3984].
6.4. NAL Unit Header Usage
The structure and semantics of the NAL unit header were introduced
in section 3.3. This section specifies the semantics of F, NRI, I,
PRID, DID, QID, TID, U, and D according to this specification.
The semantics of F specified in section 5.3 of [RFC3984] also
applies herein.
For NRI, for the bitstream containing NAL units conforming with
profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264] and transported using
[RFC3984], the semantics specified in section 5.3 of [RFC3984] are
applicable, i.e., NRI also indicates the relative importance of NAL
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
units. In SVC context, only the semantics specified in Annex G of
[SVC] are applicable, i.e., NRI does not indicate the relative
importance of NAL units.
For I, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to protect
NAL units with I equal to 1 better than NAL units with I equal to 0.
MANEs MAY also utilize information of NAL units with I equal to 1 to
decide when to forward more packets for an RTP session.
For PRID, the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC] applies.
Note, that MANEs implementing unequal error protection may use this
information to protect NAL units with smaller PRID values better
than those with larger PRID values, for example by including only
the more important NAL units in a FEC protection mechanism. The
importance for the decoding process decreases as the PRID value
increases.
For DID, QID, TID, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G
of [SVC], according to this memo, values of DID, QID, or TID
indicate the relative importance in their respective dimension. A
lower value of DID, QID, or TID indicates a higher importance if the
other two components are identical. MANEs MAY use this information
to protect more important NAL units better than less important NAL
units.
For U, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to protect
NAL units with U equal to 1 better than NAL units with U equal to 0.
For D, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to determine
whether a given NAL unit is required for successfully decoding a
certain Operation Point of the SVC bitstream, hence to decide
whether to forward the NAL unit.
6.5. Packetization Modes
Please see section 5.4 of [RFC3984]. The single NAL unit
packetization mode SHALL NOT be used.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Informative note: The non-interleaved mode allows an application
to encapsulate a single NAL unit in a single RTP packet.
Historically, the single NAL unit mode has been included into
[RFC3984] only for compatibility with ITU-T Rec. H.241 Annex A
[H.241]. There is no point in carrying this historic ballast
towards a new application space such as the one provided with SVC.
More technically speaking, the implementation complexity increase
for providing the additional mechanisms of the non-interleaved
mode (namely STAPs) is so minor, and the benefits are so great,
that we require STAP implementation.
6.6. Decoding Order Number (DON)
Please see section 5.5 of [RFC3984]. The following applies in
addition.
When different layers of a SVC bitstream are transported in more
than one RTP session, the interleaved packetization mode MUST be
used, and the DON values of all the NAL units MUST indicate the
correct NAL unit decoding order over all the RTP sessions.
When more than one RTP session is used to convey an Operation Point
of a SVC bitstream, each session MUST signal an identical value for
the MIME parameters sprop-interleaving-depth, sprop-max-don-diff,
sprop-deint-buf-req, and sprop-init-buf-time. Further, these values
must be valid for the reception capabilities over all sessions. A
receiver MUST signal the same MIME parameter deint-buf-cap for all
sessions used. [Ed.Note(YkW): I think we need more thinking on the
value of the parameters. For example, requiring the parameters be
the same for all the RTP streams and clients might be overkill for
receivers of only lower layers.]
[Edt. Note (StW): In RFC3984, the aforementioned codepoints are
optional. It appears that for SVC, when used in conjunction with
session mux, they are mandatory. I don't know how to express this
in the MIME registration; we'll cross that bridge once we are
getting to it.]
6.7. Aggregation Packets
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 17]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Please see section 5.7 of [RFC3984].
6.8. Fragmentation Units (FUs)
Please see section 5.8 of [RFC3984].
6.9. Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit
A new NAL unit type is specified in this memo, and referred to as
payload content scalability information (PACSI) NAL unit. The PACSI
NAL unit, if present, MUST be the first NAL unit in an aggregation
packet, and it MUST NOT be present in other types of packets. The
PACSI NAL unit indicates scalability and other characteristics that
are common for all the remaining NAL units in the payload, thus
making it easier for MANEs to decide whether to
forward/process/discard the aggregation packet. Furthermore, a
PACSI NAL unit MAY contain zero or more SEI NAL units. Senders MAY
create PACSI NAL units and receivers MAY ignore them, or use them as
hints to enable efficient aggregation packet processing. Note that
the NAL unit type for the PACSI NAL unit is selected among those
values that are unspecified in [SVC] and [RFC3984].
When the first aggregation unit of an aggregation packet contains a
PACSI NAL unit, there MUST be at least one additional aggregation
unit present in the same packet. The RTP header fields are set
according to the remaining NAL units in the aggregation packet.
When a PACSI NAL unit is included in a multi-time aggregation packet
(MTAP), the decoding order number (DON) for the PACSI NAL unit MUST
be set to indicate either 1) the PACSI NAL unit is the first NAL
unit in decoding order among the NAL units in the aggregation packet
or 2) the PACSI NAL unit has an identical DON to the first NAL unit
in decoding order among the remaining NAL units in the aggregation
packet.
The structure of a PACSI NAL unit is as follows. The first four
octets are exactly the same as the four-byte SVC NAL unit header as
discussed in section 3.3. They are followed by one additional octet
and zero or more SEI NAL units, each preceded by a 16-bit unsigned
size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 18]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
the following NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but
including the NAL unit type octet of the NAL unit). Following is an
example of a PACSI NAL unit containing two SEI NAL units.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|NRI| Type |R|I| PRID |N| DID | QID | TID |U|D|O| RR|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|T|P|C|S|E|RES| TL0PICIDX | NAL unit size 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SEI NAL unit 1 |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | NAL unit size 2 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| SEI NAL unit 2 |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The values of the fields in PACSI NAL unit MUST be set as follows.
o The F bit MUST be set to 1 if the F bit in at least one remaining
NAL unit in the payload is equal to 1. Otherwise, the F bit MUST
be set to 0.
o The NRI field MUST be set to the highest value of NRI field among
all the remaining NAL units in the payload.
o The Type field MUST be set to 30.
o The R bit MUST be set to 1.
o The I bit MUST be set to 1 if the I bit of at least one of the
remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1. Otherwise, the
I
bit MUST be set to 0.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 19]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
o The PRID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the PRID values
of all the remaining NAL units in the payload.
o The N bit MUST be set to 1 if the N bit of all the remaining NAL
units in the payload is equal to 1. Otherwise, the N bit MUST be
set to 0.
o The DID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the DID values
of all the remaining NAL units in the payload.
o The QID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the QID values
of all the remaining NAL units with the lowest value of DID in the
payload.
o The TID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the TID values
of all the remaining NAL units with the lowest value of DID in the
payload.
o The U bit MUST be set to 1 if the U bit of at least one of the
remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1. Otherwise, the
U bit MUST be set to 0.
o The D bit MUST be set to 0 if the D value of all the remaining NAL
unit in the payload is equal to 0. Otherwise, the D bit MUST be
set to 1.
o The O bit MUST be set to 1 if the O bit of at least one of the
remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1. Otherwise, the
O bit MUST be set to 0.
o The RR field MUST be set to be equal to 3.
o The A bit MUST be set to 1 if all the layer pictures containing
the target NAL units are anchor pictures. Otherwise, the A bit
MUST be set to 0. The target NAL units are such NAL units
contained in the aggregation packet, but not included in the PACSI
NAL unit, that are within the access unit to which the first NAL
unit following the PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet
belongs. An anchor picture is such a layer picture that, if
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 20]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
decoding of the layer starts from the layer picture, all the
following layer pictures of the layer, in output order, can be
correctly decoded.
Informative note: An anchor picture is a random access point to
the layer the anchor picture belongs to. However, some layer
pictures succeeding an anchor picture in decoding order but
preceding the anchor picture in output order may refer to earlier
layer pictures hence may not be correctly decoded, if random
access is performed at the anchor picture.
o The T bit MUST be set to 1 if all the layer pictures containing
the target NAL units (as defined above) are temporal scalable
layer switching points. Otherwise, the T bit MUST be set to 0.
For a temporal scalable layer switching point, all the layer
pictures with the same value of temporal_id at and after the
switching point in decoding order do not refer to any layer
picture with the same value of temporal_id preceding the switching
point in decoding order.
o The P bit MUST be set to 1 if all the layer pictures containing
the target NAL units (as defined above) are redundant pictures.
Otherwise, the P bit MUST be set to 0.
o The C bit MUST be set to 1 if the layer picture that has the
greatest value of dependency_id among all the layer pictures
containing the target NAL units (as defined above) is an intra
picture, i.e., the layer picture does not refer to any earlier
layer picture in decoding order in the same layer. Otherwise, the
C bit MUST be set to 0.
o The S bit MUST be set to 1, if the first VCL NAL unit of the layer
picture containing the first target NAL unit (as defined above) in
decoding order is present in the payload. Otherwise, the S bit
MUST be set to 0.
o The E bit MUST be set to 1, if the last VCL NAL unit of the layer
picture containing the first target NAL unit (as defined above) in
decoding order is present in the payload. Otherwise, the E field
MUST be set to 0.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 21]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
o The RES field MUST be set to 0.
o The TL0PICIDX field specifies either an identifier for the layer
picture containing the first target NAL unit (as defined above)
when TL of the layer picture is equal to 0, or the identifier of
the most recent layer picture of TID equal to 0 in decoding order,
when TID of the layer picture containing the first target NAL unit
is greater than 0. If the bitstream contains no earlier access
unit than the access unit containing the target NAL units in
decoding order with TID equal to 0, TL0PICIDX MAY have any value.
Otherwise, let prevTL0FrameIdx be equal to the field TL0PICIDX of
the most recent access unit relative to the access unit containing
the target NAL units in decoding order with TID equal to 0. If
TID is equal to 0, the field TL0PICIDX MUST be equal to (
prevTL0FrameIdx + 1 ) % 256. Otherwise (TID is greater than 0),
TL0PICIDX MUST be equal to prevTL0FrameIdx.
SEI NAL units included in the PACSI NAL unit, if any, MUST contain a
subset of the SEI messages associated with the access unit of the
first NAL unit following the PACSI NAL unit within the aggregation
packet.
Informative note: Senders may repeat such SEI NAL units in the
PACSI NAL unit the presence of which in more than one packet is
essential for packet loss robustness. Receivers may use the
repeated SEI messages in place of missing SEI messages.
An SEI message SHOULD NOT be included in a PACSI NAL unit and
included in one of the NAL units contained in the same packet at the
same time.
7. Packetization Rules
Please see section 6 of [RFC3984]. The following rules apply in
addition.
The single NAL unit mode SHALL NOT be used. (See also section 6.5
for the motivation).
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 22]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
When a prefix NAL unit is encapsulated for transmission, it SHOULD
be aggregated to the same transmission packet as the associated NAL
unit following the prefix NAL unit in decoding order.
Informative note: When either the prefix NAL unit or the
associated NAL unit containing an H.264/AVC coded slice is lost,
the remaining one would be hardly useful in SVC context.
When Layers of a SVC bitstream are transported in more than one RTP
session, the interleaved packetization mode MUST be used.
8. De-Packetization Process (Informative)
Please see section 7 of [RFC3984]. The following rules apply in
addition.
To re-assemble a conforming NAL unit stream that has been conveyed
in more than one RTP session, DON SHOULD be utilized to re-sequence
NAL unit stemming from the different RTP sessions.
9. Payload Format Parameters
[Edt. note: this section 9 and its subsections will be updated
according to the changes listed below, a little later in the
process. For now, we just list the adjustments necessary, so not to
bury any new information in the RFC 3984 text.]
Section 8 of [RFC3984] applies with the following modification.
The sentence
"The parameters are specified here as part of the MIME subtype
registration for the ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10 codec."
is replaced with
"The parameters are specified here as part of the MIME subtype
registration for the SVC codec."
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 23]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
9.1. MIME Registration
Editor's note: this needs to be updated by copy-pasting the
RFC 3984 MIME registration into this document, so to make it
self-contained. Will be done later in the process.
The MIME subtype for the SVC codec is allocated from the IETF tree.
The receiver MUST ignore any unspecified parameter.
Media Type name: video
Media subtype name: H.264-SVC
Required parameters: none
OPTIONAL parameters:
The optional MIME parameters specified in [RFC3984] apply, with the
following constraints (to be edited in at the appropriate time):
sprop-interleaving-depth:
In case of using Session multiplexing, the same sprop-interleaving-
depth value MUST be signaled for all sessions and MUST be valid over
all sessions of the multiplex.
sprop-max-don-diff:
In case of using Session multiplexing, the same sprop-max-don-diff
value MUST be signaled for all sessions and MUST be valid over all
sessions of the multiplex.
sprop-deint-buf-req:
In case of using Session multiplexing, the same sprop-deint-buf-req
value MUST be signaled for all sessions and MUST be valid over all
sessions of the multiplex.
sprop-init-buf-time:
In case of using Session multiplexing, the same sprop-init-buf-time
value MUST be signaled for all sessions and MUST be valid over all
sessions of the multiplex.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 24]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
deint-buf-cap:
In case of using Session multiplexing, the same deint-buf-cap value
MUST be signaled by the receiver for all sessions and MUST be valid
over all sessions of the multiplex.
In addition the following optional MIME parameters apply:
sprop-scalability-info:
This parameter MAY be used to convey the NAL unit containing the
scalability information SEI message as specified in Annex G of
[SVC]. The parameter MUST NOT be used to indicate codec capability
in any capability exchange procedure. The value of the parameter is
the base64 representation of the NAL unit containing the scalability
information SEI message.
sprop-layer-ids:
This parameter MAY be used to signal the layer identification
value(s), expressed by the value of DID, QID, and TID of the SVC NAL
unit header, for one or more Layer(s) conveyed in one RTP session.
A layer identification is a three character value base64 coded. If
more than one Layer is transmitted within one RTP session, the layer
identification value of each Layer MUST be itemized in order of
decreasing importance, and MUST be comma-separated.
Encoding considerations:
This type is only defined for transfer
via RTP (RFC 3550).
Security considerations:
See section 9 of RFC XXXX.
Public specification:
Please refer to section 15 of RFC XXXX.
Additional information:
None
File extensions: none
Macintosh file type code: none
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 25]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Object identifier or OID: none
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Intended usage: COMMON
Author:
Change controller:
IETF Audio/Video Transport working group
delegated from the IESG.
9.2. SDP Parameters
9.2.1. Mapping of MIME Parameters to SDP
The MIME media type video/SVC string is mapped to fields in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP) as follows:
* The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.
* The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be SVC (the
MIME subtype).
* The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.
* The OPTIONAL parameters "profile-level-id", "max-mbps", "max-fs",
"max-cpb", "max-dpb", "max-br", "redundant-pic-cap", "sprop-
parameter-sets", "parameter-add", "packetization-mode", "sprop-
interleaving-depth", "deint-buf-cap", "sprop-deint-buf-req",
"sprop-init-buf-time", "sprop-max-don-diff", "max-rcmd-nalu-
size'', ''sprop-layer-ids'', and ''sprop-scalability-info'', when
present, MUST be included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP. These
parameters are expressed as a MIME media type string, in the form
of a semicolon separated list of parameter=value pairs.
9.2.2. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model
TBD.
9.2.3. Usage with Session multiplexing
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 26]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
If Session multiplexing is used, the rules on signaling media
decoding dependency in SDP as defined in
[I-D.schierl-mmusic-layered-codec] apply.
9.2.4. Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions
TBD.
9.3. Examples
TBD.
9.4. Parameter Set Considerations
Please see section 10 of [RFC3984].
10. Security Considerations
Please see section 11 of [RFC3984].
11. Congestion Control
Within any given RTP session carrying payload according to this
specification, the provisions of section 12 of [RFC3984] apply.
Reducing the session bandwidth is possible by one or more of the
following means, listed in an order that, in most cases, will assure
the least negative impact to the user experience:
a) within the highest Layer identified by the DID field, utilize the
TID and/or QID fields in the NAL unit header to drop NAL units
with lower importance for the decoding process or human
perception.
b) drop all NAL units belonging to the highest enhancement Layer as
identified by the highest DID value.
c) dropping NAL units according to their importance for the decoding
process, as indicated by the fields in the NAL unit header of the
NAL units or in the prefix NAL units.
d) dropping NAL units or entire packets not according to the
aforementioned rules (media-unaware stream thinning). This
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 27]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
results in the reception of a non-compliant bitstream and, most
likely, in very annoying artifacts
Informative note: The discussion above is centered on NAL
units and not on packets, primarily because that is the level
where senders can meaningfully manipulate the scalable
bitstream. The mapping of NAL units to RTP packets is fairly
flexible when using aggregation packets. Depending on the
nature of the congestion control algorithm, the ''dimension''
of congestion measurement (packet count or bitrate) and
reaction to it (reducing packet count or bitrate or both) can
be adjusted accordingly.
All aforementioned means are available to the RTP sender, regardless
whether that sender is located in the sending endpoint or in a mixer
based MANE.
When a translator-based MANE is employed, then the MANE MAY
manipulate the session only on the MANE's outgoing path, so that the
sensed end-to-end congestion falls within the permissible envelope.
As all translators, in this case the MANE needs to rewrite RTCP RRs
to reflect the manipulations it has performed on the session.
12. IANA Consideration
[Edt. Note: A new MIME type should be registered from IANA.]
13. Informative Appendix: Application Examples
13.1. Introduction
Scalable video coding is a concept that has been around at least
since MPEG-2 [MPEG2], which goes back as early as 1993.
Nevertheless, it has never gained wide acceptance; perhaps partly
because applications didn't materialize in the form envisioned
during standardization.
MPEG and JVT, respectively, performed a requirement analysis before
the SVC project was launched. Dozens of scenarios have been
studied. While some of the scenarios appear not to follow the most
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 28]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
basic design principles of the Internet -- and are therefore not
appropriate for IETF standardization -- others are clearly in the
scope of IETF work. Of these, this draft chooses the following
subset for immediate consideration. Note that we do not reference
the MPEG and JVT documents directly; partly, because at least the
MPEG documents have a limited lifespan and are not publicly
available, and partly because the language used in these documents
is inappropriately video centric and imprecise, when it comes to
protocol matters.
With these remarks, we now introduce three main application
scenarios that we consider as relevant, and that are implementable
with this specification.
13.2. Layered Multicast
This well-understood form of the use of layered coding
[McCanne/Vetterli] implies that all layers are individually conveyed
in their own RTP packet streams, each carried in its own RTP session
using the IP (multicast) address and port number as the single
demultiplexing point. Receivers ''tune'' into the layers by
subscribing to the IP multicast, normally by using IGMP [IGMP].
Layered Multicast has the great advantage of simplicity and easy
implementation. However, it has also the great disadvantage of
utilizing many different transport addresses. While we consider
this not to be a major problem for a professionally maintained
content server, receiving client endpoints need to open many ports
to IP multicast addresses in their firewalls. This is a practical
problem from a firewall/NAT viewpoint. Furthermore, even today IP
multicast is not as widely deployed as many wish.
We consider layered multicast an important application scenario for
three reasons. First, it is well understood and the implementation
constraints are well known. There may well be large scale IP
networks outside the immediate Internet context that may wish to
employ layered multicast in the future. One possible example could
be a combination of content creation and core-network distribution
for the various mobile TV services, e.g. those being developed by
3GPP (MBMS) [MBMS] and DVB (DVB-H) [DVB-H].
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 29]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
13.3. Streaming of an SVC scalable stream
In this scenario, a streaming server has a repository of stored SVC
coded layers for a given content. At the time of streaming, and
according to the capabilities, connectivity, and congestion
situation of the client(s), the streaming server generates and
serves a scalable stream. Both unicast and multicast serving is
possible. At the same time, the streaming server may use the same
repository of stored layers to compose different streams (with a
different set of layers) intended for other audiences.
As every endpoint receives only a single SVC RTP session, the number
of firewall pinholes can be optimized to one.
The main difference between this scenario and straightforward
simulcasting lies in the architecture and the requirements of the
streaming server, and is therefore out of the scope of IETF
standardization. However, compelling arguments can be made why such
a streaming server design makes sense. One possible argument is
related to storage space and channel bandwidth. Another is
bandwidth adaptivity without transcoding -- a considerable advantage
in a congestion controlled network. When the streaming server
learns about congestion, it can reduce sending bitrate by choosing
fewer layers or utilizing FGS, when composing the layered stream;
see section 10. SVC is designed to gracefully support both
bandwidth rampdown and bandwidth rampup with a considerable dynamic
range. This payload format is designed to allow for bandwidth
flexibility in the mentioned sense, both for CGS and FGS layers.
While, in theory, a transcoding step could achieve a similar dynamic
range, the computational demands are impractically high and video
quality is typically lowered -- therefore, few (if any) streaming
servers implement full transcoding.
13.4. Multicast to MANE, SVC scalable stream to endpoint
This scenario is a bit more complex, and designed to optimize the
network traffic in a core network, while still requiring only a
single pinhole in the endpoint's firewall. One of its key
applications is the mobile TV market.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 30]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Consider a large private IP network, e.g. the core network of 3GPP.
Streaming servers within this core network can be assumed to be
professionally maintained. We assume that these servers can have
many ports open to the network and that layered multicast is a real
option. Therefore, we assume that the streaming server multicasts
SVC scalable layers, instead of simulcasting different
representations of the same content at different bit rates.
Also consider many endpoints of different classes. Some of these
endpoints may not have the processing power or the display size to
meaningfully decode all layers; other may have these capabilities.
Users of some endpoints may not wish to pay for high quality and are
happy with a base service, which may be cheaper or even free. Other
users are willing to pay for high quality. Finally, some connected
users may have a bandwidth problem in that they can't receive the
bandwidth they would want to receive -- be it through congestion,
connectivity, change of service quality, or for whatever other
reasons. However, all these users have in common that they don't
want to be exposed too much, and therefore the number of firewall
pinholes need to be small.
This situation can be handled best by introducing middleboxes close
to the edge of the core network, which receive the layered multicast
streams and compose the single SVC scalable bit stream according to
the needs of the endpoint connected. These middleboxes are called
MANEs throughout this specification. In practice, we envision the
MANE to be part of (or at least physically and topologically close
to) the base station of a mobile network, where all the signaling
and media traffic necessarily are multiplexed on the same physical
link. This is why we do not worry too much about decomposition
aspects of the MANE as such.
MANEs necessarily need to be fairly complex devices. They certainly
need to understand the signaling, so, for example, to associate the
PT octet in the RTP header with the SVC payload type.
A MANE may terminate the multicasted layered RTP sessions incoming
from the core network side, and create new RTP sessions (perhaps
even multicast sessions) to the endpoints connected to them. In RTP
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 31]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
terminology, these types of MANEs are RTP mixers. This implies, per
RFC 3550, a very loose relationship between the incoming and
outgoing RTP sessions. In particular, there is no direct
relationship between the incoming and outgoing RTP sequence numbers,
RTP timestamps, payload types used, etc.
Mixer-based MANEs are conceptually easy to implement and can offer
powerful features, primarily because they necessarily can ''see'' the
payload (including the RTP payload headers), utilize the wealth of
layering information available therein, and manipulate it.
While a mixer-based MANE operation in its most trivial form
(combining multiple RTP packet streams into a single one) can be
implemented comparatively simply -- reordering the incoming packets
according to the DON and sending them in the appropriate order --
more complex forms can also be envisioned. For example, a mixer-
type MANE can be optimizing the outgoing RTP stream to the MTU size
of the outgoing path by utilizing the aggregation and fragmentation
mechanisms of this memo.
A MANE can also act as a translator. In this case, we envision its
functionality to stream thinning, so to adhere to congestion control
principles as discussed in section 11. While the implementation of
the forward (media) channel of such a MANE appears to be
comparatively simple, the need to rewrite RTCP RRs makes even such a
MANE a complex device.
While the implementation complexity of either case of a MANE, as
discussed above, is fairly high, the computational demands are
comparatively low. In particular, SVC and/or this specification
contain means to easily generate the correct inter-layer decoding
order of NAL units. It is also simple to identify the fine
granularity scalable bits in a given NAL unit. No serious bit-
oriented processing is required and no significant state information
(beyond that of the signaling and perhaps the SVC sequence parameter
sets) need to be kept.
13.5. Scenarios currently not considered for complexity reasons
-- vacat --
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 32]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
13.6. Scenarios currently not considered for being unaligned with
IP philosophy
Remarks have been made that the current draft does not take into
consideration at least one application scenario which some JVT folks
consider important. In particular, their idea is to make the RTP
payload format (or the media stream itself) self-contained enough
that a stateless, non signaling aware device can ''thin'' an RTP
session to meet the bandwidth demands of the endpoint. They call
this device a ''Router'' or ''Gateway'', and sometimes a MANE.
Obviously, it's not a Router or Gateway in the IETF sense. To
distinguish it from a MANE as defined in RFC 3984 and in this
specification, let's call it a MDfH (Magic Device from Heaven).
To simplify discussions, let's assume point-to-point traffic only.
The endpoint has a signaling relationship with the streaming server,
but it is known that the MDfH is somewhere in the media path (e.g.
because the physical network topology ensures this). It has been
requested, at least implicitly through MPEG's and JVT's requirements
document, that the MDfH should be capable to intercept the SVC
scalable bit stream, modify it by dropping packets or parts thereof,
and forwarding the resulting packet stream to the receiving
endpoint. It has been requested that this payload specification
contains protocol elements facilitating such an operation, and the
argument has been made that the NRI field of RFC 3984 serves exactly
the same purpose.
The authors of this I-D do not consider the scenario above to be
aligned with the most basic design philosophies the IETF follows,
and therefore have not addressed the comments made (except through
this section). In particular, we see the following problems with
the MDfH approach):
- As the very minimum, the MDfH would need to know which RTP
streams are carrying SVC. We don't see how this could be
accomplished but by using a static payload type. None of the
IETF defined RTP profiles envision static payload types for SVC,
and even the de-facto profiles developed by some application
standard organizations (3GPP for example) do not use this
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 33]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
outdated concept. Therefore, the MDfH necessarily needs to be at
least ''listening'' to the signaling.
- If the RTP packet payload were encrypted, it would be impossible
to interpret the payload header and/or the first bytes of the
media stream. We understand that there are crypto schemes under
discussion that encrypt only the last n bytes of an RTP payload,
but we are more than unsure that this is fully in line with the
IETF's security vision.
Even if the above two problems would have been overcome through
standardization outside of the IETF, we still foresee serious design
flaws:
- An MDfH can't simply dump RTP packets it doesn't want to forward.
It either needs to act as a full RTP Translator (implying that it
rewrites RTCP RRs and such), or it needs to patch the RTP
sequence numbers to fulfill the RTP specification. Not doing
either would, for the receiver, look like the gaps in the
sequence numbers occurred due to unintentional erasures, which
has interesting effects on congestion control (if implemented),
will break pretty much every meta-payload ever developed, and so
on. (Many more points could be made here).
- An MDfH also can't ''prune'' FGS packets. Again, doing so would
not be compatible with meta payloads, and would mess up RTCP RRs
and congestion control (if the congestion control is based on
octet count and not on packet count; there are discussions
related to the former at least in the context of TFRC).
In summary, based on our current knowledge we are not willing to
specify protocol mechanisms that support an operation point that has
so little in common with classic RTP use.
13.7. SSRC Multiplexing
The authors have complentated the idea of introducing SSRC
multiplexing, i.e. allowing to send multiple RTP packet streams
containing layers in the same RTP session, differentiated by SSRC
values. Our intention was to minimize the number of firewall
pinholes in an endpoint to one, by using MANEs to aggregate multiple
outgoing sessions stemming from a server into a single session (with
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 34]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
SSRC multiplexed packet streams). We were hoping that would be
feasible even with encrypted packets in an SRTP context.
While an implementation along these lines indeed appears to be
feasible for the forward media path, the RTCP RR rewrite cannot be
implemented in the way necessary for this scheme to work. This
relates to the need to authenticate the RTCP RRs as per SRTP
[RFC3711]. While the RTCP RR itself does not need to be rewritten
by the scheme we envisioned, its transport addresses needs to be
manipulated. This, in turn, is incompatible with the mandatory
authentication of RTCP RRs. As a result, there would be a
requirement that a MANE needs to be in the RTCP security context of
the sessions, which was not envisioned in our use case.
As the envisioned use case cannot be implemented, we refrained to
add the considerable document complexity to support SSRC
multiplexing herein.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[MPEG4-10] ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10:2005.
[H.264] ITU-T Recommendation H.264, "Advanced video coding for
generic audiovisual services", Version 4, July 2005.
[I-D.schierl-mmusic-layered-codec]
Schierl, T., and Wenger, S, "Signaling media decoding
dependency in Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
draft-schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-04 (work in progress),
June 2007.
[SVC] Joint Video Team, ''Joint Draft 11 of SVC Amendment'',
available from http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site
/2007_06_Geneva/JVT-X201.zip, Geneva, Switzerland, June
2007.
[RFC3984] Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M, Stockhammer, T, Westerlund, M,
Singer, D, ''RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video'', RFC 3984,
February 2005.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 35]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
14.2. Informative References
[DVB-H] DVB - Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); DVB-H
Implementation Guidelines, ETSI TR 102 377, 2005
[H.241] ITU-T Rec. H.241, ''Extended video procedures and control
signals for H.300-series terminals'', May 2006
[IGMP] Cain, B., Deering S., Kovenlas, I., Fenner, B. and
Thyagarajan, A., ''Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3'', RFC 3376, October 2002.
[McCanne/Vetterli]
V. Jacobson, S. McCanne and M. Vetterli. Receiver-
driven layered multicast. In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM'96, pages
117--130, Stanford, CA, August 1996.
[MBMS] 3GPP - Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS);
Protocols and codecs (Release 6), December 2005.
[MPEG2] ISO/IEC International Standard 13818-2:1993.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D, Naslund, M, Carrara, E,
Norrman, K, ''The secure real-time transport protocol
(SRTP)'', RFC 3711, March 2004.
15. Author's Addresses
Stephan Wenger Phone: +1-650-862-7368
Nokia Email: stewe@stewe.org
955 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
Ye-Kui Wang Phone: +358-50-486-7004
Nokia Research Center Email: ye-kui.wang@nokia.com
P.O. Box 100
FIN-33721 Tampere
Finland
Thomas Schierl Phone: +49-30-31002-227
Fraunhofer HHI Email: schierl@hhi.fhg.de
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 36]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
Einsteinufer 37
D-10587 Berlin
Germany
16. Copyright Statement
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
17. Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
18. Intellectual Property Statement
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
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 37]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
19. Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Further, the author Thomas Schierl of Fraunhofer HHI is sponsored
by the European Commission under the contract number
FP6-IST-0028097, project ASTRALS.
20. RFC Editor Considerations
none
21. Open Issues
1. Packetization rules need work.
2. Alignment with the SVC specification (ongoing)
22. Changes Log
Version 00
- 29.08.2005, YkW: Initial version
- 29.09.2005, Miska: Reviewed and commented throughout the document
- 05.10.2006, StW: Editorial changes through the document, and
formatted the document in RFC payload format style
>From -00 to -01
- 04.02.2006, StW: Added details to scope
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 38]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
- 04.02.2006, StW: Added short subsection 6.1 ''Design Principles''
- 04.02.2006, StW: Added section 15, ''Application Examples''
- 06.02 - 03.03.2006, YkW: Various modifications throughout the
document
- 13.02.2006 - 03.03.2006 , ThS: Added definitions and additional
information to section 3.3, 5.1, 7 and 8, parameters in section 9.1 and
added section 14 for NAL unit re-ordering for layered multicast.
Further modifications throughout the document
>From -01 to -02
- 06.03.2006, StW: Editorial improvements
- 26.05.2006, YkW: Updated NAL unit header syntax and semantics
according to the latest draft SVC spec
- 20.06.2006, Miska/YkW: Added section 6.10 ''Payload Content
Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit''
- 20.06.2006, YkW: Updated the NAL unit reordering process for layered
multicast (removed the old section 14 ''Informative Appendix: NAL Unit
Re-ordering for Layered Multicast'' and added the new section 13 ''NAL
Unit Reordering for Layered Multicast'')
>From -02 to -03
- 05.09.2006, YkW: Updated the NAL unit header syntax, definitions,
etc., according to the foreseen July JVT output. Updated possible MANE
adaptation operations according to SPID, TL, DID and QL. Clarified the
removal of single NAL unit packetiztaion mode. Added the support of
SSRC multiplexing in layered multicast.
- 08.09.2006, StW: Editorial changes throughout the document
- 08.09.2006, YkW: Added the packetization rule for suffix NAL unit.
- 19.09.2006, YkW: Moved/updated SSRC multiplexing support to section
6.2 ``RTP header usage''. Moved/updated the cross layer DON constraint
to Section 6.6 ``Decoding order number''. Moved/updated the
packetization rule when a SVC bistream is transported over more than
one RTP session to Section 7 ``Packetization rules''. Removed Section
13 ''Support of layered multicast''.
- 16.10, TS: Added detailed four-byte NAL unit header description.
Change ''AVC'' to ''H.264'' conforming to 3984. Modifications throughout
the document. Extended description of 3rd byte of PACSI NAL unit.
Corrected terms RTP session and RTP packet stream in case of SSRC
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 39]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
multiplexing. Added terms in definition section on RTP multiplexing.
Constraints on optional MIME parameters of 3984 for cross-layer DON
(DON section and MIME parameters). Copied parts of SI paper regarding
mixer, translator and SSRC mux with SRTP to section application
examples. Added section on SDP usage with Session and SSRC
multiplexing. Added points in Design principles on translator/mixer and
RTP multiplexing. Added additional founding information in Ack-
section. Corrected reference for SVC and added reference for generic
signaling.
17.10, StW: Fixed many editorials, clarified MANE, mixer, translator
and RTP packet stream throughout doc (hopefully consistently)
18.10., removed comments, clarified B-Bit, changed definition of base-
layer (do not need to be of the lowest temporal resolution),
>From -03 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-00
- 23.11.06, StW: Editorials throughout the memo
- 23.11.06, StW: removed all occurrences of the security
discussions, as they are incorrect. When using SRTP, the RTCP is
authenticated, implying that a translator cannot rewrite RTCP
RRs, implying that RRs would be incorrect as soon as the session
is modified (i.e. packets are being removed), implying that SSRC-
mux does not work in multicast.
- 23.11.06, StW: rewrote congestion control
- 23.11.06, StW: removed application scenario related to SRTP, as
this does not work (see above
- 23.11.06, StW: added informative reference to H.241
- 27/29.11.06, YkW: editorial changes throughout the document
- 27/29.11.06, YkW: alignment with the SVC specification
- 19.12.06, TS:
TS: [SVC] is now the complete Joint Draft of H.264
TS: Removed SSRC Multiplexing
TS: Changed use cases for MANE as a translator
TS: Editorials throughout the document, alignment with SVC spec.
- 20-28.12.06, StW/TS/YkW: editorial changes throughout the
document
>From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-00 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-01
- 23.02.07, YkW/Miska Hannuksela: Added enhancements to PACSI NAL
unit
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 40]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for SVC Video July 2007
- 01.03.07, Jonathan Lennox/YkW: Added recommendatory packetization
rules for SEI messages and non-VCL NAL units
- 05.03.07, Thomas Wiegand/YkW: Added the fields of picture start,
picture end, and Tl0PicIdx to PACSI NAL unit
- 05.03.07, TS: Draft conforms to new I-D style
>From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-01 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-02
25-June-2007: TS
Clarified definitions Layer, Operation Points,
Removed FGS
Aligned with JVT-W201 spec
Use of DON in de-packetization
Congestion control
25-June-2007: YkW
Edit throughout the spec, aligned with JVT-X201 SVC spec
09-July-2007: TS
Further modifications and alignments with JVT-X201.
Wenger, Wang, Schierl Expires January 09, 2008 [page 41]
