AVTCORE J. Lennox
Internet-Draft Vidyo
Updates: 3550, 4585 (if approved) M. Westerlund
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: September 10, 2015 Q. Wu
Huawei
C. Perkins
University of Glasgow
March 9, 2015
Sending Multiple Media Streams in a Single RTP Session
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-07
Abstract
This memo expands and clarifies the behaviour of Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) endpoints that use multiple synchronization sources
(SSRCs). This occurs, for example, when an endpoint sends multiple
media streams in a single RTP session. This memo updates RFC 3550
with regards to handling multiple SSRCs per endpoint in RTP sessions,
with a particular focus on RTCP behaviour. It also updates RFC 4585
to update and clarify the calculation of the timeout of SSRCs and the
inclusion of feedback messages.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases For Multi-Stream Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Endpoints with Multiple Capture Devices . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Multiple Media Types in a Single RTP Session . . . . . . 4
3.3. Multiple Stream Mixers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Multiple SSRCs for a Single Media Source . . . . . . . . 4
4. Use of RTP by endpoints that send multiple media streams . . 5
5. Use of RTCP by Endpoints that send multiple media streams . . 5
5.1. RTCP Reporting Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Initial Reporting Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Aggregation of Reports into Compound RTCP Packets . . . . 6
5.3.1. Maintaining AVG_RTCP_SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3.2. Scheduling RTCP with Multiple Reporting SSRCs . . . . 8
5.4. Use of RTP/AVPF Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.1. Choice of SSRC for Feedback Packets . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.2. Scheduling an RTCP Feedback Packet . . . . . . . . . 12
6. RTCP Considerations for Streams with Disparate Rates . . . . 14
6.1. Timing out SSRCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. Problems with RTP/AVPF the T_rr_interval Parameter . 16
6.1.2. Avoiding Premature Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.3. Interoperability Between RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF . . . . 18
6.1.4. Updated SSRC Timeout Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. Tuning RTCP transmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.1. RTP/AVP and RTP/SAVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.2. RTP/AVPF and RTP/SAVPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
1. Introduction
At the time the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] was
originally designed, and for quite some time after, endpoints in RTP
sessions typically only transmitted a single media stream, and thus
used a single synchronization source (SSRC) per RTP session, where
separate RTP sessions were typically used for each distinct media
type. Recently, however, a number of scenarios have emerged in which
endpoints wish to send multiple RTP media streams, distinguished by
distinct RTP synchronization source (SSRC) identifiers, in a single
RTP session. These are outlined in Section 3. Although the initial
design of RTP did consider such scenarios, the specification was not
consistently written with such use cases in mind. The specifications
are thus somewhat unclear.
This memo updates [RFC3550] to clarify behaviour in use cases where
endpoints use multiple SSRCs. It also updates [RFC4585] in regards
to the timeout of inactive SSRCs to resolve problematic behaviour as
well as clarifying the inclusion of feedback messages.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
implementations.
3. Use Cases For Multi-Stream Endpoints
This section discusses several use cases that have motivated the
development of endpoints that sends RTP data using multiple SSRCs in
a single RTP session.
3.1. Endpoints with Multiple Capture Devices
The most straightforward motivation for an endpoint to send multiple
simultaneous RTP streams in a session is the scenario where an
endpoint has multiple capture devices, and thus media sources, of the
same media type and characteristics. For example, telepresence
endpoints, of the type described by the CLUE Telepresence Framework
[I-D.ietf-clue-framework], often have multiple cameras or microphones
covering various areas of a room, and hence send several RTP streams.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
3.2. Multiple Media Types in a Single RTP Session
Recent work has updated RTP
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session] and SDP
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] to remove the historical
assumption in RTP that media sources of different media types would
always be sent on different RTP sessions. In this work, a single
endpoint's audio and video RTP media streams (for example) are
instead sent in a single RTP session to reduce the number of
transport layer flows used.
3.3. Multiple Stream Mixers
There are several RTP topologies which can involve a central device
that itself generates multiple RTP media streams in a session. An
example is a mixer providing centralized compositing for a multi-
capture scenario like that described in Section 3.1. In this case,
the centralized node is behaving much like a multi-capturer endpoint,
generating several similar and related sources.
A more complex example is the selective forwarding middlebox,
described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update].
This is a middlebox that receives media streams from several
endpoints, and then selectively forwards modified versions of some
RTP streams toward the other endpoints to which it is connected. For
each connected endpoint, a separate media source appears in the
session for every other source connected to the middlebox,
"projected" from the original streams, but at any given time many of
them can appear to be inactive (and thus are receivers, not senders,
in RTP). This sort of device is closer to being an RTP mixer than an
RTP translator, in that it terminates RTCP reporting about the mixed
streams, and it can re-write SSRCs, timestamps, and sequence numbers,
as well as the contents of the RTP payloads, and can turn sources on
and off at will without appearing to be generating packet loss. Each
projected stream will typically preserve its original RTCP source
description (SDES) information.
3.4. Multiple SSRCs for a Single Media Source
There are also several cases where a single media source results in
the usage of multiple SSRCs within the same RTP session. Transport
robustness tools like RTP Retransmission [RFC4588] result in multiple
SSRCs, one with source data, and another with the repair data.
Scalable encoders and their RTP payload formats, like H.264's
extension for Scalable Video Coding(SVC) [RFC6190] can be transmitted
in a configuration where the scalable layers are distributed over
multiple SSRCs within the same session, to enable RTP packet stream
level (SSRC) selection and routing in conferencing middleboxes.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
4. Use of RTP by endpoints that send multiple media streams
Every RTP endpoint will have an allocated share of the available
session bandwidth, as determined by signalling and congestion
control. The endpoint MUST keep its total media sending rate within
this share. However, endpoints that send multiple media streams do
not necessarily need to subdivide their share of the available
bandwidth independently or uniformly to each media stream and its
SSRCs. In particular, an endpoint can vary the allocation to
different streams depending on their needs, and can dynamically
change the bandwidth allocated to different SSRCs (for example, by
using a variable rate codec), provided the total sending rate does
not exceed its allocated share. This includes enabling or disabling
media streams and their redundancy streams as more or less bandwidth
becomes available.
5. Use of RTCP by Endpoints that send multiple media streams
The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) is defined in Section 6 of [RFC3550].
The description of the protocol is phrased in terms of the behaviour
of "participants" in an RTP session, under the assumption that each
endpoint is a participant with a single SSRC. However, for correct
operation in cases where endpoints can send multiple media streams,
the specification needs to be interpreted with each SSRC counting as
a participant in the session, so that an endpoint that has multiple
SSRCs counts as multiple participants. The following describes
several concrete cases where this applies.
5.1. RTCP Reporting Requirement
An RTP endpoint that has multiple SSRCs MUST treat each SSRC as a
separate participant in the RTP session, sending RTCP reports for
each of its SSRCs in every RTCP reporting interval. If the mechanism
in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation] is not used, then
each SSRC will send RTCP reports for all other SSRCs, including those
co-located at the same endpoint.
If the endpoint has some SSRCs that are sending data and some that
are only receivers, then they will receive different shares of the
RTCP bandwidth and calculate different base RTCP reporting intervals.
Otherwise, all SSRCs at an endpoint will calculate the same base RTCP
reporting interval. The actual reporting intervals for each SSRC are
randomised in the usual way, but reports can be aggregated as
described in Section 5.3.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
5.2. Initial Reporting Interval
When a participant joins a unicast session, the following text from
Section 6.2 of [RFC3550] is relevant: "For unicast sessions... the
delay before sending the initial compound RTCP packet MAY be zero."
The basic assumption is that this also ought to apply in the case of
multiple SSRCs. Caution has to be exercised, however, when an
endpoint (or middlebox) with a large number of SSRCs joins a unicast
session, since immediate transmission of many RTCP reports can create
a significant burst of traffic, leading to transient congestion and
packet loss due to queue overflows.
To ensure that the initial burst of traffic generated by an RTP
endpoint is no larger than would be generated by a TCP connection, an
RTP endpoint MUST NOT send more than four compound RTCP packets with
zero initial delay when it joins a session. Each of those initial
compound RTCP packets MAY include aggregated reports from multiple
SSRCs, provided the total compound RTCP packet size does not exceed
the MTU, and the avg_rtcp_packet_size is maintained as in
Section 5.3.1. Aggregating reports from several SSRCs in the initial
compound RTCP packets allows a substantial number of SSRCs to report
immediately. Endpoints SHOULD prioritize reports on SSRCs that are
likely to be most immediately useful, e.g., for SSRCs that are
initially senders.
An endpoint that needs to report on more SSRCs than will fit into the
four compound RTCP reports that can be sent immediately MUST send the
other reports later, following the usual RTCP timing rules including
timer reconsideration. Those reports MAY be aggregated as described
in Section 5.3.
Note: The above is based on an TCP initial window of 4 packets,
not the larger initial windows which there is an ongoing
experiment with. The reason for this is a desire to be
conservative as an RTP endpoint will also in many cases commence
RTP transmission at the same time as these initial RTCP packets
are sent.
5.3. Aggregation of Reports into Compound RTCP Packets
As outlined in Section 5.1, an endpoint with multiple SSRCs has to
treat each SSRC as a separate participant when it comes to sending
RTCP reports. This will lead to each SSRC sending a compound RTCP
packet in each reporting interval. Since these packets are coming
from the same endpoint, it might reasonably be expected that they can
be aggregated to reduce overheads. Indeed, Section 6.1 of [RFC3550]
allows RTP translators and mixers to aggregate packets in similar
circumstances:
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
"It is RECOMMENDED that translators and mixers combine individual
RTCP packets from the multiple sources they are forwarding into
one compound packet whenever feasible in order to amortize the
packet overhead (see Section 7). An example RTCP compound packet
as might be produced by a mixer is shown in Fig. 1. If the
overall length of a compound packet would exceed the MTU of the
network path, it SHOULD be segmented into multiple shorter
compound packets to be transmitted in separate packets of the
underlying protocol. This does not impair the RTCP bandwidth
estimation because each compound packet represents at least one
distinct participant. Note that each of the compound packets MUST
begin with an SR or RR packet."
This allows RTP translators and mixers to generate compound RTCP
packets that contain multiple SR or RR packets from different SSRCs,
as well as any of the other packet types. There are no restrictions
on the order in which the RTCP packets can occur within the compound
packet, except the regular rule that the compound RTCP packet starts
with an SR or RR packet. Due to this rule, correctly implemented RTP
endpoints will be able to handle compound RTCP packets that contain
RTCP packets relating to multiple SSRCs.
Accordingly, endpoints that use multiple SSRCs MAY aggregate the RTCP
packets sent by their different SSRCs into compound RTCP packets,
provided 1) the resulting compound RTCP packets begin with an SR or
RR packet; 2) they maintain the average RTCP packet size as described
in Section 5.3.1; and 3) they schedule packet transmission and manage
aggregation as described in Section 5.3.2.
5.3.1. Maintaining AVG_RTCP_SIZE
The RTCP scheduling algorithm in [RFC3550] works on a per-SSRC basis.
Each SSRC sends a single compound RTCP packet in each RTCP reporting
interval. When an endpoint uses multiple SSRCs, it is desirable to
aggregate the compound RTCP packets sent by its SSRCs, reducing the
overhead by forming a larger compound RTCP packet. This aggregation
can be done as described in Section 5.3.2, provided the average RTCP
packet size calculation is updated as follows.
Participants in an RTP session update their estimate of the average
RTCP packet size (avg_rtcp_size) each time they send or receive an
RTCP packet (see Section 6.3.3 of [RFC3550]). When a compound RTCP
packet that contains RTCP packets from several SSRCs is sent or
received, the avg_rtcp_size estimate for each SSRC that is reported
upon is updated using div_packet_size rather than the actual packet
size:
avg_rtcp_size = (1/16) * div_packet_size + (15/16) * avg_rtcp_size
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
where div_packet_size is packet_size divided by the number of SSRCs
reporting in that compound packet. The number of SSRCs reporting in
a compound packet is determined by counting the number of different
SSRCs that are the source of Sender Report (SR) or Receiver Report
(RR) RTCP packets within the compound RTCP packet. Non-compound RTCP
packets (i.e., RTCP packets that do not contain an SR or RR packet
[RFC5506]) are considered to report on a single SSRC.
An SSRC that doesn't follow the above rule, and instead uses the full
RTCP compound packet size to calculate avg_rtcp_size, will derive an
RTCP reporting interval that is overly large by a factor that is
proportional to the number of SSRCs aggregated into compound RTCP
packets and the size of set of SSRCs being aggregated relative to the
total number of participants. This increased RTCP reporting interval
can cause premature timeouts if it is more than five times the
interval chosen by the SSRCs that understand compound RTCP that
aggregate reports from many SSRCs. A 1500 octet MTU can fit five
typical size reports into a compound RTCP packet, so this is a real
concern if endpoints aggregate RTCP reports from multiple SSRCs.
The issue raised in the previous paragraph is mitigated by the
modification in timeout behaviour specified in Section 6.1.2. This
mitigation is in place in those cases where the RTCP bandwidth is
sufficiently high that an endpoint, using an avg_rtcp_size calculated
without taking into account the number of reporting SSRCs, can
transmit more frequently than approximately every 5 seconds. Note,
however, that the non-modified endpoint's RTCP reporting is still
negatively impacted even if the premature timeout of its SSRCs are
avoided. If compatibility with non-updated endpoints is a concern,
the number of reports from different SSRCs aggregated into a single
compound RTCP packet SHOULD either be limited to two reports, or
aggregation ought not used at all. This will limit the non-updated
endpoint's RTCP reporting interval to be no larger than twice the
RTCP reporting interval that would be chosen by an endpoint following
this specification.
5.3.2. Scheduling RTCP with Multiple Reporting SSRCs
When implementing RTCP packet scheduling for cases where multiple
reporting SSRCs are aggregating their RTCP packets in the same
compound packet there are a number of challenges. First of all, we
have the goal of not changing the general properties of the RTCP
packet transmissions, which include the general inter-packet
distribution, and the behaviour for dealing with flash joins as well
as other dynamic events.
The below specified mechanism deals with:
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
o That one can't have a-priori knowledge about which RTCP packets
are to be sent, or their size, prior to generating the packets.
In which case, the time from generation to transmission ought to
be as short as possible to minimize the information that becomes
stale.
o That one has an MTU limit, that one ought to avoid exceeding, as
that requires lower-layer fragmentation (e.g., IP fragmentation)
which impacts the packets' probability of reaching the
receiver(s).
The below text modifies and extends the behavior defined in
Section 6.3 of [RFC3550], and in Section 3.5.3 of [RFC4585] if the
AVPF or SAVPF profile is used, regarding actions to take when
scheduling and sending an RTCP packet. It uses the variable names
tn, tp, tc, T and Td defined in Section 6.3 of [RFC3550]. The
variable T_rr_last is defined in [RFC4585].
Schedule all the endpoint's local SSRCs individually for transmission
using the regular calculation of tn for the profile being used. Each
time an SSRC's tn timer expires, do the regular reconsideration and,
if applicable, T_rr_int based suppression. If the result indicates
that an RTCP packet is to be sent and the transmission is a regular
RTCP packet:
1. Consider if an additional SSRC can be added. That consideration
is done by picking the SSRC which has the tn value closest in
time to the current time (tc).
2. Calculate how much space for RTCP packets would be needed to add
that SSRC.
3. If the considered SSRC's RTCP Packets fit within the lower layer
datagram's Maximum Transmission Unit, taking the necessary
protocol headers and the space consumed by prior SSRCs into
account, then add that SSRC's RTCP packets to the compound packet
and go again to Step 1.
4. Otherwise, if the considered SSRC's RTCP Packets will not fit
within the compound packet, then transmit the generated compound
packet.
5. Update the RTCP Parameters for each SSRC that has been included
in the sent RTCP packet. The previous RTCP transmit time (tp)
value for each SSRC MUST be updated as follows:
A. For the first SSRC set the transmission time (tt) to tc.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
B. For any additional SSRC calculate the transmission time that
each of these SSRCs would have had it not been aggregated and
given the current existing session context. This value is
derived by taking this SSRC's tn value and performing
reconsideration and updating tn until tp + T <= tn, then set
tt = tn. If AVPF or SAVPF is being used, then T_rr_int based
suppression MUST NOT be used in this calcualtion.
C. Calculate average transmission time (tt_avg) using the tt of
all the SSRCs included in the packet.
D. Now update tp for all the sent SSRCs to tt_avg.
E. If AVPF or SAVPF profile is being used update T_rr_last to
tt_avg.
6. For the sent SSRCs calculate new tn values based on the updated
parameters and reschedule the timers.
When using AVPF or SAVPF profile, when following the scheduling
algorithm for regular transmission in Section 3.5.3 then the case of
T_rr_interval == 0, as well as option 1, 2a and 2b for T_rr_interval
!= 0, results in transmission of a regular RTCP packet that follows
the above and updates the necessary variables. However, when the
transmission is suppressed per 2c, then tp is updated to tc, as no
aggregation has taken place.
Reverse reconsideration needs to be performed as specified in RTP
[RFC3550]. It is important to note that under the above algorithm
when performing reconsideration, the value of tp can actually be
larger than tc. However, that still has the desired effect of
proportionally pulling the tp value towards tc (as well as tn) as the
group size shrinks in direct proportion the reduced group size.
The above algorithm has been shown in simulations to maintain the
inter-RTCP-packet transmission distribution for the SSRCs and consume
the same amount of bandwidth as non-aggregated packets in RTP
sessions. With this algorithm the actual transmission interval for
any SSRC triggering an RTCP compound packet transmission is following
the regular transmission rules. The value tp is set to somewhere in
the interval [0,1.5/1.21828*Td] ahead of tc. The actual value is
average of one instance of tc and the randomized transmission times
of the additional SSRCs, thus the lower range of the interval is more
probable. This setting is performed to compensate for the bias that
is otherwise introduced by picking the shortest tn value out of the N
SSRCs included in aggregate.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
The algorithm also handles the cases where the number of SSRCs that
can be included in an aggregated packet varies. An SSRC that
previously was aggregated and fails to fit in a packet still has its
own transmission scheduled according to normal rules. Thus, it will
trigger a transmission in due time, or the SSRC will be included in
another aggregate. The algorithm's behaviour under SSRC group size
changes is as follows:
RTP sessions where the number of SSRC are growing: When the group
size is growing, the Td values grow in proportion to the number of
new SSRCs in the group. When reconsideration is done when the
timer for the tn expires, that SSRC will reconsider the
transmission and with a certain probability reschedule the tn
timer. This part of the reconsideration algorithm is only
impacted by the above algorithm by having tp values that were in
the future instead of set to the time of the actual last
transmission at the time of updating tp.
RTP sessions where the number of SSRC are shrinking: When the group
shrinks, reverse reconsideration moves the tp and tn values
towards tc proportionally to the number of SSRCs that leave the
session compared to the total number of participants when they
left. The setting of the tp value forward in time related to the
tc could be believed to have negative effect. However, the reason
for this setting is to compensate for bias caused by picking the
shortest tn out of the N aggregated. This bias remains over a
reduction in the number of SSRCs. The reverse reconsideration
compensates the reduction independently of aggregation being used
or not. The negative effect that can occur on removing an SSRC is
that the most favourable tn belonged to the removed SSRC. The
impact of this is limited to delaying the transmission, in the
worst case, one reporting interval.
In conclusion the investigations performed has found no significant
negative impact on the scheduling algorithm.
5.4. Use of RTP/AVPF Feedback
This section discusses the transmission of RTP/AVPF feedback packets
when the transmitting endpoint has multiple SSRCs.
5.4.1. Choice of SSRC for Feedback Packets
When an RTP/AVPF endpoint has multiple SSRCs, it can choose what SSRC
to use as the source for the RTCP feedback packets it sends. Several
factors can affect that choice:
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
o RTCP feedback packets relating to a particular media type SHOULD
be sent by an SSRC that receives that media type. For example,
when audio and video are multiplexed onto a single RTP session,
endpoints will use their audio SSRC to send feedback on the audio
received from other participants.
o RTCP feedback packets and RTCP codec control messages that are
notifications or indications regarding RTP data processed by an
endpoint MUST be sent from the SSRC used by that RTP data. This
includes notifications that relate to a previously received
request or command [RFC4585][RFC5104].
o If separate SSRCs are used to send and receive media, then the
corresponding SSRC SHOULD be used for feedback, since they have
differing RTCP bandwidth fractions. This can also affect the
consideration if the SSRC can be used in immediate mode or not.
o Some RTCP feedback packet types require consistency in the SSRC
used. For example, if a TMMBR limitation [RFC5104] is set by an
SSRC, the same SSRC needs to be used to remove the limitation.
o If several SSRCs are suitable for sending feedback, if might be
desirable to use an SSRC that allows the sending of feedback as an
early RTCP packet.
When an RTCP feedback packet is sent as part of a compound RTCP
packet that aggregates reports from multiple SSRCs, there is no
requirement that the compound packet contains an SR or RR packet
generated by the sender of the RTCP feedback packet. For reduced-
size RTCP packets, aggregation of RTCP feedback packets from multiple
sources is not limited further than Section 4.2.2 of [RFC5506].
5.4.2. Scheduling an RTCP Feedback Packet
When an SSRC has a need to transmit a feedback packet in early mode
it follows the scheduling rules defined in Section 3.5 in RTP/AVPF
[RFC4585]. When following these rules the following clarifications
need to be taken into account:
o Whether a session is considered to be point-to-point or multiparty
is not based on the number of SSRCs, but the number of endpoints
one directly interacts with in the RTP session. This is
determined by counting the number of CNAMEs used by the SSRCs
received. A RTP session MUST be considered multiparty if more
than one CNAME is received, unless signalling explicitly indicates
that the session is to be handled as point to point, or RTCP
reporting groups [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation]
are used. If RTCP reporting groups are used, the classification
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
is solely based on whether the endpoint receives a single
reporting group, indicating point to point, or if multiple
reporting groups are received (or a mixture of sources using and
sources not using reporting groups), which is classified as
multiparty. Note that contributing sources (CSRCs) can be bound
to any number of different CNAMEs and do not affect the
determination of whether the session is multiparty. Similarly,
SSRC/CSRC values that are only seen in the source field of an SDES
packet do not affect this determination.
o Note that when checking if there is already a scheduled compound
RTCP packet containing feedback messages (Step 2 in
Section 3.5.2), that check is done considering all local SSRCs.
o If the SSRC is not allowed to send an early RTCP packet, then the
feedback message MAY be queued for transmission as part of any
early or regular scheduled transmission that can occur within the
maximum useful lifetime of the feedback message (T_max_fb_delay).
This modifies the behaviour in bullet 4a) in Section 3.5.2 of
[RFC4585].
The above rule for determining if a RTP session is to be considered
point-to-point or multiparty is simple and straightforward and works
in most cases. The goal with the above classification is to
determine if the resources associated with RTP and RTCP are shared
with only one peer or multiple other endpoints. This is significant
as it affects the impact and the necessary processing and resource
consumption. Relying on only CNAME will result in classifying some
few situations where one might actually have only one peer as a
multiparty situation. The known situations are the following ones:
Endpoint with multiple synchronization contexts: An endpoint that is
part of a point-to-point session can have multiple synchronization
contexts, for example due to forwarding an external media source
into a interactive real-time conversation. In this case the
classification will consider the peer as two endpoints, while the
actual RTP/RTCP transmission will be under the control of one
endpoint.
Selective Forwarding Middlebox: The SFM as defined in Section 3.7 of
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update] has control over the
transmission and configurations between itself and each peer
endpoint individually. It also fully controls the RTCP packets
being forwarded between the individual legs. Thus, this type of
middlebox can be compared to the RTP mixer, which uses its own
SSRCs to mix or select the media it forwards, that will be
classified as a point-to-point RTP session by the above rule.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
In the above cases it is very reasonable to use RTCP reporting groups
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation]. If that extension
is used, an endpoint can indicate that the multitude of CNAMEs are in
fact under a single endpoint or middlebox control by using only a
single reporting group.
The above rules will also classify some sessions where the endpoint
is connected to an RTP mixer as being point to point. For example
the mixer could act as gateway to an Any Source Multicast based RTP
session for the discussed endpoint. However, this will in most cases
be okay, as the RTP mixer provides separation between the two parts
of the session. The responsibility falls on the mixer to act
accordingly in each domain.
Note: The above usage of point-to-point or multiparty as classifiers
is actually misleading, but we maintain these labels to match what is
used in [RFC4585] as this ensures that the right algorithms are
applied.
To conclude we note that in some cases signalling can be used to
override the rule when it would result in the wrong classification.
6. RTCP Considerations for Streams with Disparate Rates
An RTP session has a single set of parameters that configure the
session bandwidth. These are the RTCP sender and receiver fractions
(e.g., the SDP "b=RR:" and "b=RS:" lines), and the parameters of the
RTP/AVPF profile [RFC4585] (e.g., trr-int) if that profile (or its
secure extension, RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]) is used. As a consequence,
the base RTCP reporting interval, before randomisation, will be the
same for every sending SSRC in an RTP session. Similarly, every
receiving SSRC in an RTP session will have the same base reporting
interval, although this can differ from the reporting interval chosen
by sending SSRCs. This uniform RTCP reporting interval for all SSRCs
can result in RTCP reports being sent more often, or too seldom, than
is considered desirable for a RTP stream.
For example, consider a scenario when an audio flow sending at tens
of kilobits per second is multiplexed into an RTP session with a
multi-megabit high quality video flow. If the session bandwidth is
configured based on the video sending rate, and the default RTCP
bandwidth fraction of 5% of the session bandwidth is used, it is
likely that the RTCP bandwidth will exceed the audio sending rate.
If the reduced minimum RTCP interval described in Section 6.2 of
[RFC3550] is then used in the session, as appropriate for video where
rapid feedback on damaged I-frames is wanted, the uniform reporting
interval for all senders could mean that audio sources are expected
to send RTCP packets more often than they send audio data packets.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
This bandwidth mismatch can be reduced by careful tuning of the RTCP
parameters, especially trr_int when the RTP/AVPF profile is used,
cannot be avoided entirely, as it is inherent in the design of the
RTCP timing rules, and affects all RTP sessions that contain flows
with greatly mismatched bandwidth.
Different media rates or desired RTCP behaviours can also occur
between SSRCs carrying the same media type. A common case in
multiparty conferencing is when only one or two video source are
shown in higher resolution, while the others are shown as small
thumbnails, with the choice of which is shown in high resolution
being voice activity controlled. Here the differences are both in
actual media rate and in choices for what feedback messages might be
needed. Other examples of differences that can exist are due to the
intended usage of a media source. A media source carrying the video
of the speaker in a conference is different from a document camera.
Basic parameters that can differ in this case are frame-rate,
acceptable end-to-end delay, and the SNR fidelity of the image.
These differences affect not only the needed bit-rates, but also
possible transmission behaviours, usable repair mechanisms, what
feedback messages the control and repair requires, the transmission
requirements on those feedback messages, and monitoring of the RTP
stream delivery.
Sending multiple media types in a single RTP session causes that
session to contain more SSRCs than if each media type was sent in a
separate RTP session. For example, if two participants each send an
audio and a video flow in a single RTP session, that session will
comprise four SSRCs, but if separate RTP sessions had been used for
audio and video, each of those two RTP sessions would comprise only
two SSRCs. Sending multiple media streams in an RTP session hence
increases the amount of cross reporting between the SSRCs, as each
SSRC reports on all other SSRCs in the session. This increases the
size of the RTCP reports, causing them to be sent less often than
would be the case if separate RTP sessions where used for a given
RTCP bandwidth.
Finally, when an RTP session contains multiple media types, it is
important to note that the RTCP reception quality reports, feedback
messages, and extended report blocks used might not be applicable to
all media types. Endpoints will need to consider the media type of
each SSRC only send or process reports and feedback that apply to
that particular SSRC and its media type. Signalling solutions might
have shortcomings when it comes to indicating that a particular set
of RTCP reports or feedback messages only apply to a particular media
type within an RTP session.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
From an RTCP perspective, therefore, it can be seen that there are
advantages to using separate RTP sessions for each media stream,
rather than sending multiple media streams in a single RTP session.
However, these are frequently offset by the need to reduce port use,
to ease NAT/firewall traversal, achieved by combining media streams
into a single RTP session. The following sections consider some of
the issues with using RTCP in sessions with multiple media streams in
more detail.
6.1. Timing out SSRCs
Various issues have been identified with timing out SSRC values when
sending multiple media streams in an RTP session.
6.1.1. Problems with RTP/AVPF the T_rr_interval Parameter
The RTP/AVPF profile includes a method to prevent RTCP reports from
being sent too often. This mechanism is described in Section 3.5.3
of [RFC4585], and is controlled by the T_rr_interval parameter. It
works as follows. When a regular RTCP report is sent, a new random
value, T_rr_current_interval, is generated, drawn evenly in the range
0.5 to 1.5 times T_rr_interval. If a regular RTCP packet is to be
sent earlier then T_rr_current_interval seconds after the previous
regular RTCP packet, and there are no feedback messages to be sent,
then that regular RTCP packet is suppressed, and the next regular
RTCP packet is scheduled. The T_rr_current_interval is recalculated
each time a regular RTCP packet is sent. The benefit of suppression
is that it avoids wasting bandwidth when there is nothing requiring
frequent RTCP transmissions, but still allows utilization of the
configured bandwidth when feedback is needed.
Unfortunately this suppression mechanism skews the distribution of
the RTCP sending intervals compared to the regular RTCP reporting
intervals. The standard RTCP timing rules, including reconsideration
and the compensation factor, result in the intervals between sending
RTCP packets having a distribution that is skewed towards the upper
end of the range [0.5/1.21828, 1.5/1.21828]*Td, where Td is the
deterministic calculated RTCP reporting interval. With Td = 5s this
distribution covers the range [2.052s, 6.156s]. In comparison, the
RTP/AVPF suppression rules act in an interval that is 0.5 to 1.5
times T_rr_interval; for T_rr_interval = 5s this is [2.5s, 7.5s].
The effect of this is that the time between consecutive RTCP packets
when using T_rr_interval suppression can become large. The maximum
time interval between sending one regular RTCP packet and the next,
when T_rr_interval is being used, occurs when T_rr_current_interval
takes its maximum value and a regular RTCP packet is suppressed at
the end of the suppression period, then the next regular RTCP packet
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
is scheduled after its largest possible reporting interval. Taking
the worst case of the two intervals gives a maximum time between two
RTCP reports of 1.5*T_rr_interval + 1.5/1.21828*Td.
This behaviour can be surprising when Td and T_rr_interval have the
same value. That is, when T_rr_interval is configured to match the
regular RTCP reporting interval. In this case, one might expect that
regular RTCP packets are sent according to their usual schedule, but
feedback packets can be sent early. However, the above-mentioned
issue results in the RTCP packets actually being sent in the range
[0.5*Td, 2.731*Td] with a highly non-uniform distribution, rather
than the range [0.41*Td, 1.23*Td]. This is perhaps unexpected, but
is not a problem in itself. However, when coupled with packet loss,
it raises the issue of premature timeout.
6.1.2. Avoiding Premature Timeout
In RTP/AVP [RFC3550] the timeout behaviour is simple, and is 5 times
Td, where Td is calculated with a Tmin value of 5 seconds. In other
words, if the configured RTCP bandwidth allows for an average RTCP
reporting interval shorter than 5 seconds, the timeout is 25 seconds
of no activity from the SSRC (RTP or RTCP), otherwise the timeout is
5 average reporting intervals.
RTP/AVPF [RFC4585] introduces different timeout behaviours depending
on the value of T_rr_interval. When T_rr_interval is 0, it uses the
same timeout calculation as RTP/AVP. However, when T_rr_interval is
non-zero, it replaces Tmin in the timeout calculation, most likely to
speed up detection of timed out SSRCs. However, using a non-zero
T_rr_interval has two consequences for RTP behaviour.
First, due to suppression, the number of RTP and RTCP packets sent by
an SSRC that is not an active RTP sender can become very low, because
of the issue discussed in Section 6.1.1. As the RTCP packet interval
can be as long as 2.73*Td, then during a 5*Td time period an endpoint
might in fact transmit only a single RTCP packet. The long intervals
result in fewer RTCP packets, to a point where a single RTCP packet
loss can sometimes result in timing out an SSRC.
Second, the RTP/AVPF changes to the timeout rules reduce robustness
to misconfiguration. It is common to use RTP/AVPF configured such
that RTCP packets can be sent frequently, to allow rapid feedback,
however this makes timeouts very sensitive to T_rr_interval. For
example, if two SSRCs are configured one with T_rr_interval = 0.1s
and the other with T_rr_interval = 0.6s, then this small difference
will result in the SSRC with the shorter T_rr_interval timing out the
other if it stops sending RTP packets, since the other RTCP reporting
interval is more than five times its own. When RTP/AVP is used, or
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
RTP/AVPF with T_rr_interval = 0, this is a non-issue, as the timeout
period will be 25s, and differences between configured RTCP bandwidth
can only cause premature timeouts when the reporting intervals are
greater than 5s and differ by a factor of five. To limit the scope
for such problematic misconfiguration, we propose an update to the
RTP/AVPF timeout rules in Section 6.1.4.
6.1.3. Interoperability Between RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF
If endpoints implementing the RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF profiles (or their
secure variants) are combined within a single RTP session, and the
RTP/AVPF endpoints use a non-zero T_rr_interval that is significantly
below 5 seconds, there is a risk that the RTP/AVPF endpoints will
prematurely timeout the SSRCs of the RTP/AVP endpoints, due to their
different RTCP timeout rules. Conversely, if the RTP/AVPF endpoints
use a T_rr_interval that is significant larger than 5 seconds, there
is a risk that the RTP/AVP endpoints will timeout the SSRCs of the
RTP/AVPF endpoints.
Mixing endpoints using two different RTP profiles within a single RTP
session is NOT RECOMMENDED. However, if mixed RTP profiles are used,
and the RTP/AVPF endpoints are not updated to follow Section 6.1.4 of
this memo, then the RTP/AVPF session SHOULD be configured to use
T_rr_interval = 4 seconds to avoid premature timeouts.
The choice of T_rr_interval = 4 seconds for interoperability might
appear strange. Intuitively, this value ought to be 5 seconds, to
make both the RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF use the same timeout period.
However, the behaviour outlined in Section 6.1.1 shows that actual
RTP/AVPF reporting intervals can be longer than expected. Setting
T_rr_interval = 4 seconds gives actual RTCP intervals near to those
expected by RTP/AVP, ensuring interoperability.
6.1.4. Updated SSRC Timeout Rules
To ensure interoperability and avoid premature timeouts, all SSRCs in
an RTP session MUST use the same timeout behaviour. However,
previous specification are inconsistent in this regard. To avoid
interoperability issues, this memo updates the timeout rules as
follows:
o For the RTP/AVP, RTP/SAVP, RTP/AVPF, and RTP/SAVPF profiles, the
timeout interval SHALL be calculated using a multiplier of five
times the deterministic RTCP reporting interval. That is, the
timeout interval SHALL be 5*Td.
o For the RTP/AVP, RTP/SAVP, RTP/AVPF, and RTP/SAVPF profiles,
calculation of Td, for the purpose of calculating the participant
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
timeout only, SHALL be done using a Tmin value of 5 seconds and
not the reduced minimal interval, even if the reduced minimum
interval is used to calculate RTCP packet transmission intervals.
This changes the behaviour for the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profiles
when T_rr_interval != 0, a behaviour defined in Section 3.5.4 of RFC
4585, i.e. Tmin in the Td calculation is the T_rr_interval.
6.2. Tuning RTCP transmissions
This sub-section discusses what tuning can be done to reduce the
downsides of the shared RTCP packet intervals. First, it is
considered what possibilities exist for the RTP/AVP [RFC3551]
profile, then what additional tools are provided by RTP/AVPF
[RFC4585].
6.2.1. RTP/AVP and RTP/SAVP
When using the RTP/AVP or RTP/SAVP profiles, the options for tuning
the RTCP reporting intervals are limited to the RTCP sender and
receiver bandwidth, and whether the minimum RTCP interval is scaled
according to the bandwidth. As the scheduling algorithm includes
both randomisation and reconsideration, one cannot simply calculate
the expected average transmission interval using the formula for Td
given in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC3550]. However, by considering the
inputs to that expression, and the randomisation and reconsideration
rules, we can begin to understand the behaviour of the RTCP
transmission interval.
Let's start with some basic observations:
a. Unless the scaled minimum RTCP interval is used, then Td prior to
randomization and reconsideration can never be less than Tmin.
The default value of Tmin is 5 seconds.
b. If the scaled minimum RTCP interval is used, Td can become as low
as 360 divided by RTP Session bandwidth in kilobits per second.
In SDP the RTP session bandwidth is signalled using a "b=AS"
line. An RTP Session bandwidth of 72kbps results in Tmin being 5
seconds. An RTP session bandwidth of 360kbps of course gives a
Tmin of 1 second, and to achieve a Tmin equal to once every frame
for a 25 frame-per-second video stream requires an RTP session
bandwidth of 9Mbps. Use of the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profile
allows more frequent RTCP reports for the same bandwidth, as
discussed below.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
c. The value of Td scales with the number of SSRCs and the average
size of the RTCP reports, to keep the overall RTCP bandwidth
constant.
d. The actual transmission interval for a Td value is in the range
[0.5*Td/1.21828,1.5*Td/1.21828], and the distribution is skewed,
due to reconsideration, with the majority of the probability mass
being above Td. This means, for example, that for Td = 5s, the
actual transmission interval will be distributed in the range
[2.052s, 6.156s], and tending towards the upper half of the
interval. Note that Tmin parameter limits the value of Td before
randomisation and reconsideration are applied, so the actual
transmission interval will cover a range extending below Tmin.
Given the above, we can calculate the number of SSRCs, n, that an RTP
session with 5% of the session bandwidth assigned to RTCP can support
while maintaining Td equal to Tmin. This will tell us how many media
streams we can report on, keeping the RTCP overhead within acceptable
bounds. We make two assumptions that simplify the calculation: that
all SSRCs are senders, and that they all send compound RTCP packets
comprising an SR packet with n-1 report blocks, followed by an SDES
packet containing a 16 octet CNAME value [RFC7022] (such RTCP packets
will vary in size between 54 and 798 octets depending on n, up to the
maximum of 31 report blocks that can be included in an SR packet).
If we put this packet size, and a 5% RTCP bandwidth fraction into the
RTCP interval calculation in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC3550], and
calculate the value of n needed to give Td = Tmin for the scaled
minimum interval, we find n=9 SSRCs can be supported (irrespective of
the interval, due to the way the reporting interval scales with the
session bandwidth). We see that to support more SSRCs, we need to
increase the RTCP bandwidth fraction from 5%; changing the session
bandwidth does not help due to the limit of Tmin.
To conclude, with RTP/AVP and RTP/SAVP the key limitation for small
unicast sessions is going to be the Tmin value. Thus the RTP session
bandwidth configured in RTCP has to be sufficiently high to reach the
reporting goals the application has following the rules for the
scaled minimal RTCP interval.
6.2.2. RTP/AVPF and RTP/SAVPF
When using RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF, we have a powerful additional tool
for tuning RTCP transmissions: the T_rr_interval parameter. Use of
this parameter allows short RTCP reporting intervals; alternatively
it gives the ability to sent frequent RTCP feedback without sending
frequent regular RTCP reports.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
The use of the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profile with T_rr_interval set
to a value greater than zero but smaller than Tmin allows more
frequent RTCP feedback than the RTP/AVP or RTP/SAVP profiles, for a
given RTCP bandwidth. This happens because Tmin is set to zero after
the transmission of the initial RTCP report, causing the reporting
interval for later packet to be determined by the usual RTCP
bandwidth-based calculation, with Tmin=0, and the T_rr_interval.
This has the effect that we are no longer restricted by the minimal
interval (whether the default 5 second minimum, or the reduced
minimum interval). Rather, the RTCP bandwidth and the T_rr_interval
are the governing factors, allowing faster feedback. Applications
that care about rapid regular RTCP feedback ought to consider using
the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profile, even if they don't use the
feedback features of that profile.
The use of the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profile allows RTCP feedback
packets to be sent frequently, without also requiring regular RTCP
reports to be sent frequently, since T_rr_interval limits the rate at
which regular RTCP packets can be sent, while still permitting RTCP
feedback packets to be sent. Applications that can use feedback
packets for some media streams, e.g., video streams, but don't want
frequent regular reporting for other media streams, can configure the
T_rr_interval to a value so that the regular reporting for both audio
and video is at a level that is considered acceptable for the audio.
They could then use feedback packets, which will include RTCP SR/RR
packets unless reduced size RTCP feedback packets [RFC5506] are used,
for the video reporting. This allows the available RTCP bandwidth to
be devoted on the feedback that provides the most utility for the
application.
Using T_rr_interval still requires one to determine suitable values
for the RTCP bandwidth value. Indeed, it might make this choice even
more important, as this is more likely to affect the RTCP behaviour
and performance than when using the RTP/AVP or RTP/SAVP profile, as
there are fewer limitations affecting the RTCP transmission.
When T_rr_interval is non-zero, there are configurations that need to
be avoided. If the RTCP bandwidth chosen is such that the Td value
is smaller than, but close to, T_rr_interval, then the actual regular
RTCP packet transmission interval can become very large, as discussed
in Section 6.1.1. Therefore, for configuration where one intends to
have Td smaller than T_rr_interval, then Td is RECOMMENDED to be
targeted at values less than 1/4th of T_rr_interval which results in
that the range becomes [0.5*T_rr_interval, 1.81*T_rr_interval].
With the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profiles, using T_rr_interval = 0 has
utility, and results in a behaviour where the RTCP transmission is
only limited by the bandwidth, i.e., no Tmin limitations at all.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
This allows more frequent regular RTCP reporting than can be achieved
using the RTP/AVP profile. Many configurations of RTCP will not
consume all the bandwidth that they have been configured to use, but
this configuration will consume what it has been given. Note that
the same behaviour will be achieved as long as T_rr_interval is
smaller than 1/3 of Td as that prevents T_rr_interval from affecting
the transmission.
There exists no method for using different regular RTCP reporting
intervals depending on the media type or individual media stream,
other than using a separate RTP session for each type or stream.
7. Security Considerations
When using the secure RTP protocol (RTP/SAVP) [RFC3711], or the
secure variant of the feedback profile (RTP/SAVPF) [RFC5124], the
cryptographic context of a compound secure RTCP packet is the SSRC of
the sender of the first RTCP (sub-)packet. This could matter in some
cases, especially for keying mechanisms such as Mikey [RFC3830] which
allow use of per-SSRC keying.
Otherwise, the standard security considerations of RTP apply; sending
multiple media streams from a single endpoint in a single RTP session
does not appear to have different security consequences than sending
the same number of media streams spread across different RTP
sessions.
8. IANA Considerations
No IANA actions are needed.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July
2006.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session]
Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and J. Lennox, "Sending
Multiple Types of Media in a Single RTP Session", draft-
ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-07 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation]
Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, W., and C. Perkins,
"Sending Multiple Media Streams in a Single RTP Session:
Grouping RTCP Reception Statistics and Other Feedback",
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-05 (work
in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]
Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", draft-
ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-06 (work in progress),
March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-clue-framework]
Duckworth, M., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger, "Framework
for Telepresence Multi-Streams", draft-ietf-clue-
framework-21 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
negotiation-18 (work in progress), March 2015.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
July 2003.
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
[RFC3830] Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K.
Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830,
August 2004.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
July 2006.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.
[RFC6190] Wenger, S., Wang, Y., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis,
"RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190,
May 2011.
[RFC7022] Begen, A., Perkins, C., Wing, D., and E. Rescorla,
"Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Canonical Names (CNAMEs)", RFC 7022, September 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Jonathan Lennox
Vidyo, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue
Seventh Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
USA
Email: jonathan@vidyo.com
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
SE-164 80 Kista
Sweden
Phone: +46 10 714 82 87
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multiple Media Streams in an RTP Session March 2015
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science
Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org
Lennox, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 25]
