Payload Working Group D. Hanson Internet Draft M. Faller Intended status: Standards Track K. Maver Expires: February 3, 2023 General Dynamics Mission Systems August 2, 2022 RTP Payload Format for the SCIP Codec draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-02 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 February 3, 2023. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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. Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 Abstract This document describes the RTP payload format of the Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) as audio and video media subtypes. It provides RFC 6838 compliant media subtype definitions. SCIP-210 describes the protocols that comprise the content of the SCIP RTP packet payload. This document follows the registration for related media types called "audio/scip" and "video/scip" with IANA and formatted according to RFC 4855. Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................... 2 1.1. Conventions........................................... 3 1.2. Abbreviations......................................... 3 2. Background................................................. 3 3. Media Format Description................................... 4 4. Payload Format............................................. 5 4.1. RTP Header Fields..................................... 5 5. Payload Format Parameters.................................. 5 5.1. Media Subtype "audio/scip"............................ 6 5.2. Media Subtype "video/scip"............................ 7 5.3. Mapping to SDP........................................ 8 5.4. SDP Offer/Answer Considerations....................... 9 6. Security Considerations.................................... 9 7. IANA Considerations........................................ 9 8. References................................................ 10 8.1. Normative References................................. 10 8.2. Informative References............................... 11 9. Authors' Addresses........................................ 12 9.1. Change Control Address............................... 13 1. Introduction The IANA registration of media subtype types in the IETF tree created two similar media subtypes "scip" under the audio and video media types [AUDIOSCIP], [VIDEOSCIP]. These media subtype definitions also appear in Section 5. This document, as the common top-level reference, provides information on their similarities and differences and the usage of those media subtypes. This document details usage of the scip pseudo-codec as a secure session establishment protocol and transport protocol over RTP. It provides a reference for network security Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 policymakers, network equipment OEMs, procurement personnel, and government agency and commercial industry representatives. 1.1. Conventions 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Best current practices for writing an RTP payload format specification were followed [RFC2736] [RFC8088]. When referring to the Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol, the uppercase acronym "SCIP" is used. When referring to the media subtype scip, lowercase "scip" is used. 1.2. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this document. AVP: Audio/Video Profile DTX: Discontinuous Transmission ICWG: Interoperability Control Working Group IICWG: International Interoperability Control Working Group NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization SCIP: Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol SDP: Session Description Protocol 2. Background The Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) allows the negotiation of several voice, data, and video applications using various encryption suites. SCIP also provides several important characteristics that have led to its broad acceptance in the international user community. These features include end-to-end security at the application layer, authentication of user identity, the ability to apply different security levels for each secure session, and secure communication over any end-to-end data connection. SCIP began in the U.S. as the Future Narrowband Digital Terminal (FNBDT) Protocol. A combined Department of Defense and vendor consortium formed a governing organization named the Interoperability Control Working Group (ICWG) to manage the Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 protocol. In time, the group expanded to include NATO, NATO partners and European vendors under the name International Interoperability Control Working Group (IICWG), which was later renamed the SCIP Working Group. SCIP is presently implemented in U.S. and NATO secure voice, video, and data products operating on commercial, private, and tactical IP networks worldwide using the scip media subtype. First generation SCIP devices operated on circuit-switched networks. SCIP was then expanded to radio and IP networks. The scip media subtype transports SCIP secure session establishment signaling and secure application traffic. The built-in negotiation and flexibility provided by the SCIP standards make it a natural choice for many scenarios that require various secure applications and associated encryption suites. SCIP has been endorsed by many nations as the secure end-to-end solution for secure voice, video, and data devices. SCIP standards are currently available to participating government/military communities and select OEMs of equipment that support SCIP. However, SCIP must operate over global networks (including private and commercial networks). Without access to necessary information to support SCIP, some networks may not support the SCIP media subtypes. Issues may occur simply because information is not as readily available to OEMs, network administrators, and network architects. This RFC provides essential information about audio/scip and video/scip media subtypes that enables network equipment manufacturers to include scip as a known audio and video media subtype in their equipment and enables network administrators to define and implement a compatible security policy. All current IP-based SCIP devices support "scip" as a media subtype. Registration of scip as a media subtype provides a common reference for network equipment manufacturers to recognize SCIP in a payload declaration. 3. Media Format Description The "scip" media subtype indicates support for and identifies SCIP traffic that is being transferred using RTP. Transcoding, lossy compression, or other data modifications MUST NOT be performed on the SCIP RTP payload. The audio/scip and video/scip media subtype data streams within the network, including the VoIP network, MUST be a transparent relay and be Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 treated as "clear-channel data", similar to the Clearmode media subtype defined by RFC 4040. However, Clearmode is defined as a gateway protocol and limited to a sample rate of 8000 Hz and 64kbps bandwidth only [RFC4040]. Clearmode is not defined for the higher sample and data rates required for some SCIP traffic. 4. Payload Format The RTP Packet content of SCIP traffic is dependent upon the SCIP session state. SCIP secure session establishment uses protocols defined in SCIP-210 [SCIP210] to negotiate an application. SCIP secure traffic may consist of the encrypted output of codecs such as MELPe [RFC8130], G.729D [RFC3551], H.264 [RFC6184], or other media encodings, based on the application negotiated during SCIP secure session establishment. SCIP traffic is highly variable and the bit rate specified in the SDP [RFC8866] is OPTIONAL since discontinuous transmission (DTX) or other mechanisms may be used. The SCIP payload size will vary, especially during SCIP secure session establishment. 4.1. RTP Header Fields The SCIP RTP header fields SHALL conform to RFC 3550. SCIP traffic may be continuous or discontinuous. The Timestamp field MUST increment based on the sampling clock for discontinuous transmission as described in [RFC3550], Section 5.1. The Timestamp field for continuous transmission applications is dependent on the sampling rate of the media as specified in the media subtype's specification (e.g., MELPe [RFC8130]). Note that during a call, both discontinuous and continuous traffic are highly probable. Therefore, a jitter buffer MAY be implemented in endpoint devices only but SHOULD NOT be implemented in network devices. Additionally, network devices SHOULD NOT repacketize SCIP packets. The Marker bit SHALL be set to zero for discontinuous traffic. The Marker bit for continuous traffic is based on the underlying media subtype specification. The underlying media is opaque within SCIP RTP packets. 5. Payload Format Parameters The SCIP RTP payload format is identified using the scip media subtype, which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 per the media type registration template form [RFC6838]. A clock rate of 8000 Hz SHALL be used for "audio/scip". A clock rate of 90000 Hz SHALL be used for "video/scip". 5.1. Media Subtype "audio/scip" Media type name: audio Media subtype name: scip Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: Binary. This media subtype is only defined for transfer via RTP. There SHALL be no encoding/decoding (transcoding) of the audio stream as it traverses the network. Security considerations: See Section 6. Interoperability considerations: N/A Published specifications: [SCIP210] Applications which use this media: N/A Fragment Identifier considerations: none Restrictions on usage: N/A Additional information: 1. Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A 2. Magic number(s): N/A 3. File extension(s): N/A 4. Macintosh file type code: N/A 5. Object Identifiers: N/A Person to contact for further information: 1. Name: Michael Faller and Daniel Hanson Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 2. Email: michael.faller@gd-ms.com and dan.hanson@gd-ms.com Intended usage: Common, Government and Military Authors: Michael Faller - michael.faller@gd-ms.com Daniel Hanson - dan.hanson@gd-ms.com Change controller: SCIP Working Group - ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int 5.2. Media Subtype "video/scip" Media type name: video Media subtype name: scip Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: Binary. This media subtype is only defined for transfer via RTP. There SHALL be no encoding/decoding (transcoding) of the video stream as it traverses the network. Security considerations: See Section 6. Interoperability considerations: N/A Published specifications: [SCIP210] Applications which use this media: N/A Fragment Identifier considerations: none Restrictions on usage: N/A Additional information: 1. Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A 2. Magic number(s): N/A Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 3. File extension(s): N/A 4. Macintosh file type code: N/A 5. Object Identifiers: N/A Person to contact for further information: 1. Name: Michael Faller and Daniel Hanson 2. Email: michael.faller@gd-ms.com and dan.hanson@gd-ms.com Intended usage: Common, Government and Military Authors: Michael Faller - michael.faller@gd-ms.com Daniel Hanson - dan.hanson@gd-ms.com Change controller: SCIP Working Group - ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int 5.3. Mapping to SDP The mapping of the above defined payload format media subtype and its parameters SHALL be implemented according to Section 3 of [RFC4855]. An example mapping for audio/scip is: m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 scip/8000 An example mapping for video/scip is: m=video 50002 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 scip/90000 An example mapping for both audio/scip and video/scip is: m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 scip/8000 m=video 50002 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 scip/90000 Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 The application negotiation between endpoints will determine whether the audio and video streams are transported as separate streams over the audio and video payload types or as a single media stream on the video payload type. 5.4. SDP Offer/Answer Considerations In accordance with the SDP Offer/Answer model [RFC3264], the SCIP device SHALL list the SCIP payload type in order of preference in the "m" media line. 6. Security Considerations RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [RFC3550], and in any applicable RTP profile such as RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/ SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202] discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility to discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic security goals like confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity for RTP in general. This responsibility lays on anyone using RTP in an application. They can find guidance on available security mechanisms and important considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions" [RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong security mechanisms. The rest of this Security Considerations section discusses the security impacting properties of the payload format itself. This RTP payload format and its media decoder do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational complexity for packet processing, and thus do not inherently pose a denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological data. Nor does the RTP payload format contain any active content. 7. IANA Considerations The audio/scip and video/scip media subtypes have previously been registered with IANA [AUDIOSCIP] [VIDEOSCIP]. IANA should update [AUDIOSCIP] and [VIDEOSCIP] to reference this document upon publication. Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 8. References 8.1. Normative References [AUDIOSCIP] Faller, M., and D. Hanson, "audio/scip", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), 28 January 2021, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media- types/audio/scip>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2736] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, DOI 10.17487/RFC2736, December 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2736>. [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc3264>. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H., and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 3551, July 2003, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc3551>. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>. [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>. [RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February 2008, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc5124>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8866] Begen, A., Kyzivat P., Perkins C., and M. Handley, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866, January 2021, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc8866>. [VIDEOSCIP] Faller, M., and D. Hanson, "video/scip", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), 28 January 2021, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media- types/video/scip>. 8.2. Informative References [RFC4040] Kreuter, R., "RTP Payload Format for a 64 kbit/s Transparent Call", RFC 4040, April 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4040>. [RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4855>. [RFC6184] Wang, Y., Even, R., et al. "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184, May 2011, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc6184>. [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, January 2013, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc6838>. [RFC7201] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc7201>. [RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 April 2014, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc7202>. [RFC8088] Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload Format", RFC 8088, DOI 10.17487/RFC8088, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8088>. [RFC8130] Demjanenko, V., and D. Satterlee, "RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec", RFC 8130, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8130>. [SCIP210] SCIP-210, "SCIP Signaling Plan", Revision 3.10, 26 October 2017, request access via email <ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int>. 9. Authors' Addresses Daniel Hanson General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. 150 Rustcraft Road Dedham, MA 02026, USA E-mail: dan.hanson@gd-ms.com Michael Faller General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. 150 Rustcraft Road Dedham, MA 02026, USA E-mail: michael.faller@gd-ms.com Keith Maver General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. 150 Rustcraft Road Dedham, MA 02026, USA E-mail: keith.maver@gd-ms.com Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format August 2022 9.1. Change Controller Address SCIP Working Group, CIS3 Partnership NATO Communications and Information Agency Oude Waalsdorperweg 61, 2597AK The Hague, The Netherlands E-mail: ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int Hanson, Faller, Maver Expires February 3, 2023 [Page 13]