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]
