avtcore S. Zhao
Internet-Draft S. Wenger
Intended status: Standards Track Tencent
Expires: April 30, 2021 Y. Sanchez
Fraunhofer HHI
October 27, 2020
RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VVC)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-03
Abstract
This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding
standard ITU-T Recommendation H.266 and ISO/IEC International
Standard ISO23090-3, both also known as Versatile Video Coding (VVC)
and developed by the Joint Video Experts Team (JVET). The RTP
payload format allows for packetization of one or more Network
Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet payload as well as
fragmentation of a NAL unit into multiple RTP packets. The payload
format has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video
streaming, and high-bitrate entertainment-quality video, among other
applications.
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 https://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 April 30, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Overview of the VVC Codec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Coding-Tool Features (informative) . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. Systems and Transport Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3. Parallel Processing Support (informative) . . . . . . 10
1.1.4. NAL Unit Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2. Overview of the Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Definitions and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.1. Definitions from the VVC Specification . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2. Definitions Specific to This Memo . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. RTP Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Payload Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. Payload Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.1. Single NAL Unit Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.2. Aggregation Packets (APs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.3. Fragmentation Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4. Decoding Order Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Packetization Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. De-packetization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2. SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2.1. Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP . . . . . . 32
7.2.2. Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Use with Feedback Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2. Slice Loss Indication (SLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.3. Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI) . . . . . . 34
8.4. Full Intra Request (FIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Frame Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1. Frame Marking Short Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2. Frame Marking Long Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction
The Versatile Video Coding [VVC] specification, formally published as
both ITU-T Recommendation H.266 and ISO/IEC International Standard
23090-3 [ISO23090-3], is currently in the ITU-T publication process
and the ISO/IEC approval process. [H.266] is reported to provide
significant coding efficiency gains over H.265 and earlier video
codec formats.
This memo specifices an RTP payload format for VVC. It shares its
basic design with the NAL (Network Abstraction Layer) unit-based RTP
payload formats of, H.264 Video Coding [RFC6184], Scalable Video
Coding (SVC) [RFC6190], High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) [RFC7798]
and their respective predecessors. With respect to design
philosophy, security, congestion control, and overall implementation
complexity, it has similar properties to those earlier payload format
specifications. This is a conscious choice, as at least RFC 6184 is
widely deployed and generally known in the relevant implementer
communities. Certain mechanisms known from [RFC6190] were
incorporated in VVC, as VVC version 1 supports temporal, spatial, and
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) scalability.
1.1. Overview of the VVC Codec
[VVC] and [HEVC] share a similar hybrid video codec design. In this
memo, we provide a very brief overview of those features of VVC that
are, in some form, addressed by the payload format specified herein.
Implementers have to read, understand, and apply the ITU- T/ISO/IEC
specifications pertaining to [VVC] to arrive at interoperable, well-
performing implementations.
Conceptually, both [VVC] and [HEVC] include a Video Coding Layer
(VCL), which is often used to refer to the coding-tool features, and
a NAL, which is often used to refer to the systems and transport
interface aspects of the codecs.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
1.1.1. Coding-Tool Features (informative)
Coding tool features are described below with occasional reference to
the coding tool set of [HEVC], which is well known in the community.
Similar to earlier hybrid-video-coding-based standards, including
HEVC, the following basic video coding design is employed by VVC. A
prediction signal is first formed by either intra- or motion-
compensated prediction, and the residual (the difference between the
original and the prediction) is then coded. The gains in coding
efficiency are achieved by redesigning and improving almost all parts
of the codec over earlier designs. In addition, [VVC] includes
several tools to make the implementation on parallel architectures
easier.
Finally, [VVC] includes temporal, spatial, and SNR scalability as
well as multiview coding support.
Coding blocks and transform structure
Among major coding-tool differences between HEVC and VVC, one of the
important improvements is the more flexible coding tree structure in
VVC, i.e., multi-type tree. In addition to quadtree, binary and
ternary trees are also supported, which contributes significant
improvement in coding efficiency. Moreover, the maximum size of
coding tree unit (CTU) is increased from 64x64 to 128x128. To
improve the coding efficiency of chroma signal, luma chroma separated
trees at CTU level may be employed for intra-slices. The square
transforms in HEVC are extended to non-square transforms for
rectangular blocks resulting from binary and ternary tree splits.
Besides, [VVC] supports multiple transform sets (MTS), including DCT-
2, DST-7, and DCT-8 as well as the non-separable secondary transform.
The transforms used in [VVC] can have different sizes with support
for larger transform sizes. For DCT-2, the transform sizes range
from 2x2 to 64x64, and for DST-7 and DCT-8, the transform sizes range
from 4x4 to 32x32. In addition, [VVC] also support sub-block
transform for both intra and inter coded blocks. For intra coded
blocks, intra sub-partitioning (ISP) may be used to allow sub-block
based intra prediction and transform. For inter blocks, sub-block
transform may be used assuming that only a part of an inter-block has
non-zero transform coefficients.
Entropy coding
Similar to HEVC, VVC uses a single entropy-coding engine, which is
based on context adaptive binary arithmetic coding [CABAC], but with
the support of multi-window sizes. The window sizes can be
initialized differently for different context models. Due to such a
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
design, it has more efficient adaptation speed and better coding
efficiency. A joint chroma residual coding scheme is applied to
further exploit the correlation between the residuals of two color
components. In VVC, different residual coding schemes are applied
for regular transform coefficients and residual samples generated
using transform-skip mode.
In-loop filtering
VVC has more feature support in loop filters than HEVC. The
deblocking filter in VVC is similar to HEVC but operates at a smaller
grid. After deblocking and sample adaptive offset (SAO), an adaptive
loop filter (ALF) may be used. As a Wiener filter, ALF reduces
distortion of decoded pictures. Besides, VVC introduces a new module
before deblocking called luma mapping with chroma scaling to fully
utilize the dynamic range of signal so that rate-distortion
performance of both SDR and HDR content is improved.
Motion prediction and coding
Compared to HEVC, [VVC] introduces several improvements in this area.
First, there is the adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR), which
can save bit cost for motion vectors by adaptively signaling motion
vector resolution. Then the affine motion compensation is included
to capture complicated motion like zooming and rotation. Meanwhile,
prediction refinement with the optical flow with affine mode (PROF)
is further deployed to mimic affine motion at the pixel level.
Thirdly the decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) is a method
to derive MV vector at decoder side based on block matching so that
fewer bits may be spent on motion vectors. Bi-directional optical
flow (BDOF) is a similar method to PROF. BDOF adds a sample wise
offset at 4x4 sub-block level that is derived with equations based on
gradients of the prediction samples and a motion difference relative
to CU motion vectors. Furthermore, merge with motion vector
difference (MMVD) is a special mode, which further signals a limited
set of motion vector differences on top of merge mode. In addition
to MMVD, there are another three types of special merge modes, i.e.,
sub-block merge, triangle, and combined intra-/inter-prediction
(CIIP). Sub- block merge list includes one candidate of sub-block
temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) and up to four candidates
of affine motion vectors. Triangle is based on triangular block
motion compensation. CIIP combines intra- and inter- predictions
with weighting. Adaptive weighting may be employed with a block-
level tool called bi-prediction with CU based weighting (BCW) which
provides more flexibility than in HEVC.
Intra prediction and intra-coding
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
To capture the diversified local image texture directions with finer
granularity, [VVC] supports 65 angular directions instead of 33
directions in HEVC. The intra mode coding is based on a 6-most -
probable-mode scheme, and the 6 most probable modes are derived using
the neighboring intra prediction directions. In addition, to deal
with the different distributions of intra prediction angles for
different block aspect ratios, a wide-angle intra prediction (WAIP)
scheme is applied in [VVC] by including intra prediction angles
beyond those present in HEVC. Unlike HEVC which only allows using
the most adjacent line of reference samples for intra prediction,
[VVC] also allows using two further reference lines, as known as
multi-reference-line (MRL) intra prediction. The additional
reference lines can be only used for the 6 most probable intra
prediction modes. To capture the strong correlation between
different colour components, in VVC, a cross-component linear mode
(CCLM) is utilized which assumes a linear relationship between the
luma sample values and their associated chroma samples. For intra
prediction, [VVC] also applies a position-dependent prediction
combination (PDPC) for refining the prediction samples closer to the
intra prediction block boundary. Matrix-based intra prediction (MIP)
modes are also used in [VVC] which generates an up to 8x8 intra
prediction block using a weighted sum of downsampled neighboring
reference samples, and the weights are hardcoded constants.
Other coding-tool feature
[VVC] introduces dependent quantization (DQ) to reduce quantization
error by state-based switching between two quantizers.
1.1.2. Systems and Transport Interfaces
[VVC] inherits the basic systems and transport interfaces designs
from HEVC and H.264. These include the NAL-unit-based syntax
structure, the hierarchical syntax and data unit structure, the
supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message mechanism, and the
video buffering model based on the hypothetical reference decoder
(HRD). The scalability features of [VVC] are conceptually similar to
the scalable variant of HEVC known as SHVC. The hierarchical syntax
and data unit structure consists of parameter sets at various levels
(decoder, sequence (pertaining to all), sequence (pertaining to a
single), picture), picture-level header parameters, slice-level
header parameters, and lower-level parameters.
A number of key components that influenced the network abstraction
layer design of [VVC] as well as this memo are described below
Decoding Capability Information
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
The decoding capability information includes parameters that stay
constant for the lifetime of a Video Bitstream, which in IETF terms
can translate to the lifetime of a session. Such information
includes profile, level, and sub-profile information to determine a
maximum capability interop point that is guaranteed to be never
exceeded, even if splicing of video sequences occurs within a
session. It further includes constraint fields (most of which are
flags), which can optionally be set to indicate that the video
bitstream will be constraint in the use of certain features as
indicated by the values of those fields. With this, a bitstream can
be labelled as not using certain tools, which allows among other
things for resource allocation in a decoder implementation.
Video parameter set
TThe ideo parameter set (VPS) pertains to a coded video sequences
(CVS) of multiple layers covering the same range of access units, and
includes, among other information decoding dependency expressed as
information for reference picture list construction of enhancement
layers. The VPS provides a "big picture" of a scalable sequence,
including what types of operation points are provided, the profile,
tier, and level of the operation points, and some other high-level
properties of the bitstream that can be used as the basis for session
negotiation and content selection, etc. One VPS may be referenced by
one or more sequence parameter sets.
Sequence parameter set
The sequence parameter set (SPS) contains syntax elements pertaining
to a coded layer video sequence (CLVS), which is a group of pictures
belonging to the same layer, starting with a random access point, and
followed by pictures that may depend on each other, until the next
random access point picture. In MPGEG-2, the equivalent of a CVS was
a group of pictures (GOP), which normally started with an I frame and
was followed by P and B frames. While more complex in its options of
random access points, VVC retains this basic concept. One remarkable
difference of VVC is that a CLVS may start with a Gradual Decoding
Refresh (GDR) picture, without requiring presence of traditional
random access points in the bitstream, such as instantaneous decoding
refresh (IDR) or clean random access (CRA) pictures. In many TV-like
applications, a CVS contains a few hundred milliseconds to a few
seconds of video. In video conferencing (without switching MCUs
involved), a CVS can be as long in duration as the whole session.
Picture and adaptation parameter set
The picture parameter set and the adaptation parameter set (PPS and
APS, respectively) carry information pertaining to zero or more
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
pictures and zero or more slices, respectively. The PPS contains
information that is likely to stay constant from picture to picture-
at least for pictures for a certain type-whereas the APS contains
information, such as adaptive loop filter coefficients, that are
likely to change from picture to picture or even within a picture. A
single APS is referenced by all slices of the same picture if that
APS contains information about luma mapping with chroma scaling
(LMCS) or scaling list. Different APSs containing ALF parameters can
be referenced by slices of the same picture.
Picture Header
A Picture Header contains information that is common to all slices
that belong to the same picture. Being able to send that information
as a separate NAL unit when pictures are split into several slices
allows for saving bitrate, compared to repeating the same information
in all slices. However, there might be scenarios where low-bitrate
video is transmitted using a single slice per picture. Having a
separate NAL unit to convey that information incurs in an overhead
for such scenarios. For such scenarios, the picture header syntax
structure is directly included in the slice header, instead of in its
own NAL unit. The mode of the picture header syntax structure being
included in its own NAL unit or not can only be switched on/off for
an entire CLVS, and can only be switched off when in the entire CLVS
each picture contains only one slice.
Profile, tier, and level
The profile, tier and level syntax structures in DCI, VPS and SPS
contain profile, tier, level information for all layers that refer to
the DCI, for layers associated with one or more output layer sets
specified by the VPS, and for any layer that refers to the SPS,
respectively.
Sub-Profiles
Within the VVC specification, a sub-profile is a 32-bit number, coded
according to ITU-T Rec. T.35, that does not carry a semantics. It is
carried in the profile_tier_level structure and hence (potentially)
present in the DCI, VPS, and SPS. External registration bodies can
register a T.35 codepoint with ITU-T registration authorities and
associate with their registration a description of bitstream
restrictions beyond the profiles defined by ITU-T and ISO/IEC. This
would allow encoder manufacturers to label the bitstreams generated
by their encoder as complying with such sub-profile. It is expected
that upstream standardization organizations (such as: DVB and ATSC),
as well as walled-garden video services will take advantage of this
labelling system. In contrast to "normal" profiles, it is expected
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
that sub-profiles may indicate encoder choices traditionally left
open in the (decoder- centric) video coding specs, such as GOP
structures, minimum/maximum QP values, and the mandatory use of
certain tools or SEI messages.
Constraint Fields
The profile_tier_level structure carries a considerable number of
constraint fields (more of which are flags), which an encoder can use
to indicate to a decoder that it will not use a certain tool or
technology. They were included in reaction to a perceived market
need for labelling a bitstream as not exercising a certain tool that
has become commercially unviable.
Temporal scalability support
Editor notes: need will update along with VVC new draft in the
future
[VVC] includes support of temporal scalability, by inclusion of the
signaling of TemporalId in the NAL unit header, the restriction that
pictures of a particular temporal sublayer cannot be used for inter
prediction reference by pictures of a lower temporal sublayer, the
sub-bitstream extraction process, and the requirement that each sub-
bitstream extraction output be a conforming bitstream. Media-Aware
Network Elements (MANEs) can utilize the TemporalId in the NAL unit
header for stream adaptation purposes based on temporal scalability.
Picture reference resampling (RPR)
Editor's notes: to do updated
Spatial, SNR, and multiview scalability
[VVC] includes support for spatial, SNR, and multiview scalability.
Scalable video coding is widely considered to have technical benefits
and enrich services for various video applications. Until recently,
however, the functionality has not been included in the first version
of specifications of the video codecs. In VVC, however, all those
forms of scalability are supported natively through the signaling of
the layer_id in the NAL unit header, the VPS which associates layers
with given layer_ids to each other, reference picture selection,
reference picture resampling for spatial scalability, and a number of
other mechanisms not relevant for this memo. Scalability support can
be implemented in a single decoding "loop" and is widely considered a
comparatively lightweight operation.
Spatial Scalability
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
With the existence of Reference Picture Resampling (RPR), in
the "main" profile of VVC, the additional burden for
scalability support is just a modification of the high-level
syntax (HLS). The inter-layer prediction is employed in a
scalable system to improve the coding efficiency of the
enhancement layers. In addition to the spatial and temporal
motion-compensated predictions that are available in a single-
layer codec, the inter-layer prediction in VVC uses the
possibly resampled video data of the reconstructed reference
picture from a reference layer to predict the current
enhancement layer. The resampling process for inter-layer
prediction, when used, is performed at the block-level, reusing
the existing interpolation process for motion compensation in
single-layer coding. It means that no additional resampling
process is needed to support spatial scalability.
SNR Scalability
SNR scalability is similar to spatial scalability except that
the resampling factors are 1:1. In other words, there is no
change in resolution, but there is inter-layer prediction.
SEI Messages
Supplementary enhancement information (SEI) messages are information
in the bitstream that do not influence the decoding process as
specified in the VVC spec, but address issues of representation/
rendering of the decoded bitstream, label the bitstream for certain
applications, among other, similar tasks. The overall concept of SEI
messages and many of the messages themselves has been inherited from
the H.264 and HEVC specs. Except for the SEI messages that affect
the specification of the hypothetical reference decoder (HRD), other
SEI messages for use in the VVC environment, which are generally
useful also in other video coding technologies, are not included in
the main VVC specification.
1.1.3. Parallel Processing Support (informative)
Compared to HEVC, the [VVC] design to support parallelization offers
numerous improvements.
Editor notes: udpate on sub-picture/slice/tile is needed following
new VVC draft
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
1.1.4. NAL Unit Header
[VVC] maintains the NAL unit concept of HEVC with modifications. VVC
uses a two-byte NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 1. The payload
of a NAL unit refers to the NAL unit excluding the NAL unit header.
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|Z| LayerID | Type | TID |
+---------------+---------------+
The Structure of the VVC NAL Unit Header.
Figure 1
The semantics of the fields in the NAL unit header are as specified
in [VVC] and described briefly below for convenience. In addition to
the name and size of each field, the corresponding syntax element
name in [VVC] is also provided.
F: 1 bit
forbidden_zero_bit. Required to be zero in VVC. Note that the
inclusion of this bit in the NAL unit header was to enable
transport of [VVC] video over MPEG-2 transport systems (avoidance
of start code emulations) [MPEG2S]. In the context of this memo
the value 1 may be used to indicate a syntax violation, e.g., for
a NAL unit resulted from aggregating a number of fragmented units
of a NAL unit but missing the last fragment, as described in
Section TBD.
Z: 1 bit
nuh_reserved_zero_bit. Required to be zero in VVC, and reserved
for future extensions by ITU-T and ISO/IEC.
This memo does not overload the "Z" bit for local extensions, as
a) overloading the "F" bit is sufficient and b) to preserve the
usefulness of this memo to possible future versions of [VVC].
LayerId: 6 bits
nuh_layer_id. Identifies the layer a NAL unit belongs to, wherein
a layer may be, e.g., a spatial scalable layer, a quality scalable
layer .
Type: 5 bits
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
nal_unit_type. This field specifies the NAL unit type as defined
in Table 7-1 of VVC. For a reference of all currently defined NAL
unit types and their semantics, please refer to Section 7.4.2.2 in
[VVC].
TID: 3 bits
nuh_temporal_id_plus1. This field specifies the temporal
identifier of the NAL unit plus 1. The value of TemporalId is
equal to TID minus 1. A TID value of 0 is illegal to ensure that
there is at least one bit in the NAL unit header equal to 1, so to
enable independent considerations of start code emulations in the
NAL unit header and in the NAL unit payload data.
1.2. Overview of the Payload Format
This payload format defines the following processes required for
transport of [VVC] coded data over RTP [RFC3550]:
o Usage of RTP header with this payload format
o Packetization of [VVC] coded NAL units into RTP packets using
three types of payload structures: a single NAL unit packet,
aggregation packet, and fragment unit
o Transmission of [VVC] NAL units of the same bitstream within a
single RTP stream.
o Media type parameters to be used with the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]
o Frame-marking mapping [FrameMarking]
2. 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 above.
3. Definitions and Abbreviations
3.1. Definitions
This document uses the terms and definitions of VVC. Section 3.1.1
lists relevant definitions from [VVC] for convenience. Section 3.1.2
provides definitions specific to this memo.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
3.1.1. Definitions from the VVC Specification
Editor notes:
Access unit (AU): A set of PUs that belong to different layers and
contain coded pictures associated with the same time for output from
the DPB.
Adaptation parameter set (APS): A syntax structure containing syntax
elements that apply to zero or more slices as determined by zero or
more syntax elements found in slice headers.
Bitstream: A sequence of bits, in the form of a NAL unit stream or a
byte stream, that forms the representation of a sequence of AUs
forming one or more coded video sequences (CVSs).
Coded picture: A coded representation of a picture comprising VCL NAL
units with a particular value of nuh_layer_id within an AU and
containing all CTUs of the picture.
Clean random access (CRA) PU: A PU in which the coded picture is a
CRA picture.
Clean random access (CRA) picture: An IRAP picture for which each VCL
NAL unit has nal_unit_type equal to CRA_NUT.
Coded video sequence (CVS): A sequence of AUs that consists, in
decoding order, of a CVSS AU, followed by zero or more AUs that are
not CVSS AUs, including all subsequent AUs up to but not including
any subsequent AU that is a CVSS AU.
Coded video sequence start (CVSS) AU: An AU in which there is a PU
for each layer in the CVS and the coded picture in each PU is a CLVSS
picture.
Coded layer video sequence (CLVS): A sequence of PUs with the same
value of nuh_layer_id that consists, in decoding order, of a CLVSS
PU, followed by zero or more PUs that are not CLVSS PUs, including
all subsequent PUs up to but not including any subsequent PU that is
a CLVSS PU.
Coded layer video sequence start (CLVSS) PU: A PU in which the coded
picture is a CLVSS picture.
Coded layer video sequence start (CLVSS) picture: A coded picture
that is an IRAP picture with NoOutputBeforeRecoveryFlag equal to 1 or
a GDR picture with NoOutputBeforeRecoveryFlag equal to 1.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
Coding tree unit (CTU): A CTB of luma samples, two corresponding CTBs
of chroma samples of a picture that has three sample arrays, or a CTB
of samples of a monochrome picture or a picture that is coded using
three separate colour planes and syntax structures used to code the
samples.
Decoding Capability Information (DCI): A syntax structure containing
syntax elements that apply to the entire bitstream.
Decoded picture buffer (DPB): A buffer holding decoded pictures for
reference, output reordering, or output delay specified for the
hypothetical reference decoder.
Gradual decoding refresh (GDR) picture: A picture for which each VCL
NAL unit has nal_unit_type equal to GDR_NUT.
Instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) PU: A PU in which the coded
picture is an IDR picture.
Instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) picture: An IRAP picture for
which each VCL NAL unit has nal_unit_type equal to IDR_W_RADL or
IDR_N_LP.
Intra random access point (IRAP) AU: An AU in which there is a PU for
each layer in the CVS and the coded picture in each PU is an IRAP
picture.
Intra random access point (IRAP) PU: A PU in which the coded picture
is an IRAP picture.
Intra random access point (IRAP) picture: A coded picture for which
all VCL NAL units have the same value of nal_unit_type in the range
of IDR_W_RADL to CRA_NUT, inclusive.
Layer: A set of VCL NAL units that all have a particular value of
nuh_layer_id and the associated non-VCL NAL units.
Network abstraction layer (NAL) unit: A syntax structure containing
an indication of the type of data to follow and bytes containing that
data in the form of an RBSP interspersed as necessary with emulation
prevention bytes.
Network abstraction layer (NAL) unit stream: A sequence of NAL units.
Operation point (OP): A temporal subset of an OLS, identified by an
OLS index and a highest value of TemporalId.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
Picture parameter set (PPS): A syntax structure containing syntax
elements that apply to zero or more entire coded pictures as
determined by a syntax element found in each slice header.
Picture unit (PU): A set of NAL units that are associated with each
other according to a specified classification rule, are consecutive
in decoding order, and contain exactly one coded picture.
Random access: The act of starting the decoding process for a
bitstream at a point other than the beginning of the stream.
Sequence parameter set (SPS): A syntax structure containing syntax
elements that apply to zero or more entire CLVSs as determined by the
content of a syntax element found in the PPS referred to by a syntax
element found in each picture header.
Slice: An integer number of complete tiles or an integer number of
consecutive complete CTU rows within a tile of a picture that are
exclusively contained in a single NAL unit.
sublayer: A temporal scalable layer of a temporal scalable bitstream
consisting of VCL NAL units with a particular value of the TemporalId
variable, and the associated non-VCL NAL units.
Subpicture: An rectangular region of one or more slices within a
picture.
sublayer representation: A subset of the bitstream consisting of NAL
units of a particular sublayer and the lower sublayers.
Tile: A rectangular region of CTUs within a particular tile column
and a particular tile row in a picture.
Tile column: A rectangular region of CTUs having a height equal to
the height of the picture and a width specified by syntax elements in
the picture parameter set.
Tile row: A rectangular region of CTUs having a height specified by
syntax elements in the picture parameter set and a width equal to the
width of the picture.
Video coding layer (VCL) NAL unit: A collective term for coded slice
NAL units and the subset of NAL units that have reserved values of
nal_unit_type that are classified as VCL NAL units in this
Specification.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
3.1.2. Definitions Specific to This Memo
Media-Aware Network Element (MANE): A network element, such as a
middlebox, selective forwarding unit, or application-layer gateway
that is capable of parsing certain aspects of the RTP payload headers
or the RTP payload and reacting to their contents.
Editor Notes: the following informative needs to be updated along
with frame marking update
Informative note: The concept of a MANE goes beyond normal routers
or gateways in that a MANE has to be aware of the signaling (e.g.,
to learn about the payload type mappings of the media streams),
and in that it has to be trusted when working with Secure RTP
(SRTP). The advantage of using MANEs is that they allow packets
to be dropped according to the needs of the media coding. For
example, if a MANE has to drop packets due to congestion on a
certain link, it can identify and remove those packets whose
elimination produces the least adverse effect on the user
experience. After dropping packets, MANEs must rewrite RTCP
packets to match the changes to the RTP stream, as specified in
Section 7 of [RFC3550].
NAL unit decoding order: A NAL unit order that conforms to the
constraints on NAL unit order given in Section 7.4.2.4 in [VVC],
follow the Order of NAL units in the bitstream.
NAL unit output order: A NAL unit order in which NAL units of
different access units are in the output order of the decoded
pictures corresponding to the access units, as specified in [VVC],
and in which NAL units within an access unit are in their decoding
order.
RTP stream: See [RFC7656]. Within the scope of this memo, one RTP
stream is utilized to transport one or more temporal sublayers.
Transmission order: The order of packets in ascending RTP sequence
number order (in modulo arithmetic). Within an aggregation packet,
the NAL unit transmission order is the same as the order of
appearance of NAL units in the packet.
3.2. Abbreviations
AU Access Unit
AP Aggregation Packet
CTU Coding Tree Unit
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
CVS Coded Video Sequence
DPB Decoded Picture Buffer
DCI Decoding capability information
DON Decoding Order Number
FIR Full Intra Request
FU Fragmentation Unit
HRD Hypothetical Reference Decoder
IDR Instantaneous Decoding Refresh
MANE Media-Aware Network Element
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NAL Network Abstraction Layer
NALU Network Abstraction Layer Unit
PLI Picture Loss Indication
PPS Picture Parameter Set
RPS Reference Picture Set
RPSI Reference Picture Selection Indication
SEI Supplemental Enhancement Information
SLI Slice Loss Indication
SPS Sequence Parameter Set
VCL Video Coding Layer
VPS Video Parameter Set
4. RTP Payload Format
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
4.1. RTP Header Usage
The format of the RTP header is specified in [RFC3550] (reprinted as
Figure 2 for convenience). This payload format uses the fields of
the header in a manner consistent with that specification.
The RTP payload (and the settings for some RTP header bits) for
aggregation packets and fragmentation units are specified in
Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3, respectively.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| contributing source (CSRC) identifiers |
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RTP Header According to {{RFC3550}}
Figure 2
The RTP header information to be set according to this RTP payload
format is set as follows:
Marker bit (M): 1 bit
Set for the last packet of the access unit, carried in the current
RTP stream. This is in line with the normal use of the M bit in
video formats to allow an efficient playout buffer handling.
Editor notes: The informative note below needs updating once
the NAL unit type table is stable in the [VVC] spec.
Informative note: The content of a NAL unit does not tell
whether or not the NAL unit is the last NAL unit, in decoding
order, of an access unit. An RTP sender implementation may
obtain this information from the video encoder. If, however,
the implementation cannot obtain this information directly from
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
the encoder, e.g., when the bitstream was pre-encoded, and also
there is no timestamp allocated for each NAL unit, then the
sender implementation can inspect subsequent NAL units in
decoding order to determine whether or not the NAL unit is the
last NAL unit of an access unit as follows. A NAL unit is
determined to be the last NAL unit of an access unit if it is
the last NAL unit of the bitstream. A NAL unit naluX is also
determined to be the last NAL unit of an access unit if both
the following conditions are true: 1) the next VCL NAL unit
naluY in decoding order has the high-order bit of the first
byte after its NAL unit header equal to 1 or nal_unit_type
equal to 19, and 2) all NAL units between naluX and naluY, when
present, have nal_unit_type in the range of 13 to17, inclusive,
equal to 20, equal to 23 or equal to 26.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits
The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format
is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified
here. The assignment of a payload type has to be performed either
through the profile used or in a dynamic way.
Sequence Number (SN): 16 bits
Set and used in accordance with [RFC3550].
Timestamp: 32 bits
The RTP timestamp is set to the sampling timestamp of the content.
A 90 kHz clock rate MUST be used. If the NAL unit has no timing
properties of its own (e.g., parameter set and SEI NAL units), the
RTP timestamp MUST be set to the RTP timestamp of the coded
picture of the access unit in which the NAL unit (according to
Annex D of VVC) is included. Receivers MUST use the RTP timestamp
for the display process, even when the bitstream contains picture
timing SEI messages or decoding unit information SEI messages as
specified in VVC.
Synchronization source (SSRC): 32 bits
Used to identify the source of the RTP packets. A single SSRC is
used for all parts of a single bitstream.
4.2. Payload Header Usage
The first two bytes of the payload of an RTP packet are referred to
as the payload header. The payload header consists of the same
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
fields (F, Z, LayerId, Type, and TID) as the NAL unit header as shown
in Section 1.1.4, irrespective of the type of the payload structure.
The TID value indicates (among other things) the relative importance
of an RTP packet, for example, because NAL units belonging to higher
temporal sublayers are not used for the decoding of lower temporal
sublayers. A lower value of TID indicates a higher importance.
More-important NAL units MAY be better protected against transmission
losses than less-important NAL units.
For Discussion: quite possibly something similar can be said for
the Layer_id in layered coding, but perhaps not in multiview
coding. (The relevant part of the spec is relatively new,
therefore the soft language). However, for serious layer pruning,
interpretation of the VPS is required. We can add language about
the need for stateful interpretation of LayerID vis-a-vis
stateless interpretation of TID later.
4.3. Payload Structures
Three different types of RTP packet payload structures are specified.
A receiver can identify the type of an RTP packet payload through the
Type field in the payload header.
The three different payload structures are as follows:
o Single NAL unit packet: Contains a single NAL unit in the payload,
and the NAL unit header of the NAL unit also serves as the payload
header. This payload structure is specified in Section 4.4.1.
o Aggregation Packet (AP): Contains more than one NAL unit within
one access unit. This payload structure is specified in
Section 4.3.2.
o Fragmentation Unit (FU): Contains a subset of a single NAL unit.
This payload structure is specified in Section 4.3.3.
4.3.1. Single NAL Unit Packets
Editor notes: its better to add a section to describe DONL and
sprop-max_don_diff. sprop-max_don_diff is used but not specified
as parameters in section 7 are not yet specified. A value of
sprop-max_don_diff greater than 0 indicates that the transmission
order may not correspond to the decoding order and that the DON is
is included in the payload header.
A single NAL unit packet contains exactly one NAL unit, and consists
of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), a conditional 16-bit
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
DONL field (in network byte order), and the NAL unit payload data
(the NAL unit excluding its NAL unit header) of the contained NAL
unit, as shown in Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr | DONL (conditional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| NAL unit payload data |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Structure of a Single NAL Unit Packet
Figure 3
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the contained NAL
unit. If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0, the DONL field MUST
be present, and the variable DON for the contained NAL unit is
derived as equal to the value of the DONL field. Otherwise (sprop-
max-don-diff is equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present.
4.3.2. Aggregation Packets (APs)
Aggregation Packets (APs) can reduce of packetization overhead for
small NAL units, such as most of the non- VCL NAL units, which are
often only a few octets in size.
An AP aggregates NAL units of one access unit. Each NAL unit to be
carried in an AP is encapsulated in an aggregation unit. NAL units
aggregated in one AP are included in NAL unit decoding order.
An AP consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr) followed
by two or more aggregation units, as shown in Figure 4.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=28) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| two or more aggregation units |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Structure of an Aggregation Packet
Figure 4
The fields in the payload header of an AP are set as follows. The F
bit MUST be equal to 0 if the F bit of each aggregated NAL unit is
equal to zero; otherwise, it MUST be equal to 1. The Type field MUST
be equal to 28.
The value of LayerId MUST be equal to the lowest value of LayerId of
all the aggregated NAL units. The value of TID MUST be the lowest
value of TID of all the aggregated NAL units.
Informative note: All VCL NAL units in an AP have the same TID
value since they belong to the same access unit. However, an AP
may contain non-VCL NAL units for which the TID value in the NAL
unit header may be different than the TID value of the VCL NAL
units in the same AP.
An AP MUST carry at least two aggregation units and can carry as many
aggregation units as necessary; however, the total amount of data in
an AP obviously MUST fit into an IP packet, and the size SHOULD be
chosen so that the resulting IP packet is smaller than the MTU size
so to avoid IP layer fragmentation. An AP MUST NOT contain FUs
specified in Section 4.3.3. APs MUST NOT be nested; i.e., an AP can
not contain another AP.
The first aggregation unit in an AP consists of a conditional 16-bit
DONL field (in network byte order) followed by a 16-bit unsigned size
information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the
NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but including the NAL
unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL unit
header, as shown in Figure 5.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : DONL (conditional) | NALU size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU size | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NAL unit |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Structure of the First Aggregation Unit in an AP
Figure 5
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the aggregated NAL
unit.
If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0, the DONL field MUST be
present in an aggregation unit that is the first aggregation unit in
an AP, and the variable DON for the aggregated NAL unit is derived as
equal to the value of the DONL field. Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff
is equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present in an aggregation
unit that is the first aggregation unit in an AP.
An aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP
will be followed immediately by a 16-bit unsigned size information
(in network byte order) that indicates the size of the NAL unit in
bytes (excluding these two octets, but including the NAL unit
header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL unit
header, as shown in Figure 6.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : NALU size | NAL unit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Structure of an Aggregation Unit That Is Not the First
Aggregation Unit in an AP
Figure 6
Figure 7 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure, without the DONL field being
present.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=28) | NALU 1 Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 1 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 1 Data |
| . . . |
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . | NALU 2 Size | NALU 2 HDR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 2 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 2 Data |
| . . . |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An Example of an AP Packet Containing
Two Aggregation Units without the DONL Field
Figure 7
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
Figure 8 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure, with the DONL field being
present.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=28) | NALU 1 DONL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 1 Size | NALU 1 HDR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| NALU 1 Data . . . |
| |
+ . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : NALU 2 Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 2 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 2 Data |
| |
| . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An Example of an AP Containing
Two Aggregation Units with the DONL Field
Figure 8
4.3.3. Fragmentation Units
Fragmentation Units (FUs) are introduced to enable fragmenting a
single NAL unit into multiple RTP packets, possibly without
cooperation or knowledge of the [VVC] encoder. A fragment of a NAL
unit consists of an integer number of consecutive octets of that NAL
unit. Fragments of the same NAL unit MUST be sent in consecutive
order with ascending RTP sequence numbers (with no other RTP packets
within the same RTP stream being sent between the first and last
fragment).
When a NAL unit is fragmented and conveyed within FUs, it is referred
to as a fragmented NAL unit. APs MUST NOT be fragmented. FUs MUST
NOT be nested; i.e., an FU can not contain a subset of another FU.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
The RTP timestamp of an RTP packet carrying an FU is set to the NALU-
time of the fragmented NAL unit.
An FU consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), an FU
header of one octet, a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte
order), and an FU payload, as shown in Figure 9.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=29) | FU header | DONL (cond) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
| DONL (cond) | |
|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| FU payload |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Structure of an FU
Figure 9
The fields in the payload header are set as follows. The Type field
MUST be equal to 29. The fields F, LayerId, and TID MUST be equal to
the fields F, LayerId, and TID, respectively, of the fragmented NAL
unit.
The FU header consists of an S bit, an E bit, an R bit and a 5-bit
FuType field, as shown in Figure 10.
+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|E|R| FuType |
+---------------+
The Structure of FU Header
Figure 10
The semantics of the FU header fields are as follows:
S: 1 bit
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
When set to 1, the S bit indicates the start of a fragmented NAL
unit, i.e., the first byte of the FU payload is also the first
byte of the payload of the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU
payload is not the start of the fragmented NAL unit payload, the S
bit MUST be set to 0.
E: 1 bit
When set to 1, the E bit indicates the end of a fragmented NAL
unit, i.e., the last byte of the payload is also the last byte of
the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU payload is not the last
fragment of a fragmented NAL unit, the E bit MUST be set to 0.
Reserved: 1 bit
Placeholder
FuType: 5 bits
The field FuType MUST be equal to the field Type of the fragmented
NAL unit.
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the fragmented NAL
unit.
If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0, and the S bit is equal to 1,
the DONL field MUST be present in the FU, and the variable DON for
the fragmented NAL unit is derived as equal to the value of the DONL
field. Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0, or the S bit is
equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present in the FU.
A non-fragmented NAL unit MUST NOT be transmitted in one FU; i.e.,
the Start bit and End bit must not both be set to 1 in the same FU
header.
The FU payload consists of fragments of the payload of the fragmented
NAL unit so that if the FU payloads of consecutive FUs, starting with
an FU with the S bit equal to 1 and ending with an FU with the E bit
equal to 1, are sequentially concatenated, the payload of the
fragmented NAL unit can be reconstructed. The NAL unit header of the
fragmented NAL unit is not included as such in the FU payload, but
rather the information of the NAL unit header of the fragmented NAL
unit is conveyed in F, LayerId, and TID fields of the FU payload
headers of the FUs and the FuType field of the FU header of the FUs.
An FU payload MUST NOT be empty.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
If an FU is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all following
fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to the same
fragmented NAL unit, unless the decoder in the receiver is known to
be prepared to gracefully handle incomplete NAL units.
A receiver in an endpoint or in a MANE MAY aggregate the first n-1
fragments of a NAL unit to an (incomplete) NAL unit, even if fragment
n of that NAL unit is not received. In this case, the
forbidden_zero_bit of the NAL unit MUST be set to 1 to indicate a
syntax violation.
4.4. Decoding Order Number
For each NAL unit, the variable AbsDon is derived, representing the
decoding order number that is indicative of the NAL unit decoding
order.
Let NAL unit n be the n-th NAL unit in transmission order within an
RTP stream.
If sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0, AbsDon[n], the value of AbsDon
for NAL unit n, is derived as equal to n.
Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0), AbsDon[n] is
derived as follows, where DON[n] is the value of the variable DON for
NAL unit n:
o If n is equal to 0 (i.e., NAL unit n is the very first NAL unit in
transmission order), AbsDon[0] is set equal to DON[0].
o Otherwise (n is greater than 0), the following applies for
derivation of AbsDon[n]:
If DON[n] == DON[n-1],
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1]
If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] < 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + DON[n] - DON[n-1]
If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] >= 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + 65536 - DON[n-1] + DON[n]
If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] >= 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] + 65536 -
DON[n])
If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] < 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] - DON[n])
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
For any two NAL units m and n, the following applies:
o AbsDon[n] greater than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n follows
NAL unit m in NAL unit decoding order.
o When AbsDon[n] is equal to AbsDon[m], the NAL unit decoding order
of the two NAL units can be in either order.
o AbsDon[n] less than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n precedes
NAL unit m in decoding order.
Informative note: When two consecutive NAL units in the NAL unit
decoding order have different values of AbsDon, the absolute
difference between the two AbsDon values may be greater than or
equal to 1.
Informative note: There are multiple reasons to allow for the
absolute difference of the values of AbsDon for two consecutive
NAL units in the NAL unit decoding order to be greater than one.
An increment by one is not required, as at the time of associating
values of AbsDon to NAL units, it may not be known whether all NAL
units are to be delivered to the receiver. For example, a gateway
might not forward VCL NAL units of higher sublayers or some SEI
NAL units when there is congestion in the network.
In another example, the first intra-coded picture of a pre-encoded
clip is transmitted in advance to ensure that it is readily
available in the receiver, and when transmitting the first intra-
coded picture, the originator does not exactly know how many NAL
units will be encoded before the first intra-coded picture of the
pre-encoded clip follows in decoding order. Thus, the values of
AbsDon for the NAL units of the first intra-coded picture of the
pre-encoded clip have to be estimated when they are transmitted,
and gaps in values of AbsDon may occur.
5. Packetization Rules
The following packetization rules apply:
o If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0, the transmission order of
NAL units carried in the RTP stream MAY be different than the NAL
unit decoding order and the NAL unit output order.
o A NAL unit of a small size SHOULD be encapsulated in an
aggregation packet together one or more other NAL units in order
to avoid the unnecessary packetization overhead for small NAL
units. For example, non-VCL NAL units such as access unit
delimiters, parameter sets, or SEI NAL units are typically small
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
and can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units without violating
MTU size constraints.
o Each non-VCL NAL unit SHOULD, when possible from an MTU size match
viewpoint, be encapsulated in an aggregation packet together with
its associated VCL NAL unit, as typically a non-VCL NAL unit would
be meaningless without the associated VCL NAL unit being
available.
o For carrying exactly one NAL unit in an RTP packet, a single NAL
unit packet MUST be used.
6. De-packetization Process
The general concept behind de-packetization is to get the NAL units
out of the RTP packets in an RTP stream and pass them to the decoder
in the NAL unit decoding order.
The de-packetization process is implementation dependent. Therefore,
the following description should be seen as an example of a suitable
implementation. Other schemes may be used as well, as long as the
output for the same input is the same as the process described below.
The output is the same when the set of output NAL units and their
order are both identical. Optimizations relative to the described
algorithms are possible.
All normal RTP mechanisms related to buffer management apply. In
particular, duplicated or outdated RTP packets (as indicated by the
RTP sequences number and the RTP timestamp) are removed. To
determine the exact time for decoding, factors such as a possible
intentional delay to allow for proper inter-stream synchronization
MUST be factored in.
NAL units with NAL unit type values in the range of 0 to 27,
inclusive, may be passed to the decoder. NAL-unit-like structures
with NAL unit type values in the range of 28 to 31, inclusive, MUST
NOT be passed to the decoder.
The receiver includes a receiver buffer, which is used to compensate
for transmission delay jitter within individual RTP streams and
across RTP streams, to reorder NAL units from transmission order to
the NAL unit decoding order. In this section, the receiver operation
is described under the assumption that there is no transmission delay
jitter within an RTP stream and across RTP streams. To make a
difference from a practical receiver buffer that is also used for
compensation of transmission delay jitter, the receiver buffer is
hereafter called the de-packetization buffer in this section.
Receivers should also prepare for transmission delay jitter; that is,
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
either reserve separate buffers for transmission delay jitter
buffering and de-packetization buffering or use a receiver buffer for
both transmission delay jitter and de- packetization. Moreover,
receivers should take transmission delay jitter into account in the
buffering operation, e.g., by additional initial buffering before
starting of decoding and playback.
When sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0, the de-packetization buffer
size is zero bytes, and the process described in the remainder of
this paragraph applies.
The NAL units carried in the single RTP stream are directly passed to
the decoder in their transmission order, which is identical to their
decoding order. When there are several NAL units of the same RTP
stream with the same NTP timestamp, the order to pass them to the
decoder is their transmission order.
Informative note: The mapping between RTP and NTP timestamps is
conveyed in RTCP SR packets. In addition, the mechanisms for
faster media timestamp synchronization discussed in [RFC6051] may
be used to speed up the acquisition of the RTP-to-wall-clock
mapping.
When sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0, the process described in
the remainder of this section applies.
There are two buffering states in the receiver: initial buffering and
buffering while playing. Initial buffering starts when the reception
is initialized. After initial buffering, decoding and playback are
started, and the buffering-while-playing mode is used.
Regardless of the buffering state, the receiver stores incoming NAL
units, in reception order, into the de-packetization buffer. NAL
units carried in RTP packets are stored in the de-packetization
buffer individually, and the value of AbsDon is calculated and stored
for each NAL unit.
Initial buffering lasts until condition A (the difference between the
greatest and smallest AbsDon values of the NAL units in the de-
packetization buffer is greater than or equal to the value of sprop-
max-don-diff) or condition B (the number of NAL units in the de-
packetization buffer is greater than the value of sprop-depack-buf-
nalus) is true.
After initial buffering, whenever condition A or condition B is true,
the following operation is repeatedly applied until both condition A
and condition B become false:
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
o The NAL unit in the de-packetization buffer with the smallest
value of AbsDon is removed from the de-packetization buffer and
passed to the decoder.
When no more NAL units are flowing into the de-packetization buffer,
all NAL units remaining in the de-packetization buffer are removed
from the buffer and passed to the decoder in the order of increasing
AbsDon values.
7. Payload Format Parameters
This section specifies the optional parameters. A mapping of the
parameters with Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4556] is also
provided for applications that use SDP.
7.1. Media Type Registration
The receiver MUST ignore any parameter unspecified in this memo.
Type name: Video
Subtype name: H266
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters:
Editor's notes: To be added
7.2. SDP Parameters
The receiver MUST ignore any parameter unspecified in this memo.
7.2.1. Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP
The media type video/H266 string is mapped to fields in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] as follows:
o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.
o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be H266 (the
media subtype).
o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.
o OPTIONAL PARAMETERS:
Editor's notes: To be dicussed here
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
7.2.1.1. SDP Example
An example of media representation in SDP is as follows:
m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 H266/90000
a=fmtp:98 profile-id=1; sprop-vps=<video parameter sets data>
7.2.2. Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model
When [VVC] is offered over RTP using SDP in an offer/answer model
[RFC3264] for negotiation for unicast usage, the following
limitations and rules apply:
Placeholder: To add limitations and considerations.
8. Use with Feedback Messages
The following subsections define the use of the Picture Loss
Indication (PLI), Slice Lost Indication (SLI), Reference Picture
Selection Indication (RPSI), and Full Intra Request (FIR) feedback
messages with HEVC. The PLI, SLI, and RPSI messages are defined in
[RFC4585], and the FIR message is defined in [RFC5104].
8.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
As specified in RFC 4585, Section 6.3.1, the reception of a PLI by a
media sender indicates "the loss of an undefined amount of coded
video data belonging to one or more pictures". Without having any
specific knowledge of the setup of the bitstream (such as use and
location of in-band parameter sets, non-IRAP decoder refresh points,
picture structures, and so forth), a reaction to the reception of an
PLI by a [VVC] sender SHOULD be to send an IRAP picture and relevant
parameter sets; potentially with sufficient redundancy so to ensure
correct reception. However, sometimes information about the
bitstream structure is known. For example, state could have been
established outside of the mechanisms defined in this document that
parameter sets are conveyed out of band only, and stay static for the
duration of the session. In that case, it is obviously unnecessary
to send them in-band as a result of the reception of a PLI. Other
examples could be devised based on a priori knowledge of different
aspects of the bitstream structure. In all cases, the timing and
congestion control mechanisms of RFC 4585 MUST be observed.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
8.2. Slice Loss Indication (SLI)
For further study. Maybe remove as there are no known
implementations of SDLI in [HEVC] based systems
8.3. Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI)
Feedback-based reference picture selection has been shown as a
powerful tool to stop temporal error propagation for improved error
resilience [Girod99] [Wang05]. In one approach, the decoder side
tracks errors in the decoded pictures and informs the encoder side
that a particular picture that has been decoded relatively earlier is
correct and still present in the decoded picture buffer; it requests
the encoder to use that correct picture-availability information when
encoding the next picture, so to stop further temporal error
propagation. For this approach, the decoder side should use the RPSI
feedback message.
Encoders can encode some long-term reference pictures as specified in
[VVC] for purposes described in the previous paragraph without the
need of a huge decoded picture buffer. As shown in [Wang05], with a
flexible reference picture management scheme, as in VVC, even a
decoded picture buffer size of two picture storage buffers would work
for the approach described in the previous paragraph.
The text above is copy-paste from RFC 7798. If we keep the RPSI
message, it needs adaptation to the [VVC] syntax. Doing so shouldn't
be too hard as the [VVC] reference picture mechanism is not too
different from the [HEVC] one.
8.4. Full Intra Request (FIR)
The purpose of the FIR message is to force an encoder to send an
independent decoder refresh point as soon as possible, while
observing applicable congestion-control-related constraints, such as
those set out in [RFC8082]).
Upon reception of a FIR, a sender MUST send an IDR picture.
Parameter sets MUST also be sent, except when there is a priori
knowledge that the parameter sets have been correctly established. A
typical example for that is an understanding between sender and
receiver, established by means outside this document, that parameter
sets are exclusively sent out-of-band.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
9. Frame Marking
[FrameMarking] provides an extension mechanism for RTP. The codec-
agnostic meta-data in the [FrameMarking] header provides valuable
video frame information. Its usage with [VVC] is defined in this
section. Refer [FrameMarking] for any unspecified fields. Two
header extensions are RECOMMENDED:
o The short extension for non-scalable streams.
o The long extension for scalable streams.
9.1. Frame Marking Short Extension
The fields for the short extension, as shown in Figure 11, are used
as described in the following.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | L=0 |S|E|I|D|0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Short Frame Marking RTP Extension for [VVC]
Figure 11
The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-9 (inclusive),
otherwise it MUST be 0.
The D bit MUST be 1 when the syntax element ph_non_ref_pic_flag for a
picture is equal to 1, otherwise it MUST be 0.
The S bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is true
and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
o The RTP packet is a single NAL unit packet and it is the first VCL
NAL unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
o The RTP packet is an AP, and the NAL unit in the first contained
aggregation unit is the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding order, of
a picture.
o The RTP packet is a FU with its S bit equal to 1 and the FU
payload contains a fragment of the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding
order, of a picture.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
The E bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is true
and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
o The RTP packet is a single NAL unit packet and it is the last VCL
NAL unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
o The RTP packet is an AP and the NAL unit in the last contained
aggregation unit is the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding order, of a
picture.
o The RTP packet is a FU with its E bit equal to 1 and the FU
payload contains a fragment of the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding
order, of a picture.
9.2. Frame Marking Long Extension
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | L=2 |S|E|I|D|B| TID |0|0| LayerID | TL0PICIDX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Long Frame Marking RTP Extension for [VVC]
Figure 12
The fields for the long extension for scalable streams, as shown in
Figure 12, are used as described in the following.
The LayerID (6 bits) and TID (3 bits) from the NAL unit header
Section 1.1.4 are mapped to the generic LID and TID fields in
[FrameMarking] as shown in Figure 12.
The I bit MUST be 1 when the NAL unit type is 7-9 (inclusive),
otherwise it MUST be 0.
The D bit MUST be 1 when the syntax element ph_non_ref_pic_flag for a
picture is equal to 1, otherwise it MUST be 0.
The S bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is true
and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
o The RTP packet is a single NAL unit packet and it is the first VCL
NAL unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
o The RTP packet is an AP, and the NAL unit in the first contained
aggregation unit is the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding order, of
a picture.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
o The RTP packet is a FU with its S bit equal to 1 and the FU
payload contains a fragment of the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding
order, of a picture.
The E bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is true
and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
o The RTP packet is a single NAL unit packet and it is the last VCL
NAL unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
o The RTP packet is an AP and the NAL unit in the last contained
aggregation unit is the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding order, of a
picture.
o The RTP packet is a FU with its E bit equal to 1 and the FU
payload contains a fragment of the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding
order, of a picture.
10. Security Considerations
The scope of this Security Considerations section is limited to the
payload format itself and to one feature of [VVC] that may pose a
particularly serious security risk if implemented naively. The
payload format, in isolation, does not form a complete system.
Implementers are advised to read and understand relevant security-
related documents, especially those pertaining to RTP (see the
Security Considerations section in [RFC3550] ), and the security of
the call-control stack chosen (that may make use of the media type
registration of this memo). Implementers should also consider known
security vulnerabilities of video coding and decoding implementations
in general and avoid those.
Within this RTP payload format, and with the exception of the user
data SEI message as described below, no security threats other than
those common to RTP payload formats are known. In other words,
neither the various media-plane-based mechanisms, nor the signaling
part of this memo, seems to pose a security risk beyond those common
to all RTP-based systems.
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 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
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
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] . The rest of this section discusses the security impacting
properties of the payload format itself.
Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied
end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression.
A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encodings using
compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
into the bitstream that are complex to decode and that cause the
receiver to be overloaded. [VVC] is particularly vulnerable to such
attacks, as it is extremely simple to generate datagrams containing
NAL units that affect the decoding process of many future NAL units.
Therefore, the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity
protection of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example,
with SRTP [RFC3711] .
Like HEVC [RFC7798], [VVC] includes a user data Supplemental
Enhancement Information (SEI) message. This SEI message allows
inclusion of an arbitrary bitstring into the video bitstream. Such a
bitstring could include JavaScript, machine code, and other active
content. [VVC] leaves the handling of this SEI message to the
receiving system. In order to avoid harmful side effects the user
data SEI message, decoder implementations cannot naively trust its
content. For example, it would be a bad and insecure implementation
practice to forward any JavaScript a decoder implementation detects
to a web browser. The safest way to deal with user data SEI messages
is to simply discard them, but that can have negative side effects on
the quality of experience by the user.
End-to-end security with authentication, integrity, or
confidentiality protection will prevent a MANE from performing media-
aware operations other than discarding complete packets. In the case
of confidentiality protection, it will even be prevented from
discarding packets in a media-aware way. To be allowed to perform
such operations, a MANE is required to be a trusted entity that is
included in the security context establishment.
11. Congestion Control
Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RTP
[RFC3550] and with any applicable RTP profile, e.g., AVP [RFC3551].
If best-effort service is being used, an additional requirement is
that users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure
that the packet loss rate is within an acceptable range. Packet loss
is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path,
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
and experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an
average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not
less than all RTP streams combined are achieving. This condition can
be satisfied by implementing congestion-control mechanisms to adapt
the transmission rate, the number of layers subscribed for a layered
multicast session, or by arranging for a receiver to leave the
session if the loss rate is unacceptably high.
The bitrate adaptation necessary for obeying the congestion control
principle is easily achievable when real-time encoding is used, for
example, by adequately tuning the quantization parameter. However,
when pre-encoded content is being transmitted, bandwidth adaptation
requires the pre-coded bitstream to be tailored for such adaptivity.
The key mechanisms available in [VVC] are temporal scalability, and
spatial/SNR scalability. A media sender can remove NAL units
belonging to higher temporal sublayers (i.e., those NAL units with a
high value of TID) or higher spatio-SNR layers (as indicated by
interpreting the VPS) until the sending bitrate drops to an
acceptable range.
The mechanisms mentioned above generally work within a defined
profile and level and, therefore, no renegotiation of the channel is
required. Only when non-downgradable parameters (such as profile)
are required to be changed does it become necessary to terminate and
restart the RTP stream(s). This may be accomplished by using
different RTP payload types.
MANEs MAY remove certain unusable packets from the RTP stream when
that RTP stream was damaged due to previous packet losses. This can
help reduce the network load in certain special cases. For example,
MANES can remove those FUs where the leading FUs belonging to the
same NAL unit have been lost or those dependent slice segments when
the leading slice segments belonging to the same slice have been
lost, because the trailing FUs or dependent slice segments are
meaningless to most decoders. MANES can also remove higher temporal
scalable layers if the outbound transmission (from the MANE's
viewpoint) experiences congestion.
12. IANA Considerations
Placeholder
13. Acknowledgements
Dr. Byeongdoo Choi is thanked for the video codec related technical
discussion and other aspects in this memo. Xin Zhao and Dr. Xiang Li
are thanked for their contributions on [VVC] specification
descriptive content. Spencer Dawkins is thanked for his valuable
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
review comments that led to great improvements of this memo. Some
parts of this specification share text with the RTP payload format
for HEVC [RFC7798]. We thank the authors of that specification for
their excellent work.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[H.266] "ISO/IEC FDIS 23090-3 Information technology --- Coded
representation of immersive media --- Part 3 - Versatile
video coding", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/73022.html>.
[ISO23090-3]
"ISO/IEC DIS Information technology --- Coded
representation of immersive media --- Part 3 Versatile
video codings", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/73022.html>.
[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>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
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", STD 65, RFC 3551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
[RFC4556] Zhu, L. and B. Tung, "Public Key Cryptography for Initial
Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT)", RFC 4556,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4556, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4556>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[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>.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10.17487/RFC5104,
February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5104>.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms
for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.
[RFC8082] Wenger, S., Lennox, J., Burman, B., and M. Westerlund,
"Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual
Profile with Feedback with Layered Codecs", RFC 8082,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8082, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8082>.
[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>.
[VVC] "ISO/IEC FDIS 23090-3 Information technology --- Coded
representation of immersive media --- Part 3 - Versatile
video coding", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/73022.html>.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
14.2. Informative References
[CABAC] Sole, J, . and . et al, "Transform coefficient coding in
HEVC, IEEE Transactions on Circuts and Systems for Video
Technology", DOI 10.1109/TCSVT.2012.2223055, December
2012.
[FrameMarking]
Berger, E, ., Nandakumar, S, ., and . Zanaty M, "Frame
Marking RTP Header Extension", Work in Progress draft-
berger-avtext-framemarking , 2015.
[Girod99] Girod, B, . and . et al, "Feedback-based error control for
mobile video transmission, Proceedings of the IEEE",
DOI 110.1109/5.790632, October 1999.
[HEVC] "High efficiency video coding, ITU-T Recommendation
H.265", April 2013.
[MPEG2S] IS0/IEC, ., "Information technology - Generic coding
ofmoving pictures and associated audio information - Part
1:Systems, ISO International Standard 13818-1", 2013.
[RFC6051] Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
Flows", RFC 6051, DOI 10.17487/RFC6051, November 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6051>.
[RFC6184] Wang, Y., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6184, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6184>.
[RFC6190] Wenger, S., Wang, Y., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis,
"RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6190, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6190>.
[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, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>.
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
[RFC7798] Wang, Y., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M.
Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video
Coding (HEVC)", RFC 7798, DOI 10.17487/RFC7798, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7798>.
[Wang05] Wang, YK, ., Zhu, C, ., and . Li, H, "Error resilient
video coding using flexible reference fames", Visual
Communications and Image Processing 2005 (VCIP 2005) ,
July 2005.
Appendix A. Change History
draft-zhao-payload-rtp-vvc-00 ........ initial version
draft-zhao-payload-rtp-vvc-01 ........ editorial clarifications and
corrections
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vvc-00 ........ initial WG draft
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vvc-01 ........ VVC specification update
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vvc-02 ........ VVC specification update
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-vvc-03 ........ VVC coding tool introduction
update
Authors' Addresses
Shuai Zhao
Tencent
2747 Park Blvd
Palo Alto 94588
USA
Email: shuai.zhao@ieee.org
Stephan Wenger
Tencent
2747 Park Blvd
Palo Alto 94588
Email: stewe@stewe.org
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RTP payload format for VVC October 2020
Yago Sanchez
Fraunhofer HHI
Einsteinufer 37
Berlin 10587
Germany
Email: yago.sanchez@hhi.fraunhofer.de
Zhao, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 44]