Payload Working Group J. Lennox
Internet-Draft D. Hong
Intended status: Standards Track Vidyo
Expires: April 21, 2016 J. Uberti
S. Holmer
M. Flodman
Google
October 19, 2015
The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback Message
draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-01
Abstract
This memo describes the RTCP Payload-Specific Feedback Message "Layer
Refresh Request" (LRR), which can be used to request a state refresh
of one or more substreams of a layered media stream. It also defines
its use with several scalable media formats.
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 April 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Layer Refresh Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Usage with specific codecs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. H264 SVC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. VP8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. H265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. VP9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with different scalability transmission mechanisms . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
This memo describes an RTCP [RFC3550] Payload-Specific Feedback
Message [RFC4585] "Layer Refresh Request" (LRR). It is designed to
allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request that one or
more of its substreams be refreshed, such that it can then be decoded
by an endpoint which previously was not receiving those layers,
without requiring that the entire stream be refreshed (as it would be
if the receiver sent a Full Intra Request (FIR) [RFC5104].
The message is designed to be applicable both to temporally and
spatially scaled streams, and to both single-stream and multi-stream
scalability modes.
2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
2.1. Terminology
A "Layer Refresh Point" is a point in a scalable stream after which a
decoder, which previously had been able to decode only some (possibly
none) of the available layers of stream, is able to decode a greater
number of the layers.
For spatial (or quality) layers, layer refresh typically requires
that a spatial layer be encoded in a way that references only lower-
layer subpictures of the current picture, not any earlier pictures of
that spatial layer. Additionally, the encoder must promise that no
earlier pictures of that spatial layer will be used as reference in
the future.
In a layer refresh, however, other layers than the ones requested for
refresh may still maintain dependency on earlier content of the
stream. This is the difference between a layer refresh and a Full
Intra Request [RFC5104]. This minimizes the coding overhead of
refresh to only those parts of the stream that actually need to be
refreshed at any given time.
An illustration of spatial layer refresh of an enhancement layer is
shown below.
... <-- S1 <-- S1 S1 <-- S1 <-- ...
| | | |
\/ \/ \/ \/
... <-- S0 <-- S0 <-- S0 <-- S0 <-- ...
1 2 3 4
In this illustration, frame 3 is a layer refresh point for spatial
layer S1; a decoder which had previously only been decoding spatial
layer S0 would be able to decode layer S1 starting at frame 3.
Figure 1
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
An illustration of spatial layer refresh of a base layer is shown
below.
... <-- S1 <-- S1 <-- S1 <-- S1 <-- ...
| | | |
\/ \/ \/ \/
... <-- S0 <-- S0 S0 <-- S0 <-- ...
1 2 3 4
In this illustration, frame 3 is a layer refresh point for spatial
layer S0; a decoder which had previously not been decoding the stream
at all could decode layer S0 starting at frame 3.
Figure 2
For temporal layers, layer refresh requires that the layer be
"temporally nested", i.e. use as reference only earlier frames of a
lower temporal layer, not any earlier frames of this temporal layer,
and also promise that no future frames of this temporal layer will
reference frames of this temporal layer before the refresh point. In
many cases, the temporal structure of the stream will mean that all
frames are temporally nested, in which case decoders will have no
need to send LRR messages for the stream.
An illustration of temporal layer refresh is shown below.
... <----- T1 <------ T1 T1 <------ ...
/ / /
|_ |_ |_
... <-- T0 <------ T0 <------ T0 <------ T0 <--- ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In this illustration, frame 6 is a layer refresh point for temporal
layer T1; a decoder which had previously only been decoding temporal
layer T0 would be able to decode layer T1 starting at frame 6.
Figure 3
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
An illustration of an inherently temporally nested stream is shown
below.
T1 T1 T1
/ / /
|_ |_ |_
... <-- T0 <------ T0 <------ T0 <------ T0 <--- ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In this illustration, the stream is temporally nested in its ordinary
structure; a decoder receiving layer T0 can begin decoding layer T1
at any point.
Figure 4
3. Layer Refresh Request
A layer refresh frame can be requested by sending a Layer Refresh
Request (LRR), which is an RTCP payload-specific feedback message
[RFC4585] asking the encoder to encode a frame which makes it
possible to upgrade to a higher layer. The LRR contains one or two
tuples, indicating the layer the decoder wants to upgrade to, and
(optionally) the currently highest layer the decoder can decode.
The specific format of the tuples, and the mechanism by which a
receiver recognizes a refresh frame, is codec-dependent. Usage for
several codecs is discussed in Section 4.
LRR follows the model of the Full Intra Request (FIR)
[RFC5104](Section 3.5.1) for its retransmission, reliability, and use
in multipoint conferences. TODO: expand these here.
The LRR message is identified by RTCP packet type value PT=PSFB and
FMT=TBD. The FCI field MUST contain one or more FIR entries. Each
entry applies to a different media sender, identified by its SSRC.
3.1. Message Format
The Feedback Control Information (FCI) for the Layer Refresh Request
consists of one or more FCI entries, the content of which is depicted
in Figure 5. The length of the LRR feedback message MUST be set to
2+3*N, where N is the number of FCI entries.
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Seq nr. |C| Payload Type| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Target Layer Index | Current Layer Index (opt) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
SSRC (32 bits) The SSRC value of the media sender that is requested
to send a layer refresh point.
Seq nr. (8 bits) Command sequence number. The sequence number space
is unique for each pairing of the SSRC of command source and the
SSRC of the command target. The sequence number SHALL be
increased by 1 modulo 256 for each new command. A repetition
SHALL NOT increase the sequence number. The initial value is
arbitrary.
C (1 bit) A flag bit indicating whether the "Current Layer Index"
field is present in the FCI. If this bit is false, the sender of
the LRR message is requesting refresh of all layers up to and
including the target layer.
Payload Type (7 bits) The RTP payload type for which the LRR is
being requested. This gives the context in which the target layer
index is to be interpreted.
Reserved (16 bits) All bits SHALL be set to 0 by the sender and
SHALL be ignored on reception.
Target Layer Index (16 bits) The target layer for which the receiver
wishes a refresh point. Its format is dependent on the payload
type field.
Current Layer Index (16 bits) If C is 1, the current layer being
decoded by the receiver. This message is not requesting refresh
of layers at or below this layer. If C is 0, this field SHALL be
set to 0 by the sender and SHALL be ignored on reception.
4. Usage with specific codecs
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
4.1. H264 SVC
H.264 SVC [RFC6190] defines temporal, dependency (spatial), and
quality scalability modes.
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| DID | QID | TID |RES |
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 6
Figure 6 shows the format of the layer index field for H.264 SVC
streams. This is designed to follow the same layout as the third and
fourth bytes of the H.264 SVC NAL unit extension, which carry the
stream's layer information. The "R" and "RES" fields MUST be set to
0 on transmission and ignored on reception. See [RFC6190]
Section 1.1.3 for details on the DID, QID, and TID fields.
A dependency or quality layer refresh of a given layer in H.264 SVC
can be identified by the "I" bit (idr_flag) in the extended NAL unit
header, present in NAL unit types 14 (prefix NAL unit) and 20 (coded
scalable slice). Layer refresh of the base layer can also be
identified by its NAL unit type of its coded slices, which is "5"
rather than "1". A dependency or quality layer refresh is complete
once this bit has been seen on all the appropriate layers (in
decoding order) above the current layer index (if any, or beginning
from the base layer if not) through the target layer index.
Note that as the "I" bit in a PACSI header is set if the
corresponding bit is set in any of the aggregated NAL units it
describes; thus, it is not sufficient to identify layer refresh when
NAL units of multiple dependency or quality layers are aggregated.
In H.264 SVC, temporal layer refresh information can be determined
from various Supplemental Encoding Information (SEI) messages in the
bitstream.
Whether an H.264 SVC stream is scalably nested can be determined from
the Scalability Information SEI message's temporal_id_nesting flag.
If this flag is set in a stream's currently applicable Scalability
Information SEI, receivers SHOULD NOT send temporal LRR messages for
that stream, as every frame is implicitly a temporal layer refresh
point. (The Scalability Information SEI message may also be
available in the signaling negotiation of H.264 SVC, as the sprop-
scalability-info parameter.)
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
If a stream's temporal_id_nesting flag is not set, the Temporal Level
Switching Point SEI message identifies temporal layer switching
points. A temporal layer refresh is satisfied when this SEI message
is present in a frame with the target layer index, if the message's
delta_frame_num refer to a frame with the requested current layer
index. (Alternately, temporal layer refresh can also be satisfied by
a complete state refresh, such as an IDR.) Senders which support
receiving LRR for non-scalably-nested streams MUST insert Temporal
Level Switching Point SEI messages as appropriate.
4.2. VP8
The VP8 RTP payload format [I-D.ietf-payload-vp8] defines temporal
scalability modes. It does not support spatial scalability.
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|TID| RES |
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 7
Figure 7 shows the format of the layer index field for VP8 streams.
The "RES" fields MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ingnored on
reception. See [I-D.ietf-payload-vp8] Section 4.2 for details on the
TID field.
A VP8 layer refresh point can be identified by the presence of the
"Y" bit in the VP8 payload header. When this bit is set, this and
all subsequent frames depend only on the current base temporal layer.
On receipt of an LRR for a VP8 stream, A sender which supports LRR
MUST encode the stream so it can set the Y bit in a packet whose
temporal layer is at or below the target layer index.
Note that in VP8, not every layer switch point can be identified by
the Y bit, since the Y bit implies layer switch of all layers, not
just the layer in which it is sent. Thus the use of LRR with VP8 can
result in some inefficiency in transmision. However, this is not
expected to be a major issue for temporal structures in normal use.
4.3. H265
The initial version of the H.265 payload format
[I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-h265] defines temporal scalability, with
protocol elements reserved for spatial or other scalability modes
(which are expected to be defined in a future version of the
specification).
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RES | LayerId | TID |
+-------------+-----------------+
Figure 8
Figure 8 shows the format of the layer index field for H.265 streams.
This is designed to follow the same layout as the first and second
bytes of the H.265 NAL unit header, which carry the stream's layer
information. The "RES" field MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
ignored on reception. See [I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-h265] Section 1.1.4
for details on the LayerId and TID fields.
H.265 streams signal whether they are temporally nested, using the
vps_temporal_id_nesting_flag in the Video Parameter Set (VPS), and
the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag in the Sequence Parameter Set (SPS).
If this flag is set in a stream's currently applicable VPS or SPS,
receivers SHOULD NOT send temporal LRR messages for that stream, as
every frame is implicitly a temporal layer refresh point.
If a stream's sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not set, the NAL unit
types 2 to 5 inclusively identify temporal layer switching points. A
layer refresh to any higher target temporal layer is satisfied when a
NAL unit type of 4 or 5 with TID equal to 1 more than current TID is
seen. Alternatively, layer refresh to a target temporal layer can be
incrementally satisfied with NAL unit type of 2 or 3. In this case,
given current TID = TO and target TID = TN, layer refresh to TN is
satisfied when NAL unit type of 2 or 3 is seen for TID = T1, then TID
= T2, all the way up to TID = TN. During this incremental process,
layer referesh to TN can be completely satisfied as soon as a NAL
unit type of 2 or 3 is seen.
Of course, temporal layer refresh can also be satisfied whenever any
Intra Random Access Point (IRAP) NAL unit type (with values 16-23,
inclusively) is seen. An IRAP picture is similar to an IDR picture
in H.264 (NAL unit type of 5 in H.264) where decoding of the picture
can start without any older pictures.
In the (future) H.265 payloads that support spatial scalability, a
spatial layer refresh of a specific layer can be identified by NAL
units with the requested layer ID and NAL unit types between 16 and
21 inclusive. A dependency or quality layer refresh is complete once
NAL units of this type have been seen on all the appropriate layers
(in decoding order) above the current layer index (if any, or
beginning from the base layer if not) through the target layer index.
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
4.4. VP9
The RTP payload format for VP9 [I-D.uberti-payload-vp9] defines how
it can be used for spatial and temporal scalability.
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-------------+-----------------+
| T |R| S | RES |
+-------------+-----------------+
Figure 9
Figure 9 shows the format of the layer index field for VP9 streams.
This is designed to follow the same layout as the "L" byte of the VP9
payload header, which carries the stream's layer information. The
"R" and "RES" fields MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ingnored on
reception. See [I-D.uberti-payload-vp9] for details on the T and S
fields.
Identification of a layer refresh frame can be derived from the
reference IDs of each frame by backtracking the dependency chain
until reaching a point where only decodable frames are being
referenced. Therefore it's recommended for both the flexible and the
non-flexible mode that, when upgrade frames are being encoded in
response to a LRR, those packets should contain layer indices and the
reference fields so that the decoder or an MCU can make this
derivation.
Example:
LRR {1,0}, {2,1} is sent by an MCU when it is currently relaying
{1,0} to a receiver and which wants to upgrade to {2,1}. In response
the encoder should encode the next frames in layers {1,1} and {2,1}
by only referring to frames in {1,0}, or {0,0}.
In the non-flexible mode, periodic upgrade frames can be defined by
the layer structure of the SS, thus periodic upgrade frames can be
automatically identified by the picture ID.
5. Usage with different scalability transmission mechanisms
Several different mechanisms are defined for how scalable streams can
be transmitted in RTP. The RTP Taxonomy
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy] Section 3.7 defines three
mechanisms: Single RTP Stream on a Single Media Transport (SRST),
Multiple RTP Streams on a Single Media Transport (MRST), and Multiple
RTP Streams on Multiple Media Transports (MRMT).
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
The LRR message is applicable to all these mechanisms. For MRST and
MRMT mechanisms, the "media source" field of the LRR FCI is set to
the SSRC of the RTP stream containing the layer indicated by the
Current Layer Index (if "C" is 1), or the stream containing the base
encoded stream (if "C" is 0). For MRMT, it is sent on the RTP
session on which this stream is sent. On receipt, the sender MUST
refresh all the layers requested in the stream, simultaneously in
decode order.
Note: arguably, for the MRST and MRMT mechanisms, FIR feedback
messages could instead be used to refresh specific individual layers.
However, the usage of FIR for MRSR/MRMT is not explicitly specified
anywhere, and if FIR is interpreted as refreshing layers, there is no
way to request an actual full, synchronized refresh of all the layers
of an MRST/MRMT layered source. Thus, the authors feel that
interpreting FIR as refreshing the entire source, and using LRR for
the individual layers, would be more useful.
6. Security Considerations
All the security considerations of FIR feedback packets [RFC5104]
apply to LRR feedback packets as well. Additionally, media senders
receiving LRR feedback packets MUST validate that the payload types
and layer indices they are receiving are valid for the stream they
are currently sending, and discard the requests if not.
7. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to register the following values:
- TODO: PSFB value for LRR
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-h265]
Wang, Y., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M.
Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for H.265/HEVC Video",
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14 (work in progress), August
2015.
[I-D.ietf-payload-vp8]
Westin, P., Lundin, H., Glover, M., Uberti, J., and F.
Galligan, "RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video", draft-ietf-
payload-vp8-17 (work in progress), September 2015.
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
[I-D.uberti-payload-vp9]
Uberti, J., Holmer, S., Flodman, M., Lennox, J., and D.
Hong, "RTP Payload Format for VP9 Video", draft-uberti-
payload-vp9-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6190>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy]
Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
B. Burman, "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for
Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", draft-ietf-
avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-08 (work in progress), July
2015.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5104>.
Authors' Addresses
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Layer Refresh Request RTCP Feedback October 2015
Jonathan Lennox
Vidyo, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue
Seventh Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
US
Email: jonathan@vidyo.com
Danny Hong
Vidyo, Inc.
433 Hackensack Avenue
Seventh Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
US
Email: danny@vidyo.com
Justin Uberti
Google, Inc.
747 6th Street South
Kirkland, WA 98033
USA
Email: justin@uberti.name
Stefan Holmer
Google, Inc.
Kungsbron 2
Stockholm 111 22
Sweden
Email: holmer@google.com
Magnus Flodman
Google, Inc.
Kungsbron 2
Stockholm 111 22
Sweden
Email: mflodman@google.com
Lennox, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 13]