MMUSIC Working Group C. Holmberg
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 3264 (if approved) H. Alvestrand
Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: June 11, 2018 C. Jennings
Cisco
December 8, 2017
Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-43.txt
Abstract
This specification defines a new Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Grouping Framework extension, 'BUNDLE'. The extension can be used
with the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism to negotiate the usage of a
single transport (5-tuple) for sending and receiving media described
by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections). Such transport
is referred to as a BUNDLE transport, and the media is referred to as
bundled media. The "m=" sections that use the BUNDLE transport form
a BUNDLE group.
To assist endpoints in negotiating the use of bundle this
specification defines a new SDP attribute, 'bundle-only', which can
be used to request that specific media is only used if bundled. The
specification also updates RFC 3264, to allow assigning a zero port
value to a "m= section without meaning that the media described by
the "m=" section is disabled or rejected.
When RTP-based media is used, there are multiple ways to correlate
bundled RTP packets with the appropriate "m=" section. This
specification defines a new Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) source
description (SDES) item and a new RTP header extension that provides
an additional way to do this correlation by using them to carry a
value that associates the RTP/RTCP packets with a specific "m="
section.
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/.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
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 June 11, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. SDP Grouping Framework BUNDLE Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. SDP 'bundle-only' Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. SDP Information Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Connection Data (c=) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Bandwidth (b=) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Mux Category Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Generating the Initial SDP Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
8.2.1. Suggesting the offerer BUNDLE address . . . . . . . . 11
8.2.2. Example: Initial SDP Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Generating the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3.1. Answerer Selection of Offerer Bundle Address . . . . 13
8.3.2. Answerer Selection of Answerer BUNDLE Address . . . . 14
8.3.3. Moving A Media Description Out Of A BUNDLE Group . . 14
8.3.4. Rejecting A Media Description In A BUNDLE Group . . . 15
8.3.5. Example: SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5. Modifying the Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.5.1. Suggesting a new offerer BUNDLE address . . . . . . . 17
8.5.2. Adding a media description to a BUNDLE group . . . . 18
8.5.3. Moving A Media Description Out Of A BUNDLE Group . . 18
8.5.4. Disabling A Media Description In A BUNDLE Group . . . 19
9. Protocol Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. STUN, DTLS, SRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. RTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Single RTP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1.1. Payload Type (PT) Value Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Associating RTP/RTCP Streams With Correct SDP Media
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.3. RTP/RTCP Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.3.1. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. ICE Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. DTLS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13. RTP Header Extensions Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14. Update to RFC 3264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.1. Original text of section 5.1 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264 32
14.2. New text replacing section 5.1 (2nd paragraph) of RFC
3264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.3. Original text of section 6 (4th paragraph) of RFC 3264 . 33
14.4. New text replacing section 6 (4th paragraph) of RFC 3264 33
14.5. Original text of section 8.2 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264 33
14.6. New text replacing section 8.2 (2nd paragraph) of RFC
3264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14.7. Original text of section 8.4 (6th paragraph) of RFC 3264 33
14.8. New text replacing section 8.4 (6th paragraph) of RFC
3264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. RTP/RTCP extensions for identification-tag transport . . . . 34
15.1. RTCP MID SDES Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15.2. RTP SDES Header Extension For MID . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.1. New SDES item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.2. New RTP SDES Header Extension URI . . . . . . . . . . . 37
16.3. New SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
16.4. New SDP Group Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
18. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
18.1. Example: Bundle Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 39
18.2. Example: BUNDLE Extension Rejected . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.3. Example: Offerer Adds A Media Description To A BUNDLE
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.4. Example: Offerer Moves A Media Description Out Of A
BUNDLE Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
18.5. Example: Offerer Disables A Media Description Within A
BUNDLE Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
19. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
20. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
21. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
21.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
21.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix A. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.1. UA Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.2. Usage of port number value zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A.3. B2BUA And Proxy Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.3.1. Traffic Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.3.2. Bandwidth Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A.4. Candidate Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1. Introduction
When multimedia communications are established, each transport
(5-tuple) reserved for an individual media stream consume additional
resources (especially when Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] is used). For this reason, it is
attractive to use a single transport for multiple media streams.
This specification defines a way to use a single transport (BUNDLE
transport) for sending and receiving media (bundled media) described
by multiple SDP media descriptions ("m=" sections). The same BUNDLE
transport is used for sending and receiving bundled media, which
means that the symmetric RTP mechanism [RFC4961] is always used for
RTP-based bundled media.
This specification defines a new SDP Grouping Framework [RFC5888]
extension called 'BUNDLE'. The extension can be used with the
Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264]
to negotiate which "m=" sections will become part of a BUNDLE group.
Within a BUNDLE group, each "m=" section will use a BUNDLE transport
for sending and receiving bundled media.
Within a BUNDLE group, each endpoint uses a single address:port
combination for sending and receiving bundled media. The
address:port combination is referred to as BUNDLE address. In
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
addition to negotiating the BUNDLE group, the offerer and answerer
[RFC3264] use the BUNDLE extension to negotiate the BUNDLE addresses,
one for the offerer (offerer BUNDLE address) and one for the answerer
(answerer BUNDLE address). Once the offerer and the answerer have
negotiated the BUNDLE addresses, and a BUNDLE group has been formed,
they assign their respective BUNDLE address to each "m=" section
within the BUNDLE group. The endpoints then use the BUNDLE addresses
for sending and receiving the bundled media associated with the
BUNDLE group.
The use of a BUNDLE transport also allows the usage of a single set
of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] candidates for the whole BUNDLE group.
This specification also defines a new SDP attribute, 'bundle-only',
which can be used to request that specific media is only used if the
"m=" section describing the media is kept within a BUNDLE group. The
specification also updates RFC 3264, to allow usage of zero port
values without meaning that media is rejected.
As defined in RFC 4566 [RFC4566], the semantics of assigning the same
transport address (IP address and port) to multiple "m=" sections are
undefined, and there is no grouping defined by such means. Instead,
an explicit grouping mechanism needs to be used to express the
intended semantics. This specification provides such an extension.
This specification also updates sections 5.1, 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 3264
[RFC3264]. The update allows an answerer to assign a non-zero port
value to an "m=" section in an SDP answer, even if the "m=" section
in the associated SDP offer contained a zero port value.
This specification also defines a new Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) [RFC3550] source description (SDES) item, 'MID', and a new RTP
SDES header extension that can be used to associate RTP streams with
"m=" sections.
SDP bodies can contain multiple BUNDLE groups. A given BUNDLE
address MUST only be associated with a single BUNDLE group. The
procedures in this specification apply independently to a given
BUNDLE group. All RTP based media flows described by a single BUNDLE
group belong to a single RTP session [RFC3550].
The BUNDLE extension is backward compatible. Endpoints that do not
support the extension are expected to generate offers and answers
without an SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute, and are expected to assign a
unique address to each "m=" section within an offer and answer,
according to the procedures in [RFC4566] and [RFC3264]
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
2. Terminology
"m=" section: SDP bodies contain one or more media descriptions,
referred to as "m=" sections. Each "m=" section is represented by an
SDP "m=" line, and zero or more SDP attributes associated with the
"m=" line. An local address:port combination is assigned to each
"m=" section.
5-tuple: A collection of the following values: source address, source
port, destination address, destination port, and transport-layer
protocol.
Unique address: An address:port combination that is assigned to only
one "m=" section in an offer or answer.
Offerer BUNDLE-tag: The first identification-tag in a given SDP
'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag list in an offer.
Answerer BUNDLE-tag: The first identification-tag in a given SDP
'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag list in an answer.
BUNDLE address: An address:port combination that an endpoint uses for
sending and receiving bundled media.
Offerer BUNDLE address: the address:port combination used by the
offerer for sending and receiving media.
Suggested Offerer BUNDLE address: before an offerer BUNDLE address
has been selected by the answerer, or when the offerer wants to
change a previously selected offerer BUNDLE address, the address:port
combination that the offerer wants to use for sending and receiving
media. While suggested by the offerer, the selection of the offerer
BUNDLE address is done by the answerer.
Answerer BUNDLE address: the address:port combination used by the
answerer for sending and receiving media.
BUNDLE transport: The transport (5-tuple) used by all media described
by the "m=" sections within a BUNDLE group.
BUNDLE group: A set of "m=" sections, created using an SDP Offer/
Answer exchange, which uses a single BUNDLE transport for sending and
receiving all media (bundled media) described by the set of "m="
sections. The same BUNDLE transport is used for sending and
receiving bundled media.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
Bundled "m=" section: An "m=" section, whose identification-tag is
placed in an SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag list in
an offer or answer.
Bundle-only "m=" section: A bundled "m=" section that contains an SDP
'bundle-only' attribute.
Bundled media: All media associated with a given BUNDLE group.
Initial offer: The first offer, within an SDP session (e.g. a SIP
dialog when the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] is used
to carry SDP), in which the offerer indicates that it wants to create
a given BUNDLE group.
Subsequent offer: An offer which contains a BUNDLE group that has
been created as part of a previous offer/answer exchange.
Identification-tag: A unique token value that is used to identify an
"m=" section. The SDP 'mid' attribute [RFC5888] in an "m=" section
carries the unique identification-tag assigned to that "m=" section.
The session-level SDP 'group' attribute [RFC5888] carries a list of
identification-tags, identifying the "m=" sections associated with
that particular 'group' attribute.
3. Conventions
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
4. Applicability Statement
The mechanism in this specification only applies to the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566], when used together with the SDP
offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264]. Declarative usage of SDP is out of
scope of this document, and is thus undefined.
5. SDP Grouping Framework BUNDLE Extension
This section defines a new SDP Grouping Framework [RFC5888]
extension, 'BUNDLE'. The BUNDLE extension can be used with the SDP
Offer/Answer mechanism to negotiate a set of "m=" sections that will
become part of a BUNDLE group. Within a BUNDLE group, each "m="
section will use a BUNDLE transport for sending and receiving bundled
media. Each endpoint use a single address:port combination for
sending receiving the bundled media.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
The BUNDLE extension is indicated using an SDP 'group' attribute with
a "BUNDLE" semantics value [RFC5888]. An identification-tag is
assigned to each bundled "m=" section, and each identification-tag is
listed in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag list.
Each "m=" section whose identification-tag is listed in the
identification-tag list is associated with a given BUNDLE group.
SDP bodies can contain multiple BUNDLE groups. Any given bundled
"m=" section MUST NOT be associated with more than one BUNDLE group
at any given time.
NOTE: The order of the "m=" sections listed in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE'
attribute identification-tag list does not have to be the same as the
order in which the "m=" sections occur in the SDP.
Section 8 defines the detailed SDP Offer/Answer procedures for the
BUNDLE extension.
6. SDP 'bundle-only' Attribute
This section defines a new SDP media-level attribute [RFC4566],
'bundle-only'. 'bundle-only' is a property attribute [RFC4566], and
hence has no value.
Name: bundle-only
Value: N/A
Usage Level: media
Charset Dependent: no
Example:
a=bundle-only
In order to ensure that an answerer that does not support the BUNDLE
extension always rejects a bundled "m=" section, the offerer can
assign a zero port value to the "m=" section. According to [RFC3264]
an answerer will reject such "m=" section. By including an SDP
'bundle-only' attribute in such "m=" section, the offerer can request
that the answerer accepts the "m=" section if the answerer supports
the Bundle extension, and if the answerer keeps the "m=" section
within the associated BUNDLE group.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
Once the offerer and answerer BUNDLE addresses have been selected, an
offerer and answerer only assigns the BUNDLE address to one bundled
"m=" section. To every other bundled "m=" section the offerer and
answerer assigns a zero port value and includes an SDP 'bundle-only'
attribute.
The usage of the 'bundle-only' attribute is only defined for a
bundled "m=" section with a zero port value, within an offer or
answer. Other usage is unspecified.
Section 8 defines the detailed SDP Offer/Answer procedures for the
'bundle-only' attribute.
7. SDP Information Considerations
This section describes restrictions associated with the usage of SDP
parameters within a BUNDLE group. It also describes, when parameter
and attribute values have been assigned to each bundled "m=" section,
how to calculate a value for the whole BUNDLE group.
7.1. Connection Data (c=)
The "c=" line nettype value [RFC4566] associated with a bundled "m="
section MUST be 'IN'.
The "c=" line addrtype value [RFC4566] associated with a bundled "m="
section MUST be 'IP4' or 'IP6'. The same value MUST be associated
with each "m=" section.
NOTE: Extensions to this specification can specify usage of the
BUNDLE mechanism for other nettype and addrtype values than the ones
listed above.
7.2. Bandwidth (b=)
An offerer and answerer MUST use the rules and restrictions defined
in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] for associating the SDP
bandwidth (b=) line with bundled "m=" section.
8. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
This section describes the SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] procedures for:
o Negotiating a BUNDLE group; and
o Selecting the BUNDLE addresses (offerer BUNDLE address and
answerer BUNDLE address); and
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o Adding an "m=" section to a BUNDLE group; and
o Moving an "m=" section out of a BUNDLE group; and
o Disabling an "m=" section within a BUNDLE group.
The generic rules and procedures defined in [RFC3264] and [RFC5888]
also apply to the BUNDLE extension. For example, if an offer is
rejected by the answerer, the previously negotiated SDP parameters
and characteristics (including those associated with a BUNDLE group)
apply. Hence, if an offerer generates an offer in which the offerer
wants to create a BUNDLE group, and the answerer rejects the offer,
the BUNDLE group is not created.
The procedures in this section are independent of the media type or
"m=" line proto value assigned to a bundled "m=" section. Section 10
defines additional considerations for RTP based media. Section 6
defines additional considerations for the usage of the SDP 'bundle-
only' attribute. Section 11 defines additional considerations for
the usage of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] mechanism.
SDP offers and answers can contain multiple BUNDLE groups. The
procedures in this section apply independently to a given BUNDLE
group.
8.1. Mux Category Considerations
When a BUNDLE group is initially negotiated, and a unique address is
assigned to each bundled "m=" section (excluding any bundle-only "m="
section) in the initial offer Section 8.2, IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT
mux category SDP attributes MUST explicitly included in each bundled
"m=" section (excluding any bundle-only "m=" secctions).
When an offerer or answerer includes SDP attributes in bundled "m="
sections within a BUNDLE group for which the offerer and answerer
BUNDLE addresses have been selected, IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT mux
category SDP attributes [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] are only
included in the "m=" section represented by the BUNDLE-tag in the
offer or answer. The SDP attribute values are implicitly applied to
each bundled "m=" section (including any bundle-only "m=" section).
The offerer and answerer MUST NOT include such SDP attributes in any
other bundled "m=" section.
The semantics of some SDP attributes only apply to specific types of
media. For example, the semantics of the SDP 'rtcp-mux' and SDP
'rtcp-mux-only' attributes only apply to "m=" sections describing
RTP-based media. However, as described in Section 8.1, there are
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
cases where IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT mux category SDP attributes are
only included in the "m=" sections represented by the BUNDLE-tag.
That means that media-specific IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT mux category
attributes can be included in an "m=" section associated with another
type of media.
8.2. Generating the Initial SDP Offer
When an offerer generates an initial offer, in order to negotiate a
BUNDLE group, it MUST:
o Assign a unique address to each "m=" section within the offer,
following the procedures in [RFC3264], excluding any bundle-only
"m=" sections (see below); and
o Include an SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute in the offer; and
o Place the identification-tag of each bundled "m=" section in the
SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag list; and
o Indicate which unique address the offerer suggests as the offerer
BUNDLE address [Section 8.2.1].
If the offerer wants to request that the answerer accepts a given
bundled "m=" section only if the answerer keeps the "m=" section
within the BUNDLE group, the offerer MUST:
o Include an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute [Section 8.2.1] in the "m="
secction; and
o Assign a zero port value to the "m=" section.
NOTE: If the offerer assigns a zero port value to an "m=" section,
but does not include an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute in the "m="
section, it is an indication that the offerer wants to disable the
"m=" section [Section 8.5.4].
[Section 18.1] shows an example of an initial offer.
8.2.1. Suggesting the offerer BUNDLE address
In the offer, the address:port combination assigned to the "m="
section represented by the offerer BUNDLE-tag indicates offerer
BUNDLE address, i.e., the address:port combination that the offerer
suggests for sending and receiving bundled media.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
The offerer BUNDLE-tag MUST NOT represent a bundle-only "m=" section.
Hence, the offer MUST contain at least one bundle "m=" section with a
unique address (and a non-zero port value).
8.2.2. Example: Initial SDP Offer
The example shows an initial SDP offer. The offer includes two "m="
section in the SDP, and suggests that both are included in a BUNDLE
group. The audio "m=" section is associated with the offerer BUNDLE-
tag (placed first in the SDP group:BUNDLE attribute identification-id
list).
SDP Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
8.3. Generating the SDP Answer
When an answerer generates an answer that contains a BUNDLE group,
the following general SDP grouping framework restrictions, defined in
[RFC5888], also apply to the BUNDLE group:
o The answerer MUST NOT include a BUNDLE group in the answer, unless
the offerer requested the BUNDLE group to be negotiated in the
corresponding offer; and
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o The answerer MUST NOT include an "m=" section within a BUNDLE
group, unless the offerer requested the "m=" section to be within
that BUNDLE group in the corresponding offer.
o If the answer contains multiple BUNDLE groups, the answerer MUST
NOT move an "m=" section from one BUNDLE group to another.
If the answer contains a BUNDLE group, the answerer MUST:
o Select an offerer BUNDLE Address [Section 8.3.1]; and
o Select an answerer BUNDLE Address [Section 8.3.2];
The answerer is allowed to select a new answerer BUNDLE address each
time it generates an answer to an offer.
If the answerer does not want to keep an "m=" section within a BUNDLE
group, it MUST:
o Move the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group [Section 8.3.3]; or
o Reject the "m=" section [Section 8.3.4];
When the answerer creates the answer, it selects the offerer BUNDLE
address [Section 8.3.1] and the answerer BUNDLE address
[Section 8.3.2]. The answerer then assigns the answerer BUNDLE
address to the bundled "m=" section represented by the answerer
BUNDLE-tag. In every other bundled "m=" section the answerer
includes an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute and assigns a zero port value
to the "m=" section.
If the answerer does not want to keep a bundle-only "m=" section
within the BUNDLE group, it MUST reject the "m=" section
[Section 8.3.4].
NOTE: If a bundled "m=" section in an offer contains a zero port
value, but the "m=" section does not contain an SDP 'bundle-only'
attribute, it is an indication that the offerer wants to disable the
"m=" section [Section 8.5.4].
8.3.1. Answerer Selection of Offerer Bundle Address
In an offer, the bundled "m=" section represented by the offerer
BUNDLE-tag contains the suggested offerer BUNDLE address, i.e, the
address:port combination that the offerer wants to use for sending
and receiving bundled media [Section 8.2.1]. The answerer MUST check
whether that "m=" section fulfils the following criteria:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o The answerer will not move the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE
group [Section 8.3.3]; and
o The answerer will not reject the "m=" section [Section 8.3.4]; and
o The "m=" section does not contain a zero port value.
If all of the criteria above are fulfilled, the answerer MUST select
the suggested offerer BUNDLE address.
If one or more of the criteria are not fulfilled, the answerer MUST
pick the next identification-tag in the identification-tag list in
the offer, and perform the same criteria check for the "m=" section
represented by that identification-tag. If there are no more
identification-tags in the identification-tag list, the answerer MUST
NOT create the BUNDLE group. Unless the answerer rejects the whole
offer, the answerer MUST apply the answerer procedures for moving an
"m=" section out of a BUNDLE group [Section 8.3.3] or rejecting an
"m=" section within a BUNDLE group [Section 8.3.4] to every bundled
"m=" section in the offer when creating the answer.
[Section 18.1] shows an example of an offerer BUNDLE address
selection.
8.3.2. Answerer Selection of Answerer BUNDLE Address
When the answerer selects a BUNDLE address for itself (answerer
BUNDLE address), the answerer MUST assign the answerer BUNDLE address
to the "m=" section that contains the selected offerer BUNDLE address
in the corresponding offer. The answerer BUNDLE-tag represents that
"m=" section in the answer. To every other bundled "m=" section the
answerer MUST assign a zero port value and include an SDP 'bundle-
only' attribute.
The answerer MUST NOT assign an answerer BUNDLE address to an "m="
section that is not within the BUNDLE group, or to an "m=" section
that is within another BUNDLE group.
[Section 18.1] shows an example of an answerer BUNDLE address
selection.
8.3.3. Moving A Media Description Out Of A BUNDLE Group
When an answerer wants to move a bundled "m=" section out of a BUNDLE
group in an answer, it MUST first check the following criteria:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o In the corresponding offer, an offerer BUNDLE address (previously
selected [Section 8.3.1] or new suggested [Section 8.5.1]) has
been assigned to the "m=" section by the offerer; or
o In the corresponding offer, the "m=" section contains an SDP
'bundle-only' attribute and a zero port value.
If either criteria above is fulfilled, the answerer can not not move
the "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group in the answer. The answerer
can either reject the whole offer, or keep the "m=" section within
the BUNDLE group in the answer and later create an offer where the
"m=" section is moved out of the BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.3]
When the answerer generates an answer, in which it removes a bundled
"m=" section out of a BUNDLE group, the answerer:
o MUST assign a unique address to the "m=" section; and
o MUST NOT place the identification-tag associated with the "m="
section in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag
list associated with the BUNDLE group; and
o MUST NOT assign an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to the "m="
section.
An answerer MUST NOT move an "m=" section from one BUNDLE group to
another within an answer. If the answerer wants to move an "m="
section from one BUNDLE group to another it MUST first move the
BUNDLE group out of the current BUNDLE group, and then generate an
offer where the "m=" section is added to another BUNDLE group
[Section 8.5.2].
8.3.4. Rejecting A Media Description In A BUNDLE Group
When an answerer wants to reject a bundled "m=" section in an answer,
it MUST first check the following criteria:
o In the corresponding offer, an offerer BUNDLE address (previously
selected [Section 8.3.1] or new suggested [Section 8.5.1]) has
been assigned to the "m=" section by the offerer.
If either criteria above is fulfilled, the answerer can not not
reject the "m=" section in the answer. The answerer can either
reject the whole offer, or keep the "m=" section within the BUNDLE
group in the answer and later create an offer where the "m=" section
is disabled of the BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.4]
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
When an answerer generates an answer, in which it rejects a bundled
"m=" section, the answerer:
o MUST assign a zero port value to the "m=" section, according to
the procedures in [RFC3264]; and
o MUST NOT place the identification-tag associated with the "m="
section in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag
list associated with the BUNDLE group; and
o MUST NOT assign an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to the "m="
section.
8.3.5. Example: SDP Answer
The example shows an SDP answer, based on the SDP offer in
[Section 8.2.2]. The answers accepts both "m=" sections within the
BUNDLE group. The answerer assigns the answerer BUNDLE address to
the "m=" section represented by the answerer BUNDLE-tag. The
answerer assigns a zero port value and an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute
to the other bundled "m=" section.
SDP Answer
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
8.4. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
When an offerer receives an answer, if the answer contains a BUNDLE
group, the offerer MUST check that any bundled "m=" section in the
answer was indicated as bundled in the corresponding offer. If there
is no mismatch, the offerer MUST use the offerer BUNDLE address,
selected by the answerer [Section 8.3.1], as the address for each
bundled "m=" section.
NOTE: As the answerer might reject one or more bundled "m=" sections,
or move a bundled "m=" section out of a BUNDLE group, each bundled
"m=" section in the offer might not be indicated as bundled in the
answer.
If the answer does not contain a BUNDLE group, the offerer MUST
process the answer as a normal answer.
8.5. Modifying the Session
When an offerer generates a subsequent offer (i.e., a BUNDLE group
has previously been negotiated), it MUST assign the previously
selected offer BUNDLE address [Section 8.3.1], or a new suggested
offerer BUNDLE address [Section 8.5.1], to exactly one "m=" section
within the BUNDLE group.
The offerer MUST NOT assign an offerer BUNDLE address (previously
selected [Section 8.3.1] or new suggested [Section 8.5.1]) to a
bundled "m=" section if:
o The offerer wants to move the bundled "m=" section out of the
BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.3]; or
o The offerer wants to disable the bundled "m=" section
[Section 8.5.4].
To every other "m=" section within the BUNDLE group, the offerer MUST
assign a zero port value and an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute.
When the offerer generates a subsequent offer, the offerer BUNDLE-tag
MUST represent the bundled "m=" section to which the offerer BUNDLE
address (previously negotiated or new suggested) has been assigned.
8.5.1. Suggesting a new offerer BUNDLE address
When an offerer generates an offer, in which it suggests a new
offerer BUNDLE address [Section 8.2.1], the offerer MUST:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o Assign the new suggested offerer BUNDLE address to exactly one
"m=" section within the BUNDLE group; and
o Assign a zero port value and an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to
every other "m=" section within the BUNDLE group.
8.5.2. Adding a media description to a BUNDLE group
When an offerer generates an offer, in which it wants to add a
bundled "m=" section, the offerer MUST:
o Assign the offerer BUNDLE address (previously selected
[Section 8.3.1] or new suggested [Section 8.5.1]) to the added
"m=" section; or
o Assign a zero port value and an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to the
added "m=" section (in this case the offerer BUNDLE address is
assigned to another "m=" section within the BUNDLE group).
In addition, the offerer MUST place the identification-tag associated
with the added "m=" section in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute
identification-tag list associated with the BUNDLE group
[Section 8.2.1].
NOTE: If the offerer also wants to suggest a new offerer BUNDLE
address to the BUNDLE group, the offerer can assign the new suggested
offerer BUNDLE address either to the added "m=" section, or to some
other "m=" section within the BUNDLE group [Section 8.5.1].
[Section 18.3] shows an example where an offerer sends an offer in
order to add a bundled "m=" section to a BUNDLE group.
8.5.3. Moving A Media Description Out Of A BUNDLE Group
When an offerer generates an offer, in which it wants to move a
bundled "m=" section out of a BUNDLE group, the offerer:
o MUST assign a unique address to the "m=" section; and
o MUST NOT place the identification-tag associated with the "m="
section in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag
list associated with the BUNDLE group; and
o MUST NOT assign an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to the "m="
section.
An offerer MUST NOT move an "m=" section from one BUNDLE group to
another within a single offer. If the offerer wants to move an "m="
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
section from one BUNDLE group to another it MUST first move the
BUNDLE group out of the current BUNDLE group, and then generate a
second offer where the "m=" section is added to another BUNDLE group
[Section 8.5.2].
[Section 18.4] shows an example of an offer for moving an "m="
section out of a BUNDLE group.
8.5.4. Disabling A Media Description In A BUNDLE Group
When an offerer generates an offer, in which it wants to disable a
bundled "m=" section, the offerer:
o MUST assign a zero port value to the "m=" section, following the
procedures in [RFC4566]; and
o MUST NOT place the identification-tag associated with the "m="
section in the SDP 'group:BUNDLE' attribute identification-tag
list associated with the BUNDLE group; and
o MUST NOT assign an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute to the "m="
section.
[Section 18.5] shows an example of an offer for disabling an "m="
section within a BUNDLE group.
9. Protocol Identification
Each "m=" section within a BUNDLE group MUST use the same transport-
layer protocol. If bundled "m=" sections use different protocols on
top of the transport-layer protocol, there MUST exist a publicly
available specification which describes a mechanism, for this
particular protocol combination, how to associate received data with
the correct protocol.
In addition, if received data can be associated with more than one
bundled "m=" section, there MUST exist a publicly available
specification which describes a mechanism for associating the
received data with the correct "m=" section.
This document describes a mechanism to identify the protocol of
received data among the STUN, DTLS and SRTP protocols (in any
combination), when UDP is used as transport-layer protocol, but does
not describe how to identify different protocols transported on DTLS.
While the mechanism is generally applicable to other protocols and
transport-layer protocols, any such use requires further
specification around how to multiplex multiple protocols on a given
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
transport-layer protocol, and how to associate received data with the
correct protocols.
9.1. STUN, DTLS, SRTP
Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764] describes a mechanism to identify the
protocol of a received packet among the STUN, Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) and SRTP protocols (in any combination). If an
offer or answer includes bundled "m=" section that represent these
protocols, the offerer or answerer MUST support the mechanism
described in [RFC5764], and no explicit negotiation is required in
order to indicate support and usage of the mechanism.
[RFC5764] does not describe how to identify different protocols
transported on DTLS, only how to identify the DTLS protocol itself.
If multiple protocols are transported on DTLS, there MUST exist a
specification describing a mechanism for identifying each individual
protocol. In addition, if a received DTLS packet can be associated
with more than one "m=" section, there MUST exist a specification
which describes a mechanism for associating the received DTLS packet
with the correct "m=" section.
[Section 10.2] describes how to associate the packets in a received
SRTP stream with the correct "m=" section.
10. RTP Considerations
10.1. Single RTP Session
All RTP-based media within a single BUNDLE group belong to a single
RTP session [RFC3550].
Since a single BUNDLE transport is used for sending and receiving
bundled media, the symmetric RTP mechanism [RFC4961] MUST be used for
RTP-based bundled media.
Since a single RTP session is used for each BUNDLE group, all "m="
sections representing RTP-based media within a BUNDLE group will
share a single SSRC numbering space [RFC3550].
The following rules and restrictions apply for a single RTP session:
o A specific payload type value can be used in multiple bundled "m="
sections only if each codec associated with the payload type
number shares an identical codec configuration [Section 10.1.1].
o The proto value in each bundled RTP-based "m=" section MUST be
identical (e.g. RTP/AVPF).
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o The RTP MID header extension MUST be enabled, by including an SDP
'extmap' attribute [RFC8285], with a 'urn:ietf:params:rtp-
hdrext:sdes:mid' URI value, in each bundled RTP-based "m=" section
in every offer and answer.
o A given SSRC MUST NOT transmit RTP packets using payload types
that originate from different bundled "m=" sections.
NOTE: The last bullet above is to avoid sending multiple media types
from the same SSRC. If transmission of multiple media types are done
with time overlap, RTP and RTCP fail to function. Even if done in
proper sequence this causes RTP Timestamp rate switching issues
[RFC7160]. However, once an SSRC has left the RTP session (by
sending an RTCP BYE packet), that SSRC can be reused by another
source (possibly associated with a different bundled "m=" section)
after a delay of 5 RTCP reporting intervals (the delay is to ensure
the SSRC has timed out, in case the RTCP BYE packet was lost
[RFC3550]).
10.1.1. Payload Type (PT) Value Reuse
Multiple bundled "m=" section might describe RTP based media. As all
RTP based media associated with a BUNDLE group belong to the same RTP
session, in order for a given payload type value to be used inside
more than one bundled "m=" section, all codecs associated with the
payload type number MUST share an identical codec configuration.
This means that the codecs MUST share the same media type, encoding
name, clock rate and any parameter that can affect the codec
configuration and packetization.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] lists SDP attributes, whose
attribute values must be identical for all codecs that use the same
payload type value.
10.2. Associating RTP/RTCP Streams With Correct SDP Media Description
NOTE: The text in this section is copied from Appendix B of JSEP.
The community has not yet agreed on the text.
As described in [RFC3550], RTP packets are associated with RTP
streams [RFC7656]. Each RTP stream is identified by an SSRC value,
and each RTP packet includes an SSRC field that is used to associate
the packet with the correct RTP stream. RTCP packets also use SSRCs
to identify which RTP streams the packet relates to. However, a RTCP
packet can contain multiple SSRC fields, in the course of providing
feedback or reports on different RTP streams, and therefore can be
associated with multiple such streams.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
In order to be able to process received RTP/RTCP packets correctly,
it must be possible to associate an RTP stream with the correct "m="
section, as the "m=" section and SDP attributes associated with the
"m=" section contains information needed to process the packets.
As all RTP streams associated with a BUNDLE group use the same
transport for sending and receiving RTP/RTCP packets, the local
address:port combination part of the transport cannot be used to
associate an RTP stream with the correct "m=" section. In addition,
multiple RTP streams might be associated with the same "m=" section.
An offerer and answerer can inform each other which SSRC values they
will use for an RTP stream by using the SDP 'ssrc' attribute
[RFC5576]. However, an offerer will not know which SSRC values the
answerer will use until the offerer has received the answer providing
that information. Due to this, before the offerer has received the
answer, the offerer will not be able to associate an RTP stream with
the correct "m=" section using the SSRC value associated with the RTP
stream. In addition, the offerer and answerer may start using new
SSRC values mid-session, without informing each other using the SDP
'ssrc' attribute.
In order for an offerer and answerer to always be able to associate
an RTP stream with the correct "m=" section, the offerer and answerer
using the BUNDLE extension MUST support the mechanism defined in
Section 15, where the offerer and answerer insert the identification-
tag associated with an "m=" section (provided by the remote peer)
into RTP and RTCP packets associated with a BUNDLE group.
When using this mechanism, the mapping from an SSRC to an
identification-tag is carried in RTP header extensions or RTCP SDES
packets, as specified in Section 15. Since a compound RTCP packet
can contain multiple RTCP SDES packets, and each RTCP SDES packet can
contain multiple chunks, a single RTCP packet can contain several
SSRC to identification-tag mappings. The offerer and answerer
maintain tables used for routing that are updated each time an RTP/
RTCP packet contains new information that affects how packets should
be routed.
However, some implementations of may not include this identification-
tag in their RTP and RTCP traffic when using the BUNDLE mechanism,
and instead use a payload type based mechanism to associate RTP
streams with SDP "m=" sections. In this situation, each "m=" section
MUST use unique payload type values, in order for the payload type to
be a reliable indicator of the relevant "m=" section for the RTP
stream. Note that when using the payload type to associate RTP
streams with "m=" sections an RTP stream, identified by SSRC, will be
mapped to an "m=" section when the first packet of that RTP stream is
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
received, and the mapping will not be changed even if the payload
type used by that RTP stream changes. In other words, the SSRC
cannot to "move" to a different "m=" section simply by changing the
payload type.
Applications can implement RTP stacks in many different ways. The
algorithm below details one way that RTP streams can be associated
with "m=" sections, but is not meant to be prescriptive about exactly
how an RTP stack needs to be implemented. Applications MAY use any
algorithm that achieves equivalent results to those described in the
algorithm below.
To prepare to associate RTP streams with the correct "m=" section,
the following steps MUST be followed for each BUNDLE group.
Construct a table mapping MID to "m=" section for each "m="
section in this BUNDLE group. Note that an "m=" section may only
have one MID.
Construct a table mapping SSRCs of incoming RTP streams to "m="
section for each "m=" section in this BUNDLE group and for each
SSRC configured for receiving in that "m=" section.
Construct a table mapping the SSRC of each outgoing RTP stream to
"m=" section for each "m=" section in this BUNDLE group and for
each SSRC configured for sending in that "m=" section.
Construct a table mapping payload type to "m=" section for each
"m=" section in the BUNDLE group and for each payload type
configured for receiving in that "m=" section. If any payload
type is configured for receiving in more than one "m=" section in
the BUNDLE group, do not it include it in the table, as it cannot
be used to uniquely identify a "m=" section.
Note that for each of these tables, there can only be one mapping
for any given key (MID, SSRC, or PT). In other words, the tables
are not multimaps.
As "m=" sections are added or removed from the BUNDLE groups, or
their configurations are changed, the tables above MUST also be
updated.
When an RTP packet is received, it MUST be delivered to the RTP
stream corresponding to its SSRC. That RTP stream MUST then be
associated with the correct "m=" section within a BUNDLE group, for
additional processing, according to the following steps.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
If the MID associated with the RTP stream is not in the table
mapping MID to "m=" section, then the RTP stream is not decoded
and the payload data is discarded.
If the packet has a MID, and the packet's extended sequence number
is greater than that of the last MID update, as discussed in
[RFC7941], Section 4.2.6, update the MID associated with the RTP
stream to match the MID carried in the RTP packet, then update the
mapping tables to include an entry that maps the SSRC of that RTP
stream to the "m=" section for that MID.
If the SSRC of the RTP stream is in the incoming SSRC mapping
table, check that the payload type used by the RTP stream matches
a payload type included on the matching "m=" section. If so,
associate the RTP stream with that "m=" section. Otherwise, the
RTP stream is not decoded and the payload data is discarded.
If the payload type used by the RTP stream is in the payload type
table, update the incoming SSRC mapping table to include an entry
that maps the RTP stream's SSRC to the "m=" section for that
payload type. Associate the RTP stream with the corresponding
"m=" section.
Otherwise, mark the RTP stream as not for decoding and discard the
payload.
If the RTP packet contains one of more contributing source (CSRC)
identifiers, then each CSRC is looked up in the incoming SSRC table
and a copy of the RTP packet is associated with the corresponding
"m=" section for additional processing.
For each RTCP packet received (including each RTCP packet that is
part of a compound RTCP packet), the packet is processed as usual by
the RTP layer, then is passed to the "m=" sections corresponding to
the RTP streams it contains information about for additional
processing. This routing is type-dependent, as each kind of RTCP
packet has its own mechanism for associating it with the relevant RTP
streams.
RTCP packets for which no appropriate "m=" section can be identified
MUST be processed as usual by the RTP layer, updating the metadata
associated with the corresponding RTP streams, but are not passed to
any "m=" section. This situation can occur with certain multiparty
RTP topologies, or when RTCP packets are sent containing a subset of
the SDES information.
Rules for additional processing of the various types of RTCP packets
are explained below.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
If the RTCP packet is of type SDES, for each chunk in the packet
whose SSRC is found in the incoming SSRC table, deliver a copy of
the SDES packet to the "m=" section associated with that SSRC. In
addition, for any SDES MID items contained in these chunks, if the
MID is found in the table mapping MID to "m=" section, update the
incoming SSRC table to include an entry that maps the RTP stream
associated with chunk's SSRC to the "m=" section associated with
that MID, unless the packet is older than the packet that most
recently updated the mapping for this SSRC, as discussed in
[RFC7941], Section 4.2.6.
Note that if an SDES packet is received as part of a compound RTCP
packet, the SSRC to "m=" section mapping may not exist until the
SDES packet is handled (e.g., in the case where RTCP for a source
is received before any RTP packets). Therefore, when processing a
compound packet, any contained SDES packet MUST be handled first.
Note that this is a backwards change from [RFC3550] Section 6.1,
which states that "Each individual RTCP packet in the compound
packet may be processed independently with no requirements upon
the order or combination of packets".
If the RTCP packet is of type BYE, it indicates that the RTP
streams referenced in the packet are ending. Therefore, for each
SSRC indicated in the packet that is found in the incoming SSRC
table, first deliver a copy of the BYE packet to the "m=" section
associated with that SSRC, but then remove the entry for that SSRC
from the incoming SSRC table after an appropriate delay to account
for "straggler packets", as specified in [RFC3550], Section 6.2.1.
If the RTCP packet is of type SR or RR, for each report block in
the report whose "SSRC of source" is found in the outgoing SSRC
table, deliver a copy of the SR or RR packet to the "m=" section
associated with that SSRC. In addition, if the packet is of type
SR, and the sender SSRC for the packet is found in the incoming
SSRC table, deliver a copy of the SR packet to the "m=" section
associated with that SSRC.
If the implementation supports RTCP XR and the packet is of type
XR, as defined in [RFC3611], for each report block in the report
whose "SSRC of source" is is found in the outgoing SSRC table,
deliver a copy of the XR packet to the "m=" section associated
with that SSRC. In addition, if the sender SSRC for the packet is
found in the incoming SSRC table, deliver a copy of the XR packet
to the "m=" section associated with that SSRC.
If the RTCP packet is a feedback message of type RTPFB or PSFB, as
defined in [RFC4585], it will contain a media source SSRC, and
this SSRC is used for routing certain subtypes of feedback
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
messages. However, several subtypes of PSFB messages include
target SSRC(s) in a section called Feedback Control Information
(FCI). For these messages, the target SSRC(s) are used for
routing.
If the RTCP packet is a feedback packet that does not include
target SSRCs in its FCI section, and the media source SSRC is
found in the outgoing SSRC table, deliver the feedback packet to
the "m=" section associated with that SSRC. RTPFB and PSFB types
that are handled in this way include:
Generic NACK: [RFC4585] (PT=RTPFB, FMT=1).
Picture Loss Indication (PLI): [RFC4585] (PT=PSFB, FMT=1).
Slice Loss Indication (SLI): [RFC4585] (PT=PSFB, FMT=2).
Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI): [RFC4585]
(PT=PSFB, FMT=3).
If the RTCP packet is a feedback message that does include target
SSRC(s) in its FCI section, it can either be a request or a
notification. Requests reference a RTP stream that is being sent
by the message recipient, whereas notifications are responses to
an earlier request, and therefore reference a RTP stream that is
being received by the message recipient.
If the RTCP packet is a feedback request that includes target
SSRC(s), for each target SSRC that is found in the outgoing SSRC
table, deliver a copy of the RTCP packet to the "m=" section
associated with that SSRC. PSFB types that are handled in this
way include:
Full Intra Request (FIR): [RFC5104] (PT=PSFB, FMT=4).
Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR): [RFC5104] (PT=PSFB,
FMT=5).
H.271 Video Back Channel Message (VBCM): [RFC5104] (PT=PSFB,
FMT=7).
Layer Refresh Request (LRR): [I-D.ietf-avtext-lrr] (PT=PSFB,
FMT=TBD).
If the RTCP packet is a feedback notification that include target
SSRC(s), for each target SSRC that is found in the incoming SSRC
table, deliver a copy of the RTCP packet to the "m=" section
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
associated with the RTP stream with matching SSRC. PSFB types
that are handled in this way include:
Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Notification (TSTN): [RFC5104]
(PT=PSFB, FMT=6). This message is a notification in response
to a prior TSTR.
If the RTCP packet is of type APP, then it is handled in an
application specific manner. If the application does not
recognise the APP packet, then it MUST be discarded.
10.3. RTP/RTCP Multiplexing
Within a BUNDLE group, the offerer and answerer MUST enable RTP/RTCP
multiplexing [RFC5761] for the RTP-based media specified by the
BUNDLE group.
When RTP/RTCP multiplexing is enabled, the same transport will be
used for both RTP packets and RTCP packets associated with the BUNDLE
group.
10.3.1. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
This section describes how an offerer and answerer use the SDP 'rtcp-
mux' attribute [RFC5761] and the SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive] to negotiate usage of RTP/RTCP
multiplexing for RTP-based media associated with a BUNDLE group.
The mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] of the SDP
'rtcp-mux' and 'rtcp-mux-only' attributes is IDENTICAL. Section 8.1
describes the details regarding which bundled "m=" sections an
offerer and answerer associates the attributes with.
RTP/RTCP multiplexing only applies to RTP-based media. However, as
described in Section 8.1, within a BUNDLE group the SDP 'rtcp-mux'
and SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attributes might be included in a non-RTP-
based bundled "m=" section.
10.3.1.1. Generating the Initial SDP Offer
When an offerer generates an initial offer, if the offer contains one
or more RTP-based bundled "m=" sections (or, if there is a chance
that RTP-based "m=" sections will later be added to the BUNDLE
group), the offerer MUST include an SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute
[RFC5761] in one or more "m=" sections, following the procedures for
IDENTICAL mux category attributes in Section 8.1. In addition, the
offerer MAY include an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive] in the same "m=" section.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
NOTE: Whether the offerer associates the SDP 'rtcp-mux-only'
attribute depends on whether the offerer supports fallback to usage
of a separate port for RTCP in case the answerer moves one or more
RTP-based "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group in the answer.
NOTE: If the offerer includes an SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute in one or
more bundled "m=" sections, but does not include an SDP 'rtcp-mux-
only' attribute, the offerer can also include an SDP 'rtcp' attribute
[RFC3605] in one or more RTP-based "m=" sections in order to provide
a fallback port for RTCP, as described in [RFC5761]. However, the
fallback port will only be used for RTP-based "m=" sections moved out
of the BUNDLE group by the answerer.
In the initial offer, the address:port combination for RTCP MUST be
unique in each bundled RTP-based "m=" section (excluding a bundle-
only "m=" section), similar to RTP.
10.3.1.2. Generating the SDP Answer
When an answerer generates an answer, if the answerer supports RTP-
based media, and if a bundled "m=" section in the offer contained an
SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute, the answerer MUST enable usage of RTP/RTCP
multiplexing, even if there currently are no RTP-based "m=" sections
within the BUNDLE group. The answerer MUST include an SDP 'rtcp-mux'
attribute in "m=" sections within the BUNDLE group in the answer
following the procedures for IDENTICAL mux category attributes in
Section 8.1. In addition, if the "m=" section in the offer contained
an an SDP "rtcp-mux-only" attribute, the answerer MUST include an SDP
"rtcp-mux-only" attribute to the "m=" section in the answer.
If the "m=" section associated with the offerer BUNDLE-tag in the
offer contained an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute, and if the answerer
moves an RTP-based "m=" section out of the BUNDLE group in the answer
Section 8.3.3, the answerer MUST either include the attribute with in
moved "m=" section (and enable RTP/RTCP multiplexing for the media
associated with the "m=" section), or reject the "m=" section
Section 8.3.4.
The answerer MUST NOT include an SDP 'rtcp' attribute in any "m="
section within the BUNDLE group in the answer. The answerer will use
the port value of the selected offerer BUNDLE address for sending RTP
and RTCP packets associated with each RTP-based bundled "m=" section
towards the offerer.
If the usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing within a BUNDLE group has been
negotiated in a previous offer/answer transaction, the answerer MUST
include an SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute in the "m=" section associated
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
with the answerer BUNDLE-tag in the answer. It is not possible to
disable RTP/RTCP multiplexing within a BUNDLE group.
10.3.1.3. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
When an offerer receives an answer, if the answerer has accepted the
usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing (see Section 10.3.1.2), the answerer
follows the procedures for RTP/RTCP multiplexing defined in
[RFC5761]. The offerer will use the port value associated with the
answerer BUNDLE address for sending RTP and RTCP packets associated
with each RTP-based bundled "m=" section towards the answerer.
NOTE: It is considered a protocol error if the answerer has not
accepted the usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing for RTP-based "m="
sections that the answerer included in the BUNDLE group.
10.3.1.4. Modifying the Session
When an offerer generates a subsequent offer, the offerer MUST
include an SDP 'rtcp-mux' attribute in a bundled "m=" section,
following the procedures for IDENTICAL mux category attributes in
Section 8.1.
If the offerer wants to add a bundled RTP-based "m=" section to the
BUNDLE group, it MAY also include an SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute in
a bundled "m=" section, following the procedures for IDENTICAL mux
category attributes in Section 8.1. This allows the offerer to
mandate RTP/RTCP multiplexing for the added "m=" section (or the "m="
section to be rejected by the answerer) even if the answerer does not
accept the "m=" section within the BUNDLE group.
11. ICE Considerations
This section describes how to use the BUNDLE grouping extension
together with the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
mechanism [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis].
The generic procedures for negotiating usage of ICE using SDP,
defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], also apply to usage of ICE
with BUNDLE, with the following exceptions:
o When the BUNDLE transport has been established, ICE connectivity
checks and keep-alives only need to be performed for the BUNDLE
transport, instead of per individual "m=" section within the
BUNDLE group.
o In an offer, if the offer assigns a unique address to one or more
bundled "m=" sections (excluding any bundle-only "m=" section),
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
the offerer MUST include ICE-related media-level attributes in
each of those "m=" sections. If the offerer assigns an offerer
BUNDLE address (previously selected [Section 8.3.1] or new
suggested [Section 8.5.1]) to a bundled "m=" section (the "m="
section represented by the offerer BUNDLE-tag), the offerer only
includes ICE-related media-level SDP attributes in that "m="
section, following the procedures in Section 8.1.
o In an answer, the answerer only includes ICE-related media-level
SDP attributes in the bundled "m=" section to which the answerer
has assigned the answerer BUNDLE address (the "m=" section
represented by the answerer BUNDLE-tag), following the procedures
in Section 8.1.
Initially, before ICE has produced a candidate pair that will be used
for media, there might by multiple transports established (if
multiple candidate pairs are tested). Once ICE has produced a
transport that will be used for media, that becomes the BUNDLE
transport.
Support and usage of ICE mechanism together with the BUNDLE extension
is OPTIONAL.
11.1. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
When an offerer assigns a unique address to one or more bundled "m="
sections (excluding any bundle-only "m=" section), the offerer MUST
include SDP 'candidate' attributes (and other applicable ICE-related
media-level SDP attributes), containing unique ICE properties
(candidates etc), in each of those "m=" sections, follwoing the
procedures in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp].
When an offerer assigns a BUNDLE address (previously selected or new
suggested) to a bundled "m=" section, (the "m=" section represented
by the offerer BUNDLE-tag) the offerer MUST only include SDP
'candidate' attributes (and other applicable ICE-related media-level
SDP attributes) in that "m=" section, following the procedures in
Section 8.1.
When an answerer assigns a BUNDLE address to an "m=" section within a
BUNDLE group (the "m=" section represented by the answerer BUNDLE-
tag), the answerer MUST only include SDP 'candidate' attributes (and
other applicable ICE-related media-level SDP attributes) in that "m="
section, following the procedures in Section 8.1.
NOTE: As most ICE-related media-level SDP attributes belong to the
TRANSPORT mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes], the
offerer and answerer follow the procedures in Section 8.1 when
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
deciding whether to include an attribute in a bundled "m=" section.
However, in the case of ICE-related media-level attributes, the rules
apply to all attributes (see note below), even if they belong to a
different mux category.
NOTE: The following ICE-related media-level SDP attributes are
defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp]: 'candidiate', 'remote-
candidates', 'ice-mismatch', 'ice-ufrag', 'ice-pwd', and 'ice-
pacing'.
12. DTLS Considerations
One or more media streams within a BUNDLE group might use the
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347] in order
to encrypt the data, or to negotiate encryption keys if another
encryption mechanism is used to encrypt media.
When DTLS is used within a BUNDLE group, the following rules apply:
o There can only be one DTLS association [RFC6347] associated with
the BUNDLE group; and
o Each usage of the DTLS association within the BUNDLE group MUST
use the same mechanism for determining which endpoints (the
offerer or answerer) become DTLS client and DTLS server; and
o Each usage of the DTLS association within the Bundle group MUST
use the same mechanism for determining whether an offer or answer
will trigger the establishment of a new DTLS association, or
whether an existing DTLS association will be used; and
o If the DTLS client supports DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] it MUST include
the 'use_srtp' extension [RFC5764] in the DTLS ClientHello message
[RFC5764], The client MUST include the extension even if the usage
of DTLS-SRTP is not negotiated as part of the multimedia session
(e.g., SIP session [RFC3261].
NOTE: The inclusion of the 'use_srtp' extension during the initial
DTLS handshake ensures that a DTLS renegotiation will not be required
in order to include the extension, in case DTLS-SRTP encrypted media
is added to the BUNDLE group later during the multimedia session.
13. RTP Header Extensions Consideration
When [RFC8285] RTP header extensions are used in the context of this
specification, the identifier used for a given extension MUST
identify the same extension across all the bundled media
descriptions.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
14. Update to RFC 3264
This section replaces the text of the following sections of RFC 3264:
o Section 5.1 (Unicast Streams).
o Section 6 (Generating the Answer).
o Section 8.2 (Removing a Media Stream).
o Section 8.4 (Putting a Unicast Media Stream on Hold).
14.1. Original text of section 5.1 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264
For recvonly and sendrecv streams, the port number and address in the
offer indicate where the offerer would like to receive the media
stream. For sendonly RTP streams, the address and port number
indirectly indicate where the offerer wants to receive RTCP reports.
Unless there is an explicit indication otherwise, reports are sent to
the port number one higher than the number indicated. The IP address
and port present in the offer indicate nothing about the source IP
address and source port of RTP and RTCP packets that will be sent by
the offerer. A port number of zero in the offer indicates that the
stream is offered but MUST NOT be used. This has no useful semantics
in an initial offer, but is allowed for reasons of completeness,
since the answer can contain a zero port indicating a rejected stream
(Section 6). Furthermore, existing streams can be terminated by
setting the port to zero (Section 8). In general, a port number of
zero indicates that the media stream is not wanted.
14.2. New text replacing section 5.1 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264
For recvonly and sendrecv streams, the port number and address in the
offer indicate where the offerer would like to receive the media
stream. For sendonly RTP streams, the address and port number
indirectly indicate where the offerer wants to receive RTCP reports.
Unless there is an explicit indication otherwise, reports are sent to
the port number one higher than the number indicated. The IP address
and port present in the offer indicate nothing about the source IP
address and source port of RTP and RTCP packets that will be sent by
the offerer. A port number of zero in the offer by default indicates
that the stream is offered but MUST NOT be used, but an extension
mechanism might specify different semantics for the usage of a zero
port value. Furthermore, existing streams can be terminated by
setting the port to zero (Section 8). In general, a port number of
zero by default indicates that the media stream is not wanted.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
14.3. Original text of section 6 (4th paragraph) of RFC 3264
An offered stream MAY be rejected in the answer, for any reason. If
a stream is rejected, the offerer and answerer MUST NOT generate
media (or RTCP packets) for that stream. To reject an offered
stream, the port number in the corresponding stream in the answer
MUST be set to zero. Any media formats listed are ignored. At least
one MUST be present, as specified by SDP.
14.4. New text replacing section 6 (4th paragraph) of RFC 3264
An offered stream MAY be rejected in the answer, for any reason. If
a stream is rejected, the offerer and answerer MUST NOT generate
media (or RTCP packets) for that stream. A port number of zero in
the answer by default indicates that the offered stream is rejected,
but an extension mechanism might specify different semantics for the
usage of a zero port value. If a stream is rejected, any media
formats listed are ignored. At least one MUST be present, as
specified by SDP.
14.5. Original text of section 8.2 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264
A stream that is offered with a port of zero MUST be marked with port
zero in the answer. Like the offer, the answer MAY omit all
attributes present previously, and MAY list just a single media
format from amongst those in the offer.
14.6. New text replacing section 8.2 (2nd paragraph) of RFC 3264
A stream that is offered with a port of zero MUST by default be
marked with port zero in the answer, unless an extension mechanism,
which specifies semantics for the usage of a non-zero port value, is
used. If the stream is marked with port zero in the answer, the
answer MAY omit all attributes present previously, and MAY list just
a single media format from amongst those in the offer."
14.7. Original text of section 8.4 (6th paragraph) of RFC 3264
RFC 2543 [10] specified that placing a user on hold was accomplished
by setting the connection address to 0.0.0.0. Its usage for putting
a call on hold is no longer recommended, since it doesn't allow for
RTCP to be used with held streams, doesn't work with IPv6, and breaks
with connection oriented media. However, it can be useful in an
initial offer when the offerer knows it wants to use a particular set
of media streams and formats, but doesn't know the addresses and
ports at the time of the offer. Of course, when used, the port
number MUST NOT be zero, which would specify that the stream has been
disabled. An agent MUST be capable of receiving SDP with a
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
connection address of 0.0.0.0, in which case it means that neither
RTP nor RTCP should be sent to the peer.
14.8. New text replacing section 8.4 (6th paragraph) of RFC 3264
RFC 2543 [10] specified that placing a user on hold was accomplished
by setting the connection address to 0.0.0.0. Its usage for putting
a call on hold is no longer recommended, since it doesn't allow for
RTCP to be used with held streams, doesn't work with IPv6, and breaks
with connection oriented media. However, it can be useful in an
initial offer when the offerer knows it wants to use a particular set
of media streams and formats, but doesn't know the addresses and
ports at the time of the offer. Of course, when used, the port
number MUST NOT be zero, if it would specify that the stream has been
disabled. However, an extension mechanism might specify different
semantics of the zero port number usage. An agent MUST be capable of
receiving SDP with a connection address of 0.0.0.0, in which case it
means that neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to the peer.
15. RTP/RTCP extensions for identification-tag transport
SDP Offerers and Answerers [RFC3264] can associate identification-
tags with "m=" sections within SDP Offers and Answers, using the
procedures in [RFC5888]. Each identification-tag uniquely represents
an "m=" section.
This section defines a new RTCP SDES item [RFC3550], 'MID', which is
used to carry identification-tags within RTCP SDES packets. This
section also defines a new RTP SDES header extension [RFC7941], which
is used to carry the 'MID' RTCP SDES item in RTP packets.
The SDES item and RTP SDES header extension make it possible for a
receiver to associate each RTP stream with with a specific "m="
section, with which the receiver has associated an identification-
tag, even if those "m=" sections are part of the same RTP session.
The RTP SDES header extension also ensures that the media recipient
gets the identification-tag upon receipt of the first decodable media
and is able to associate the media with the correct application.
A media recipient informs the media sender about the identification-
tag associated with an "m=" section through the use of an 'mid'
attribute [RFC5888]. The media sender then inserts the
identification-tag in RTCP and RTP packets sent to the media
recipient.
NOTE: This text above defines how identification-tags are carried in
SDP Offers and Answers. The usage of other signalling protocols for
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
carrying identification-tags is not prevented, but the usage of such
protocols is outside the scope of this document.
[RFC3550] defines general procedures regarding the RTCP transmission
interval. The RTCP MID SDES item SHOULD be sent in the first few
RTCP packets sent after joining the session, and SHOULD be sent
regularly thereafter. The exact number of RTCP packets in which this
SDES item is sent is intentionally not specified here, as it will
depend on the expected packet loss rate, the RTCP reporting interval,
and the allowable overhead.
The RTP SDES header extension for carrying the 'MID' RTCP SDES SHOULD
be included in some RTP packets at the start of the session and
whenever the SSRC changes. It might also be useful to include the
header extension in RTP packets that comprise access points in the
media (e.g., with video I-frames). The exact number of RTP packets
in which this header extension is sent is intentionally not specified
here, as it will depend on expected packet loss rate and loss
patterns, the overhead the application can tolerate, and the
importance of immediate receipt of the identification-tag.
For robustness purpose, endpoints need to be prepared for situations
where the reception of the identification-tag is delayed, and SHOULD
NOT terminate sessions in such cases, as the identification-tag is
likely to arrive soon.
15.1. RTCP MID SDES Item
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MID=TBD | length | identification-tag ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The identification-tag payload is UTF-8 encoded, as in SDP.
The identification-tag is not zero terminated.
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace TBD with the assigned SDES
identifier value.]
15.2. RTP SDES Header Extension For MID
The payload, containing the identification-tag, of the RTP SDES
header extension element can be encoded using either the one-byte or
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
two-byte header [RFC7941]. The identification-tag payload is UTF-8
encoded, as in SDP.
The identification-tag is not zero terminated. Note, that the set of
header extensions included in the packet needs to be padded to the
next 32-bit boundary using zero bytes [RFC8285].
As the identification-tag is included in either an RTCP SDES item or
an RTP SDES header extension, or both, there should be some
consideration about the packet expansion caused by the
identification-tag. To avoid Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) issues
for the RTP packets, the header extension's size needs to be taken
into account when encoding the media.
It is recommended that the identification-tag is kept short. Due to
the properties of the RTP header extension mechanism, when using the
one-byte header, a tag that is 1-3 bytes will result in a minimal
number of 32-bit words used for the RTP SDES header extension, in
case no other header extensions are included at the same time. Note,
do take into account that some single characters when UTF-8 encoded
will result in multiple octets. The identification-tag MUST NOT
contain any user information, and applications SHALL avoid generating
the identification-tag using a pattern that enables application
identification.
16. IANA Considerations
16.1. New SDES item
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
document.]
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace TBD with the assigned SDES
identifier value.]
This document adds the MID SDES item to the IANA "RTP SDES item
types" registry as follows:
Value: TBD
Abbrev.: MID
Name: Media Identification
Reference: RFCXXXX
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
16.2. New RTP SDES Header Extension URI
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
document.]
This document defines a new extension URI in the RTP SDES Compact
Header Extensions sub-registry of the RTP Compact Header Extensions
registry sub-registry, according to the following data:
Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Description: Media identification
Contact: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Reference: RFCXXXX
The SDES item does not reveal privacy information about the users.
It is simply used to associate RTP-based media with the correct SDP
media description ("m=" section) in the SDP used to negotiate the
media.
The purpose of the extension is for the offerer to be able to
associate received multiplexed RTP-based media before the offerer
receives the associated SDP answer.
16.3. New SDP Attribute
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
document.]
This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'bundle-only',
according to the following data:
Attribute name: bundle-only
Type of attribute: media
Subject to charset: No
Purpose: Request a media description to be accepted
in the answer only if kept within a BUNDLE
group by the answerer.
Appropriate values: N/A
Contact name: Christer Holmberg
Contact e-mail: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Reference: RFCXXXX
Mux category: NORMAL
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
16.4. New SDP Group Semantics
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
document.]
This document registers the following semantics with IANA in the
"Semantics for the "group" SDP Attribute" subregistry (under the
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry:
Semantics Token Reference
------------------------------------- ------ ---------
Media bundling BUNDLE [RFCXXXX]
17. Security Considerations
The security considerations defined in [RFC3264] and [RFC5888] apply
to the BUNDLE extension. Bundle does not change which information,
e.g., RTP streams, flows over the network, with the exception of the
usage of the MID SDES item as discussed below. Primarily it changes
which addresses and ports, and thus in which (RTP) sessions that the
information is flowing in. This affects the security contexts being
used and can cause previously separated information flows to share
the same security context. This has very little impact on the
performance of the security mechanism of the RTP sessions. In cases
where one would have applied different security policies on the
different RTP streams being bundled, or where the parties having
access to the security contexts would have differed between the RTP
stream, additional analysis of the implications are needed before
selecting to apply BUNDLE.
The identification-tag, independent of transport, RTCP SDES packet or
RTP header extension, can expose the value to parties beyond the
signaling chain. Therefore, the identification-tag values MUST be
generated in a fashion that does not leak user information, e.g.,
randomly or using a per-bundle group counter, and SHOULD be 3 bytes
or less, to allow them to efficiently fit into the MID RTP header
extension. Note that if implementations use different methods for
generating identification-tags this could enable fingerprinting of
the implementation making it vulnerable to targeted attacks. The
identification-tag is exposed on the RTP stream level when included
in the RTP header extensions, however what it reveals of the RTP
media stream structure of the endpoint and application was already
possible to deduce from the RTP streams without the MID SDES header
extensions. As the identification-tag is also used to route the
media stream to the right application functionality it is also
important that the value received is the one intended by the sender,
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
thus integrity and the authenticity of the source are important to
prevent denial of service on the application. Existing SRTP
configurations and other security mechanisms protecting the whole
RTP/RTCP packets will provide the necessary protection.
When the BUNDLE extension is used, the set of configurations of the
security mechanism used in all the bundled media descriptions will
need to be compatible so that they can simultaneously used in
parallel, at least per direction or endpoint. When using SRTP this
will be the case, at least for the IETF defined key-management
solutions due to their SDP attributes (a=crypto, a=fingerprint,
a=mikey) and their classification in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes].
The security considerations of "RTP Header Extension for the RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description Items" [RFC7941] requires
that when RTCP is confidentiality protected that any SDES RTP header
extension carrying an SDES item, such as the MID RTP header
extension, is also protected using commensurate strength algorithms.
However, assuming the above requirements and recommendations are
followed there are no known significant security risks with leaving
the MID RTP header extension without confidentiality protection.
Thus, the requirements in RFC 7941 MAY be ignored for the MID RTP
header extension. Security mechanisms for RTP/RTCP are discussed in
Options for Securing RTP Sessions [RFC7201], for example SRTP
[RFC3711] can provide the necessary security functions of ensuring
the integrity and source authenticity.
18. Examples
18.1. Example: Bundle Address Selection
The example below shows:
o An offer, in which the offerer assigns a unique address to each
bundled "m=" section within the BUNDLE group.
o An answer, in which the answerer selects the offerer BUNDLE
address, and then selects its own BUNDLE address (the answerer
BUNDLE address) and assigns it to the bundled "m=" section
represented by the answerer BUNDLE-tag.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
SDP Offer (1)
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
SDP Answer (2)
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
18.2. Example: BUNDLE Extension Rejected
The example below shows:
o An offer, in which the offerer assigns a unique address to each
bundled "m=" section within the BUNDLE group.
o An answer, in which the answerer rejects the offered BUNDLE group,
and assigns a unique address to each "m=" section (following
normal RFC 3264 procedures).
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
SDP Offer (1)
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
SDP Answer (2)
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
18.3. Example: Offerer Adds A Media Description To A BUNDLE Group
The example below shows:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o A subsequent offer (the BUNDLE group has been created as part of a
previous offer/answer exchange), in which the offerer adds a new
"m=" section, represented by the "zen" identification-tag, to a
previously negotiated BUNDLE group, assigns the previously
selected offerer BUNDLE address to the added "m=" section,
represented by the offerer BUNDLE-tag. To every other bundled
"m=" section the offerer assigns a zero port value and includes an
SDP 'bundle-only' attribute.
o An answer, in which the answerer assigns the answerer BUNDLE
address to the bundled "m=" section represented by the answerer
BUNDLE-tag. To every other bundled "m=S section the answerer
assigns a zero port value and includes an SDP 'bundle-only'
attribute.
SDP Offer (1)
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE zen foo bar
m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=bundle-only
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 10000 RTP/AVP 66
b=AS:1000
a=mid:zen
a=bundle-only
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
SDP Answer (2)
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE zen foo bar
m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=bundle-only
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 20000 RTP/AVP 66
b=AS:1000
a=mid:zen
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
18.4. Example: Offerer Moves A Media Description Out Of A BUNDLE Group
The example below shows:
o A subsequent offer (the BUNDLE group has been created as part of a
previous offer/answer transaction), in which the offerer moves a
bundled "m=" section, represented by the "zen" identification-tag,
out of a BUNDLE group, assigns a unique address to the moved "m="
section, and assigns the previously selected offerer BUNDLE
address to another bundled "m=" section, represented by the
offerer BUNDLE-tag. To every other bundled "m=" section the
offerer assigns a zero port value and includes an SDP 'bundle-
only' attribute.
o An answer, in which the answerer moves the "m=" section out of the
BUNDLE group, assigns a unique address to the moved "m=" section,
and assigns the answerer BUNDLE address to the bundled "m="
section represented by the answerer BUNDLE-tag. To every other
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
bundled "m=" section the answerer assigns a zero port value and
includes an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute.
SDP Offer (1)
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 50000 RTP/AVP 66
b=AS:1000
a=mid:zen
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
SDP Answer (2)
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 60000 RTP/AVP 66
b=AS:1000
a=mid:zen
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
18.5. Example: Offerer Disables A Media Description Within A BUNDLE
Group
The example below shows:
o A subsequent offer (the BUNDLE group has been created as part of a
previous offer/answer transaction), in which the offerer disables
a bundled "m=" section represented by the "zen" identification-
tag, within a BUNDLE group, assigns a zero port number to the
disabled "m=" section, and assigns the offerer BUNDLE address to
another bundled "m=" section, represented by the offerer BUNDLE-
tag. To every other bundled "m=" section the offerer assigns a
zero port value and includes an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute.
o An answer, in which the answerer moves the disabled "m=" sections
out of the BUNDLE group, assigns a zero port value to the disabled
"m=" section, and assigns the answerer BUNDLE address to the
bundled "m=" section represented by the answerer BUNDLE-tag. To
every other bundled "m=" section the answerer assigns a zero port
value and includes an SDP 'bundle-only' attribute.
SDP Offer (1)
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8 97
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 66
a=mid:zen
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
SDP Answer (2)
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE foo bar
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
b=AS:200
a=mid:foo
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 32
b=AS:1000
a=mid:bar
a=bundle-only
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
a=extmap 1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
m=video 0 RTP/AVP 66
a=mid:zen
a=rtpmap:66 H261/90000
19. Acknowledgements
The usage of the SDP grouping extension for negotiating bundled media
is based on a similar alternatives proposed by Harald Alvestrand and
Cullen Jennings. The BUNDLE extension described in this document is
based on the different alternative proposals, and text (e.g., SDP
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
examples) have been borrowed (and, in some cases, modified) from
those alternative proposals.
The SDP examples are also modified versions from the ones in the
Alvestrand proposal.
Thanks to Paul Kyzivat, Martin Thomson, Flemming Andreasen, Thomas
Stach, Ari Keranen, Adam Roach, Christian Groves, Roman Shpount,
Suhas Nandakumar, Nils Ohlmeier, Jens Guballa, Raju Makaraju, Justin
Uberti, Taylor Brandstetter, Byron Campen and Eric Rescorla for
reading the text, and providing useful feedback.
Thanks to Bernard Aboba, Cullen Jennings, Peter Thatcher, Justin
Uberti, and Magnus Westerlund for providing the text for the section
on RTP/RTCP stream association.
Thanks to Magnus Westerlund, Colin Perkins and Jonathan Lennox for
providing help and text on the RTP/RTCP procedures.
Thanks to Spotify for providing music for the countless hours of
document editing.
20. Change Log
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please remove this section when publishing]
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-42
o Changes based on final WG review.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-41
o Update to section 6 o RFC 3264:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/47
o Editorial clarification on BUNDLE address selection:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/46
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-40
o Editorial changes and technical restrictions in order to make the
specification more understandable:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/45
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o - BUNDLE address is only assigned to m- section represented by
BUNDLE-tag.
o - bundle-only attribute also used in answers and subsequent
offers.
o - Answerer cannot reject, or remove, the bundled m- section that
contains the BUNDLE address.
o - ICE Offer/Answer sections removed, due to duplicated
information.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-39
o Editorial terminology changes.
o RFC 5285 reference replaced by reference to RFC 8285.
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/44
o - Clarify that an m- section can not be moved between BUNDLE
groups without first moving the m- section out of a BUNDLE group.
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/41
o - Addition of BUNDLE transport concept.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-38
o Changes to RTP streaming mapping section based on text from Colin
Perkins.
o The following GitHub pull requests were merged:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/34
o - Proposed updates to RTP processing
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/35
o - fixed reference to receiver-id section
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-37
o The following GitHub pull request was merged:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/33
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-36
o The following GitHub pull requests were merged:
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/32
o - extmap handling in BUNDLE.
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/31
o - Additional Acknowledgement text added.
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/30
o - MID SDES item security procedures updated
o https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/29
o - Appendix B of JSEP moved into BUNDLE.
o - Associating RTP/RTCP packets with SDP m- lines.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-35
o Editorial changes on RTP streaming mapping section based on
comments from Colin Perkins.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-34
o RTP streams, instead of RTP packets, are associated with m- lines.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-33
o Editorial changes based on comments from Eric Rescorla and Cullen
Jennings:
o - Changes regarding usage of RTP/RTCP multiplexing attributes.
o - Additional text regarding associating RTP/RTCP packets with SDP
m- lines.
o - Reference correction.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-32
o Editorial changes based on comments from Eric Rescorla and Cullen
Jennings:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o - Justification for mechanism added to Introduction.
o - Clarify that the order of m- lines in the group:BUNDLE attribute
does not have to be the same as the order in which the m- lines
are listed in the SDP.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-31
o Editorial changes based on GitHub Pull requests by Martin Thomson:
o - https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/2
o - https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sdp-bundle/pull/1
o Editorial change based on comment from Diederick Huijbers (9th
July 2016).
o Changes based on comments from Flemming Andreasen (21st June
2016):
o - Mux category for SDP bundle-only attribute added.
o - Mux category considerations editorial clarification.
o - Editorial changes.
o RTP SDES extension according to draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext.
o Note whether Design Considerations appendix is to be kept removed:
o - Appendix is kept within document.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-30
o Indicating in the Abstract and Introduction that the document
updates RFC 3264.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-29
o Change based on WGLC comment from Colin Perkins.
o - Clarify that SSRC can be reused by another source after a delay
of 5 RTCP reporting intervals.
o Change based on WGLC comment from Alissa Cooper.
o - IANA registry name fix.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o - Additional IANA registration information added.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-28
o - Alignment with exclusive mux procedures.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-27
o - Yet another terminology change.
o - Mux category considerations added.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-26
o - ICE considerations modified: ICE-related SDP attributes only
added to the bundled m- line representing the selected BUNDLE
address.
o - Reference to draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp added.
o - Reference to RFC 5245 replaced with reference to draft-ietf-ice-
rfc5245bis.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-25
o - RTP/RTCP mux procedures updated with exclusive RTP/RTCP mux
considerations.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-24
o - Reference and procedures associated with exclusive RTP/RTCP mux
added
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-23
o - RTCP-MUX mandatory for bundled RTP m- lines
o - Editorial fixes based on comments from Flemming Andreasen
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-22
o - Correction of Ari's family name
o - Editorial fixes based on comments from Thomas Stach
o - RTP/RTCP correction based on comment from Magnus Westerlund
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg14861.html
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-21
o - Correct based on comment from Paul Kyzivat
o -- 'received packets' replaced with 'received data'
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-20
o - Clarification based on comment from James Guballa
o - Clarification based on comment from Flemming Andreasen
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-19
o - DTLS Considerations section added.
o - BUNDLE semantics added to the IANA Considerations
o - Changes based on WGLC comments from Adam Roach
o -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg14673.html
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-18
o - Changes based on agreements at IETF#92
o -- BAS Offer removed, based on agreement at IETF#92.
o -- Procedures regarding usage of SDP "b=" line is replaced with a
reference to to draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-17
o - Editorial changes based on comments from Magnus Westerlund.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-16
o - Modification of RTP/RTCP multiplexing section, based on comments
from Magnus Westerlund.
o - Reference updates.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-15
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o - Editorial fix.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-14
o - Editorial changes.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-13
o Changes to allow a new suggested offerer BUNDLE address to be
assigned to each bundled m- line.
o Changes based on WGLC comments from Paul Kyzivat
o - Editorial fixes
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-12
o Usage of SDP 'extmap' attribute added
o SDP 'bundle-only' attribute scoped with "m=" lines with a zero
port value
o Changes based on WGLC comments from Thomas Stach
o - ICE candidates not assigned to bundle-only m- lines with a zero
port value
o - Editorial changes
o Changes based on WGLC comments from Colin Perkins
o - Editorial changes:
o -- "RTP SDES item" -> "RTCP SDES item"
o -- "RTP MID SDES item" -> "RTCP MID SDES item"
o - Changes in section 10.1.1:
o -- "SHOULD NOT" -> "MUST NOT"
o -- Additional text added to the Note
o - Change to section 13.2:
o -- Clarify that mid value is not zero terminated
o - Change to section 13.3:
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o -- Clarify that mid value is not zero terminated
o -- Clarify padding
o Changes based on WGLC comments from Paul Kyzivat
o - Editorial changes:
o Changes based on WGLC comments from Jonathan Lennox
o - Editorial changes:
o - Defintion of SDP bundle-only attribute alligned with structure
in 4566bis draft
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-11
o Editorial corrections based on comments from Harald Alvestrand.
o Editorial corrections based on comments from Cullen Jennings.
o Reference update (RFC 7160).
o Clarification about RTCP packet sending when RTP/RTCP multiplexing
is not used (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg13765.html).
o Additional text added to the Security Considerations.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-10
o SDP bundle-only attribute added to IANA Considerations.
o SDES item and RTP header extension added to Abstract and
Introduction.
o Modification to text updating section 8.2 of RFC 3264.
o Reference corrections.
o Editorial corrections.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-09
o Terminology change: "bundle-only attribute assigned to m= line" to
"bundle-only attribute associated with m= line".
o Editorial corrections.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-08
o Editorial corrections.
o - "of"->"if" (8.3.2.5).
o - "optional"->"OPTIONAL" (9.1).
o - Syntax/ABNF for 'bundle-only' attribute added.
o - SDP Offer/Answer sections merged.
o - 'Request new offerer BUNDLE address' section added
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-07
o OPEN ISSUE regarding Receiver-ID closed.
o - RTP MID SDES Item.
o - RTP MID Header Extension.
o OPEN ISSUE regarding insertion of SDP 'rtcp' attribute in answers
closed.
o - Indicating that, when rtcp-mux is used, the answerer MUST NOT
include an 'rtcp' attribute in the answer, based on the procedures
in section 5.1.3 of RFC 5761.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-06
o Draft title changed.
o Added "SDP" to section names containing "Offer" or "Answer".
o Editorial fixes based on comments from Paul Kyzivat
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg13314.html).
o Editorial fixed based on comments from Colin Perkins
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg13318.html).
o - Removed text about extending BUNDLE to allow multiple RTP
sessions within a BUNDLE group.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o Major re-structure of SDP Offer/Answer sections, to align with RFC
3264 structure.
o Additional definitions added.
o - Shared address.
o - Bundled "m=" line.
o - Bundle-only "m=" line.
o - Offerer suggested BUNDLE mid.
o - Answerer selected BUNDLE mid.
o Q6 Closed (IETF#88): An Offerer MUST NOT assign a shared address
to multiple "m=" lines until it has received an SDP Answer
indicating support of the BUNDLE extension.
o Q8 Closed (IETF#88): An Offerer can, before it knows whether the
Answerer supports the BUNDLE extension, assign a zero port value
to a 'bundle-only' "m=" line.
o SDP 'bundle-only' attribute section added.
o Connection data nettype/addrtype restrictions added.
o RFC 3264 update section added.
o Indicating that a specific payload type value can be used in
multiple "m=" lines, if the value represents the same codec
configuration in each "m=" line.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-04
o Updated Offerer procedures (http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/mmusic/current/msg12293.html).
o Updated Answerer procedures (http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/mmusic/current/msg12333.html).
o Usage of SDP 'bundle-only' attribute added.
o Reference to Trickle ICE document added.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-02
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o Mechanism modified, to be based on usage of SDP Offers with both
different and identical port number values, depending on whether
it is known if the remote endpoint supports the extension.
o Cullen Jennings added as co-author.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-01
o No changes. New version due to expiration.
Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-00
o No changes. New version due to expiration.
Changes from draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-multiplex-negotiation-00
o Draft name changed.
o Harald Alvestrand added as co-author.
o "Multiplex" terminology changed to "bundle".
o Added text about single versus multiple RTP Sessions.
o Added reference to RFC 3550.
21. References
21.1. Normative References
[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>.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
[RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3605>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
BCP 131, RFC 4961, DOI 10.17487/RFC4961, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4961>.
[RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5761>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC5888] Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5888, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5888>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7941] Westerlund, M., Burman, B., Even, R., and M. Zanaty, "RTP
Header Extension for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Source Description Items", RFC 7941, DOI 10.17487/RFC7941,
August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7941>.
[RFC8285] Singer, D., Desineni, H., and R. Even, Ed., "A General
Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions", RFC 8285,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8285, October 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8285>.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", draft-ietf-ice-
rfc5245bis-15 (work in progress), November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-16
(work in progress), December 2016.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive]
Holmberg, C., "Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP/RTCP
Multiplexing using SDP", draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-
exclusive-12 (work in progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp]
Petit-Huguenin, M., Keranen, A., and S. Nandakumar,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE)", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-16 (work in
progress), November 2017.
21.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[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>.
[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>.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.
[RFC7160] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Zorn, Ed., "Support for Multiple
Clock Rates in an RTP Session", RFC 7160,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7160, April 2014, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7160>.
[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>.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle]
Ivov, E., Rescorla, E., Uberti, J., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for
the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Protocol", draft-ietf-ice-trickle-15 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-avtext-lrr]
Lennox, J., Hong, D., Uberti, J., Holmer, S., and M.
Flodman, "The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback
Message", draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07 (work in progress),
July 2017.
Appendix A. Design Considerations
One of the main issues regarding the BUNDLE grouping extensions has
been whether, in SDP Offers and SDP Answers, the same port value
should be inserted in "m=" lines associated with a BUNDLE group, as
the purpose of the extension is to negotiate the usage of a single
transport for media specified by the "m=" sections. Issues with both
approaches, discussed in the Appendix have been raised. The outcome
was to specify a mechanism which uses SDP Offers with both different
and identical port values.
Below are the primary issues that have been considered when defining
the "BUNDLE" grouping extension:
o 1) Interoperability with existing UAs.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
o 2) Interoperability with intermediary B2BUA- and proxy entities.
o 3) Time to gather, and the number of, ICE candidates.
o 4) Different error scenarios, and when they occur.
o 5) SDP Offer/Answer impacts, including usage of port number value
zero.
A.1. UA Interoperability
Consider the following SDP Offer/Answer exchange, where Alice sends
an SDP Offer to Bob:
SDP Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
m=video 10002 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 H261/90000
SDP Answer
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
m=video 20002 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 H261/90000
RFC 4961 specifies a way of doing symmetric RTP but that is an a
later invention to RTP and Bob can not assume that Alice supports RFC
4961. This means that Alice may be sending RTP from a different port
than 10000 or 10002 - some implementation simply send the RTP from an
ephemeral port. When Bob's endpoint receives an RTP packet, the only
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
way that Bob knows if it should be passed to the video or audio codec
is by looking at the port it was received on. This lead some SDP
implementations to use the fact that each "m=" section had a
different port number to use that port number as an index to find the
correct m line in the SDP. As a result, some implementations that do
support symmetric RTP and ICE still use a SDP data structure where
SDP with "m=" sections with the same port such as:
SDP Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
m=video 10000 RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 H261/90000
will result in the second "m=" section being considered an SDP error
because it has the same port as the first line.
A.2. Usage of port number value zero
In an SDP Offer or SDP Answer, the media specified by an "m=" section
can be disabled/rejected by setting the port number value to zero.
This is different from e.g., using the SDP direction attributes,
where RTCP traffic will continue even if the SDP "inactive" attribute
is indicated for the associated "m=" section.
If each "m=" section associated with a BUNDLE group would contain
different port values, and one of those port values would be used for
a BUNDLE address associated with the BUNDLE group, problems would
occur if an endpoint wants to disable/reject the "m=" sectcion
associated with that port, by setting the port value to zero. After
that, no "m=" section would contain the port value which is used for
the BUNDLE address. In addition, it is unclear what would happen to
the ICE candidates associated with the "m=" section, as they are also
used for the BUNDLE address.
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
A.3. B2BUA And Proxy Interoperability
Some back to back user agents may be configured in a mode where if
the incoming call leg contains an SDP attribute the B2BUA does not
understand, the B2BUA still generates that SDP attribute in the Offer
for the outgoing call leg. Consider a B2BUA that did not understand
the SDP "rtcp" attribute, defined in RFC 3605, yet acted this way.
Further assume that the B2BUA was configured to tear down any call
where it did not see any RTCP for 5 minutes. In this case, if the
B2BUA received an Offer like:
SDP Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtcp:53020
It would be looking for RTCP on port 49172 but would not see any
because the RTCP would be on port 53020 and after five minutes, it
would tear down the call. Similarly, a B2BUA that did not understand
BUNDLE yet put BUNDLE in it's offer may be looking for media on the
wrong port and tear down the call. It is worth noting that a B2BUA
that generated an Offer with capabilities it does not understand is
not compliant with the specifications.
A.3.1. Traffic Policing
Sometimes intermediaries do not act as B2BUA, in the sense that they
don't modify SDP bodies, nor do they terminate SIP dialogs. Still,
however, they may use SDP information (e.g., IP address and port) in
order to control traffic gating functions, and to set traffic
policing rules. There might be rules which will trigger a session to
be terminated in case media is not sent or received on the ports
retrieved from the SDP. This typically occurs once the session is
already established and ongoing.
A.3.2. Bandwidth Allocation
Sometimes intermediaries do not act as B2BUA, in the sense that they
don't modify SDP bodies, nor do they terminate SIP dialogs. Still,
however, they may use SDP information (e.g., codecs and media types)
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
in order to control bandwidth allocation functions. The bandwidth
allocation is done per "m=" section, which means that it might not be
enough if media specified by all "m=" sections try to use that
bandwidth. That may either simply lead to bad user experience, or to
termination of the call.
A.4. Candidate Gathering
When using ICE, a candidate needs to be gathered for each port. This
takes approximately 20 ms extra for each extra "m=" section due to
the NAT pacing requirements. All of this gather can be overlapped
with other things while for exampe a web-page is loading to minimize
the impact. If the client only wants to generate TURN or STUN ICE
candidates for one of the "m=" lines and then use trickle ICE
[I-D.ietf-ice-trickle] to get the non host ICE candidates for the
rest of the "m=" sections, it MAY do that and will not need any
additional gathering time.
Some people have suggested a TURN extension to get a bunch of TURN
allocations at once. This would only provide a single STUN result so
in cases where the other end did not support BUNDLE, may cause more
use of the TURN server but would be quick in the cases where both
sides supported BUNDLE and would fall back to a successful call in
the other cases.
Authors' Addresses
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Google
Kungsbron 2
Stockholm 11122
Sweden
Email: harald@alvestrand.no
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Bundled media December 2017
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 350
Calgary, AB T2P 4H2
Canada
Email: fluffy@iii.ca
Holmberg, et al. Expires June 11, 2018 [Page 66]
