Network WG James Polk
Internet-Draft Subha Dhesikan
Expires: January 16, 2013 Paul Jones
Intended Status: Standards Track (PS) Cisco Systems
July 16, 2012
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) 'trafficclass' Attribute
draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-02
Abstract
This document proposes a new Session Description Protocol (SDP)
attribute to identify the traffic class a session is requesting
in its offer/answer exchange.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Traffic Class Framework and String Definitions . . . . . . . 5
3. Traffic Class Attribute Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Offer/Answer Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1 Offer Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Answer Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1. Introduction
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] provides a means
for an offerer to describe the specifics of a session to an
answerer, and for the answerer to respond back with its session
specifics to the offerer. These session specifics include offering
the codec or codecs to choose from, the specific IP address and port
number the offerer wants to receive the RTP stream(s) on/at, the
particulars about the codecs the offerer wants considered or
mandated, and so on.
There are many facets within SDP to determine the Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] details for the session
establishment between one or more endpoints, but identifying how the
underlying network should process each stream still remains
under-specified.
The ability to identify a traffic flow by port number gives an
indication to underlying network elements to treat traffic with
dissimilar ports in a different way, the same or in groups the same
- but different from other ports or groups of ports.
Within the context of realtime communications, the labeling of an
RTP session based on media descriptor lines as just a voice and/or
video session is insufficient, and provides no guidelines to the
underlying network on how to treat the traffic. A more granular
labeling helps on several fronts to
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
- inform application layer elements in the signaling path the
intent of this session.
- inform the network on how to treat the traffic if the network is
configured to differentiate session treatments based on the type
of session the RTP is, including the ability to provide call
admission control based on the type of traffic in the network.
- allow network monitoring/management of traffic types realtime and
after-the-fact analysis.
Some network operators want the ability to guarantee certain traffic
gets a minimum amount of network bandwidth per link or through a
series of links that make up a network such as a campus or WAN, or a
backbone. For example, a call center voice application might get at
least 20% of the available link bandwidth.
Some network operators want the ability to allow certain users or
devices access to greater bandwidth during non-busy hours, than
during busy hours of the day. For example, all desktop video might
operate at 1080p during non-peak times, but a similar session might
be curtailed between the same users or devices to 720p or 360p
during peak hours. Another example would be to reduce the frames
per second (fps) rate, say from 30fps to 15fps. This case is not as
clear as accepting or denying similar sessions during different
times of the day, but tuning the access to the bandwidth based on
the type of session. In other words, tune down the bandwidth for
desktop video during peak hours to allow a 3-screen Telepresence
session that would otherwise look like the same type of traffic
(RTP, and more granular, video).
RFC 4594 established a guideline for classifying the various flows
in the network and the Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCP)
that apply to many traffic types (table 3 of [RFC4594]), including
RTP based voice and video traffic sessions. The RFC also defines the
per hop network behavior that is strongly encouraged for each of
these application traffic types based on the traffic characteristics
and tolerances to delay, loss and jitter within each traffic class.
Video was broken down into 4 categories in that RFC, and voice into
another single category. We do not believe this satisfies the
technical and business requirements to accomplish sufficiently
unique labeling of RTP traffic.
If the application becomes aware of traffic labeling,
- this can be coded into layer 3 mechanisms.
- this can be coded into layer 4 protocols and/or mechanisms.
- this can be coded into a combination of mechanisms and protocols.
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
The layer 3 mechanism for differentiating traffic is either the port
number or the Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP) value
[RFC2474]. Within the public Internet, if the application is not
part of a managed service, the DSCP likely will be best effort (BE),
or reset to BE when ingressing a provider's network. Within the
corporate LAN, this is usually completely configurable and a local
IT department can take full advantage of this labeling to shape and
manage their network as they see fit.
Within a network core, DiffServ typically does not apply. That said,
DiffServ can be used to identify which traffic goes into which MPLS
tunnel [RFC4124].
Labeling realtime traffic types using a layer 4 protocol would
likely involve RSVP [RFC2205] or NSIS [RFC4080]. RSVP has an
Application Identifier (app-ID) defined in [RFC2872] that provides a
means for carrying a traffic class label along the media path. An
advantage of this mechanism is that the label can inform each domain
along the media path what type of traffic this traffic flow is, and
allow each domain to adjust the appropriate DSCP value (set by each
domain for use within that domain). Meaning, if a DSCP value is set
by an endpoint or a router in the first domain and gets reset by a
service provider, the far-end domain will be able to reset the DSCP
value to the intended traffic class. There is a proposed extension
to RSVP which creates individual profiles for what goes into each
app-ID field to describe these traffic classes [ID-RSVP-PROF], which
will take advantage of what is described in this document.
There are several proprietary mechanisms that can take advantage of
this labeling, but none of those will be discussed here.
The idea of traffic - or service - identification is not new; it has
been described in [RFC5897]. If that RFC is used as a guideline,
identification that leads to stream differentiation can be quite
useful. One of the points within RFC 5897 is that users cannot be
allowed to assign any identification (fraud is one reason given). In
addition, RFC 5897 recommends that service identification should be
done in signaling, rather than guessing or deep packet inspection.
Any network currently would have to currently guess or perform deep
packet inspection to classify traffic and offer the service as per
RFC 4594 since such service identification information is currently
not available in SDP and therefore to the network elements. Since
SDP understands how each stream is created (i.e., the particulars of
the RTP stream), this is the right place to have this service
differentiated. Such service differentiation can then be
communicated to and leveraged by the network.
[Editor's Note: the words "traffic" and "service" are similar enough
that the above paragraph talks about RFC 5897's
"service identification", but this document only
discuss and propose traffic indications in SDP.]
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
This document proposes a simple attribute line to identify the
application a session is requesting in its offer/answer exchange.
This document uses previously defined service class strings for
consistency between IETF documents.
This document modifies the traffic classes originally created in RFC
4594 in Section 2, incrementing each class with application
identifiers and optional adjective strings. Section 3 defines the
new SDP attribute "trafficclass". Section 4 discusses the offerer
and answerer behavior when generating or receiving this attribute.
2. Traffic Class Framework and String Definitions
The framework of the traffic class attribute will have at least two
parts, allowing for several more to be included. The intention is to
have a category class (e.g., Conversational) that merely serves as
the anchor point for an application component that when paired
together, form the highest level traffic class. An adjective
component provides further granularity for the application. There
can be more than one adjective within a traffic class label to
further refine the uniqueness of a traffic class being described.
The traffic class label will have the following structure,
category.application(.adjective)(.adjective)
[Editor's Note: the above is not exactly the ABNF to be used.
The order is right. The category and application
MUST appear first (each only once) and zero or more
adjectives can appear following the application
component.]
Where
1) the 1st component is the human understandable category;
2) the 2nd component is the application;
3) an optional 3rd component or series of components are
adjective(s) used to further refine the application component;
The construction of the traffic class label for Telepresence video
would follow the minimum form of:
Conversational.video.immersive
where there might be one or more adjective after '.immersive'.
There is no traffic class or DSCP value associated with just
"Conversational". There is a traffic class associated with
"Conversational.video", creating a differentiation between it and a
"Conversational.video.immersive" traffic class, which would have
DSCP associated with the latter traffic class, depending on local
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
policy. Each category component is defined below, as are several of
application and adjective strings.
[Editor's Note: We're not yet sure how much of what's below will be
proposed for IANA registration, but the 5 category
components will be, as well as at least some
application components per category component. Some
adjective components will also likely be proposed
for IANA registration.
The 5 category components of the traffic class attribute are as
follows:
o Conversational
o Multimedia-Conferencing
o Realtime-Interactive
o Multimedia-Streaming
o Broadcast
The following application components of the traffic class attribute
are as follows:
o Audio
o Video
o Text
o application-sharing
o Presentation-data
o Whiteboarding
o Webchat/IM
o Gaming
o Virtual-desktop (interactive)
o Remote-desktop
o Telemetry (e.g., NORAD missile control)
o Multiplex (i.e., combined streams)
o Webcast
o IPTV
o Live-events (one-way, in realtime)
o surveillance
The following adjective components of the traffic class attribute
are as follows:
o Immersive
o avconf
o Realtime-Text
o web
Each of the above 3 lists will be defined in the following
subsections.
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
2.1 Conversational Category Traffic Class
The Conversational traffic class is best suited for applications
that require very low delay variation and generally intended to
enable realtime, bi-directional person-to-person or
multi-directional via an MCU communication. The following
application components are appropriate for use with the
Conversational category:
o Audio (voice)**
o Video**
o Text (i.e., real-time text required by deaf users)
**The above applications will also be used within Multimedia
Streaming and Broadcast
With adjective substrings to the above
Immersive (TP) - An interactive audio-visual communications
experience between remote locations, where the users enjoy a
strong sense of realism and presence between all participants
by optimizing a variety of attributes such as audio and video
quality, eye contact, body language, spatial audio,
coordinated environments and natural image size.
Avconf - An interactive audio-visual communication experience
that is not immersive in nature, though can have a high
resolution video component.
Realtime-Text (RTT) - a term for real-time transmission of text in
a character-by-character fashion for use in conversational
services, often as a text equivalent to voice-based
conversational services. Conversational text is defined in the
ITU-T Framework for multimedia services, Recommendation F.700
[RFC5194].
Web - for realtime aspects of web conferencing; mutually exclusive
of both Immersive and Desktop video experiences
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Traffic Class | | Tolerance to |
| Name | Traffic Characteristics | Loss |Delay |Jitter|
|===============+===============================+======+======+======|
| | High priority, typically | Very | Very | Very |
|Conversational | small packets (large video | Low | Low | Low |
| | frames produce large packets),| | | |
| | generally sustained high | | | |
| | packet rate, low inter-packet | | | |
| | transmission interval, | | | |
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
| | usually UDP framed in (S)RTP | | | |
+---------------+-------------------------------+------+------+------+
Figure 1. Conversational Traffic Characteristics
2.2 Multimedia-Conferencing Category Traffic Class
Multimedia-Conferencing traffic class is best suited for
applications that are generally intended for communication between
human users, but are less demanding in terms of delay, packet loss,
and jitter than what Conversational applications require. These
applications require low to medium delay and may have the ability to
change encoding rate (rate adaptive) or transmit data at varying
rates. The following application components are appropriate for use
with the Multimedia-Conferencing category:
o application-sharing (that webex does or protocols like T.128) -
An application that shares the output of one or more running
applications or the desktop on a host. This can utilize
vector graphics, raster graphics or video.
o Presentation-data - can be a series of still images or motion
video.
o Whiteboarding - an application enabling the exchange of graphical
information including images, pointers and filled and
unfilled parametric drawing elements (points, lines,
polygons and ellipses).
o (RTP-based) file transfer
o Web (conference) chat/instant messaging
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Traffic Class | | Tolerance to |
| Name | Traffic Characteristics | Loss |Delay |Jitter|
|===============+===============================+======+======+======|
| Multimedia | Variable size packets, | Low | Low | Low |
| Conferencing | Variable transmit interval, | - | - | - |
| | rate adaptive, reacts to |Medium|Medium|Medium|
| | loss, usually TCP-based | | | |
+---------------+-------------------------------+------+------+------+
Figure 2. Multimedia Conferencing Traffic Characteristics
2.3 Realtime-Interactive Category Traffic Class
Realtime-Interactive traffic class is intended for interactive
variable rate inelastic applications that require low jitter and
loss and very low delay. The following application components are
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
appropriate for use with the Realtime-Interactive category:
o Gaming - interactive player video games with other users on other
hosts (e.g., Doom)
o Virtualized desktop (interactive) - similar to an X-windows
station, has no local hard drive, or is operating an
application with no local storage
o Remote Desktop - controlling a remote node with local peripherals
(i.e., monitor, keyboard and mouse)
o Telemetry - a communication that allows remote measurement and
reporting of information (e.g., post launch missile status or
energy monitoring)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Traffic Class | | Tolerance to |
| Name | Traffic Characteristics | Loss |Delay |Jitter|
|===============+===============================+======+======+======|
| Realtime | Inelastic, mostly variable | Low | Very | Low |
| Interactive | rate, rate increases with | | Low | |
| | user activity | | | |
+---------------+-------------------------------+------+------+------+
Figure 3. Realtime Interactive Traffic Characteristics
2.4 Multimedia-Streaming Category Traffic Class
Multimedia-Streaming traffic class is best suited for variable rate
elastic streaming media applications where a human is waiting for
output and where the application has the capability to react to
packet loss by reducing its transmission rate. The following
application components are appropriate for use with the
Multimedia-Streaming category:
o Audio (see Section 2.1)
o Video (see Section 2.1)
o Multiplex (i.e., combined a/v streams)
With adjective substrings to the above (which may or may not get
IANA registered)
Webcast
The primary difference from the Multimedia-streaming category class
and the Broadcast category class is about the length of time for
buffering. Buffered streaming audio and/or video which are initiated
by SDP, and not HTTP. Buffering here can be from many seconds to
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
hours, and is typically at the destination end (as opposed to
Broadcast buffering which is minimal at the destination). The
buffering aspect is what differentiates this category class from the
Broadcast class (which has minimal or no buffering).
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Traffic Class | | Tolerance to |
| Name | Traffic Characteristics | Loss |Delay |Jitter|
|===============+===============================+======+======+======|
| Multimedia | Variable size packets, |Low - |Medium| High |
| Streaming | elastic with variable rate |Medium|- High| |
| | | | | |
+---------------+-------------------------------+------+------+------+
Figure 4. Multimedia Streaming Traffic Characteristics
2.5 Broadcast Category Traffic Class
Broadcast traffic class is best suited for inelastic streaming media
Applications, which might have a 'wardrobe malfunction' delay at or
near the source but not typically at the destination, that may be of
constant or variable rate, requiring low jitter and very low packet
loss. The following application components are appropriate for use
with the Broadcast category:
o Audio (see Section 2.1)
o Video (see Section 2.1)
o Multiplex (i.e., combined a/v streams)
With adjective substrings to the above:
o IPTV
o Live events (non-buffered)
o surveillance - one way audio from a microphone or video from a
camera (e.g., observing a parking lot or building exit),
typically enabled for long periods of time, usually stored
at the destination.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Traffic Class | | Tolerance to |
| Name | Traffic Characteristics | Loss |Delay |Jitter|
|===============+===============================+======+======+======|
| Broadcast | Constant and variable rate, | Very |Low - |Low - |
| | inelastic, generally | Low |Medium|Medium|
| | non-bursty flows, generally | | | |
| | sustained high packet rate, | | | |
| | low inter-packet transmission | | | |
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
| | interval, usually UDP framed | | | |
| | in (S)RTP | | | |
+---------------+-------------------------------+------+------+------+
Figure 5. Broadcast Traffic Characteristics
3. SDP Attribute Definition
This document proposes the 'trafficclass' session and media-level
SDP [RFC4566] attribute. The following is the Augmented
Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] syntax for this attribute, which
is based on the SDP [RFC4566] grammar:
attribute =/ traffic-class-label
traffic-class-label = "trafficclass" ":" [SP] category
"." application *( "." adjective )
category = "Broadcast" /
"Realtime-Interactive" /
"Multimedia-Conferencing" /
"Multimedia-Streaming" /
"Conversational" / tcl-token
application = tcl-token
adjective = classified-adjective /
unclassified-adjective
classified-adjective = tcl-token ":" tcl-token
unclassified-adjective = tcl-token
tcl-token = %2D / %30-%39 / %41-%5A / %61-7A
The attribute is named "trafficclass", for traffic classification,
identifying which one of the five categories applies to the
media stream associated with this m-line. There MUST NOT be more
than one category component per media line.
The category in this document are an augmented version of the
application labels introduced by table 3 of RFC 4595 (which will be
rewritten based on the updated labels and treatments expected for
each traffic class defined in this document).
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Application Labels | Category Classes Defined |
| Defined in RFC 4594 | in this document |
+=========================+==============================+
| Broadcast-video | Broadcast |
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Realtime-Interactive | Realtime-Interactive |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Multimedia-Conferencing | Multimedia-Conferencing |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Multimedia-Streaming | Multimedia-Streaming |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Telephony | Conversational |
+-------------------------+------------------------------+
Figure 6. Label Change Differences from RFC 4594
As is evident from the changes above, from left to right, two labels
are different and each of the meanings are different in this
document relative to how RFC 4594 defined them. These differences
are articulated in Section 2 of this document.
A category is a human understandable categorization, and MUST NOT be
the only component of the traffic class label present in the
attribute. The category string MUST always be paired with an
application component, with a "." as the component separator.
The application types define the application of a particular traffic
flow, for example, audio or video. The application types are listed
and defined in Section 2 of this document. Not every category is
paired with application each listed, at least as defined in this
document. Section 2.1 through 2.5 list many of the expected
combinations.
For additional application type granularity, adjective components
can be added (also listed in Section 2). One or more adjectives can
be within the same traffic class attribute. It is also permitted to
include one or more non-IANA registered adjective component, but
these MUST be prefaced by the additional delimiter "_", creating a
possibility such as
category.application-type.adjective._non-standard-adjective
^^^^
See the underscore
For example, this is valid:
m=video 50000 RTP/AVP 112
a=trafficclass Conversational.video.immersive._foo._bar
where both "foo" and "bar" are not IANA registered adjectives, but
"immersive" is IANA registered. However, including non-registered
adjectives without the "_" delimiter MUST NOT occur, such as the
following:
m=video 50000 RTP/AVP 112
a=trafficclass Conversational.video.immersive.foo.bar
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
There is no limit to the number of adjectives allowed, without
regard for whether they are registered or not. These non-registered
adjectives can be vendor generated, or merely considered to be
proprietary in nature.
It is important to note that the order of component types matter,
but not the order of the adjective components. There might be local
significance to the ordering of adjectives though. In other words,
the category class component MUST be before the application
component, which MUST be before any and all adjective component(s).
Some algorithm such as alphabetizing the list and matching the
understood strings SHOULD be used.
Adjectives can be either unqualified or qualified. Qualified
adjectives have a delimiter ":" after the previous "." separating
the string component into two parts.
The tcl-token "aq" is the first part of an adjective if it is
qualified, and either the "admitted", "non-admitted" or "none"
tcl-token is the second part of the qualified adjective allowable
according to this specification. In the form
aq:admitted|non-admitted|none
The only valid use of the tcl-token "aq" is to pair with either the
"admitted", "non-admitted" or "none" tcl-token. At the same time,
the tcl-tokens "admitted", "non-admitted" or "none" MUST NOT appear
without a preceding "aq:".
Like all adjectives, it is OPTIONAL to include this adjective in any
trafficclass attribute, and has the following meanings:
- aq - for 'admission qualifier' to indicate the purpose of
the following adjective parts with respect to the
capacity admission status of this traffic flow
described by this m-line.
- admitted - capacity admission mechanisms or protocols are to be or
were used for the full amount of bandwidth in relation
to this m= line.
- non-admitted - capacity admission mechanisms or protocols were
attempted but failed in relation to this m= line. This
does not mean the flow described by this m= line
failed. It just failed to attain the capacity admission
mechanism or protocol necessary for a predictable
quality of service, and is likely to continue with only
a class of service marking or best effort.
- none - no capacity admission mechanisms or protocols are or
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
were attempted in relation to this m= line.
The default for any flow generated from an m-line not having a
trafficclass adjective of 'aq:admitted' or 'aq:non-admitted' MUST be
the equivalent of 'aq:none', whether or not it is present.
Any category class, application, or adjective string component
within this attribute that is not understood MUST be ignored,
leaving all that is understood to be processed. Ignored string
components SHOULD NOT be deleted, as a downstream entity could
understand the component(s) and use it/them during processing.
Not understanding the category class string SHOULD mean that this
attribute is ignored.
The following is an example of media level description with a
'trafficclass' attribute:
m=video 50000 RTP/AVP 112
a=trafficclass conversational.video.immersive.aq:admitted
The above indicates a Telepresence session that has had capacity
admission process applied to its media flow.
4. Offer/Answer Behavior
Through the inclusion of the 'trafficclass' attribute, an
offer/answer exchange identifies the application type for use by
endpoints within a session. Policy elements can use this attribute
to determine the acceptability and/or treatment of that session
through lower layers. One specific use-case is for setting of the
DSCP specific for that application type (say a Broadcast instead
of a Conversational video), decided on a per domain basis -
instead of exclusively by the offering domain.
4.1 Offer Behavior
Offerers include the 'trafficclass' attribute with a single string
comprised of two or more components (from the list in Section 2) to
obtain configurable and predictable classification between the
answerer and the offerer. The offerer can also include a private set
of components, or a combination of IANA registered and private
components within a single domain (e.g., enterprise networks).
Offerers of this 'trafficclass' attribute MUST NOT change the label
in transit (e.g., wrt to B2BUAs). Session Border Controllers (SBC)
at domain boundaries can change this attribute through local policy.
Offers containing a 'trafficclass' label not understood are ignored
by default (i.e., as if there was no 'trafficclass' attribute in the
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
offer).
4.2 Answer Behavior
Upon receiving an offer containing a 'trafficclass' attribute, if
the offer is accepted, the answerer will use this attribute to
classify the session or media (level) traffic accordingly towards
the offerer. This answer does not need to match the traffic class in
the offer, though this will likely be the case most of the time.
In order to understand the traffic class attribute, the answerer
MUST check several components within the attribute, such as
1 - does the answerer understand the category component?
If not, the attribute SHOULD be ignored.
If yes, it checks the application component.
2 - does the answerer understand the application component?
If not, the answerer needs to check if it has a local policy to
proceed without an application component. The default for this
situation is as if the category component was not understand,
the attribute SHOULD be ignored.
If yes, it checks to see if there are any adjective components
present in this attribute to start its classification.
3 - does the answerer understand the adjective component or
components if any are present?
If not present, process and match the trafficclass label value
as is.
If yes, determine if there is more than one. Search for each
that is understood. Any adjectives not understood are to be
ignored, as if they are not present. Match all remaining
understood components according to local policy and process
attribute.
The answerer will answer the offer with its own 'trafficclass'
attribute, which will likely be the same value, although this is not
mandatory (at this time). The Offerer will process the received
answer just as the answerer processed the offer. In other words, the
processing steps and rules are identical for each end.
The answerer should expect to receive RTP packets marked as
indicated by its 'trafficclass' attribute in the answer itself.
An Answer MAY have a 'trafficclass' attribute when one was not in
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
the offer. This will at least aid the local domain, and perhaps
each domain the session transits, to categorize the application type
of this RTP session.
Answerers that are middleboxes can use the 'trafficclass' attribute
to classify the RTP traffic within this session however local policy
determines. In other words, this attribute can help in deciding
which DSCP an RTP stream is assigned within a domain, if the
answerer were an inbound SBC to a domain.
5. Security considerations
RFC 5897 [RFC5897] discusses many of the pitfalls of service
classification, which is similar enough to this idea of traffic
classification to apply here as well. That document highly
recommends the user not being able to set any classification.
Barring a hack within an endpoint (i.e., to intentionally
misclassifying (i.e., lying) about which classification an RTP
stream is), this document's solution makes the classification part
of the signaling between endpoints, which is recommended by RFC
5897.
6. IANA considerations
6.1 Registration of the SDP 'trafficclass' Attribute
This document requests IANA to register the following SDP att-field
under the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry:
Contact name: jmpolk@cisco.com
Attribute name: trafficclass
Long-form attribute name: Traffic Classification
Type of attribute: Session and Media levels
Subject to charset: No
Purpose of attribute: To indicate the Traffic Classification
application for this session
Allowed attribute values: IANA Registered Tokens
Registration Procedures: Specification Required
Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
att-field (both session and media level)
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
trafficclass [this document]
6.2 The Traffic Classification Category Registration
This document requests IANA to create a new registry for the
traffic Category classes similar to the following table within
the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry:
Registry Name: "trafficclass" SDP Category Attribute Values
Reference: [this document]
Registration Procedures: Standards-Track document Required
Category Values Reference
---------------- ---------
Broadcast [this document]
Realtime-Interactive [this document]
Multimedia-Conferencing [this document]
Multimedia-Streaming [this document]
Conversational [this document]
6.3 The Traffic Classification Application Type Registration
This document requests IANA to create a new registry for the
traffic application classes similar to the following table
within the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry:
Registry Name: "trafficclass" Attribute Application Type Values
Reference: [this document]
Registration Procedures: Specification Required
Application Values Reference
------------------ ---------
Audio [this document]
Video [this document]
Text [this document]
Application-sharing [this document]
Presentation-data [this document]
Whiteboarding [this document]
Webchat/IM [this document]
Gaming [this document]
Virtualized-desktop [this document]
Remote-desktop [this document]
Telemetry [this document]
Multiplex [this document]
Webcast [this document]
IPTV [this document]
Live-event [this document]
surveillance [this document]
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
6.4 The Traffic Classification Unqualified Adjective Registration
This document requests IANA to create a new registry for the
traffic adjective values similar to the following table
within the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry:
Registry Name: "trafficclass" Attribute Adjective Values
Reference: [this document]
Registration Procedures: Specification Required
Adjective Values Reference
------------------ ---------
Immersive [this document]
Desktop-video [this document]
Realtime-Text [this document]
web [this document]
aq [this document]
admitted [this document]
non-admitted [this document]
none [this document]
7. Acknowledgments
To Dave Oran, Toerless Eckert, Henry Chen, David Benham, David
Benham, Mo Zanty, Michael Ramalho, Glen Lavers, Charles Ganzhorn,
Paul Kyzivat and Greg Edwards for their comments and suggestions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC2205] R. Braden, Ed., L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin,
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997
[RFC2474] K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker, D. Black, "Definition of the
Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
IPv6 Headers ", RFC 2474, December 1998
[RFC2872] Y. Bernet, R. Pabbati, "Application and Sub Application
Identity Policy Element for Use with RSVP", RFC 2872,
June 2000
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
[RFC4080] R. Hancock, G. Karagiannis, J. Loughney, S. Van den Bosch,
"Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework", RFC 4080, June
2005
[RFC4124] F. Le Faucheur, Ed., " Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering ", RFC 4124,
June 2005
[RFC4566] M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5865] F. Baker, J. Polk, M. Dolly, "A Differentiated Services Code
Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", RFC 5865,
May 2010
[RFC5897] J. Rosenberg, "Identification of Communications Services in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5897, June 2010
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4594] J. Babiarz, K. Chan, F Baker, "Configuration Guidelines for
Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 4594, August 2006
[ID-RSVP-PROF] J. Polk, S. Dhesikan, "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Application-ID Profiles for Voice and Video Streams",
work in progress, Mar 2011
Author's Addresses
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas, USA
+1.818.271.3552
mailto: jmpolk@cisco.com
Subha Dhesikan
170 W Tasman St
San Jose, CA, USA
+1.408-902-3351
mailto: sdhesika@cisco.com
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
Paul E. Jones
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
+1 919 476 2048
mailto: paulej@packetizer.com
Appendix - Changes from Previous Versions
A.1 From -01 to -02
These are the following changes made between the WG -01 version and
the -02 version:
- converged the use of terms 'parent' and 'category' to just
'category' for consistency.
- changed ABNF to reflect extensibility by not having applications
and adjectives named in the ABNF, rather have them merely IANA
registered.
- merged the qualified and unqualified adjective sections into a
single section on adjectives, but allowing some to have a
preceding qualifier.
- text clean-up
A.2 From -00 to -01
These are the following changes made between the WG -00 version and
the -01 version:
- removed the non-SDP applications Netflix and VOD
- switched the adjective 'desktop' to 'avconf'
- Labeled each of the figures.
- clarified the differences between Multimedia-Streaming and
Broadcast category categories.
- defined Video surveillance
- added the concept of a 'qualified' adjective, and modified the
ABNF.
- deleted the idea of a 'cac-class' as a separate component, and
made the equivalent a qualified adjective.
- modified the answerer behavior because of the removal of the
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SDP trafficclass Attribute July 2012
'cac-class' component.
- created an IANA registry for qualified adjectives
- general clean-up of the doc.
Did *not* do the following in this version:
- add the ability to have more than one trafficclass attribute based
on the codec chosen, as feedback indicated this was a bad idea.
- no swap of the Multimedia-Conferencing category with the
offered Collaboration category, as doing this did not solve
any perceived problems.
- add more to the 'how does this get processed' portion of Section
3. That will come in the next revision.
Polk, et al. Expires January 16, 2013 [Page 21]
