MMUSIC O. Levin
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
Intended status: Informational R. Even
Expires: May 10, 2008 Polycom
P. Hagendorf
RADVISION
November 7, 2007
XML Schema for Media Control
draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control-12
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 10, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document defines an Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema for
video fast update in a tightly controlled environment, developed by
Microsoft, Polycom, Radvision and used by multiple vendors. This
document describes a method that has been deployed in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) based systems for over the last three years
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
and being used across real-time interactive applications from
different vendors in interoperable manner. New implementations are
discouraged from using the described method described except for
backward compatibility purposes. New Implementations are required to
use the new full intra request command in the Real-time Transport
Control Protocol (RTCP) channel.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The Video Control Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. The Schema Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. The Fast Update command for the full picture . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Reporting an error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Application/media_control+xml media type registration . . 7
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Version History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Changes since -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Changes since -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.3. Changes since -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
1. 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 RFC-2119 [2].
2. Introduction
This document defines an Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema for
video fast update request in a tightly controlled environment,
developed by Microsoft, Polycom, Radvision and used by multiple
vendors. Implementation of this schema for interactive video
applications in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [5] environments
was designed in order to improve user experience. This mechanism is
being used by both end user video conferencing terminals and
conferencing servers in shipping products. This document describes
the current method, but new implementations are discouraged from
using this method, except for backward compatibility with legacy
systems. Shipping products and new products SHALL use the full intra
request described in [7].
Sending video fast update using the SIP signaling path, as described
in this document, is inferior to using the Real-time Transport
Control Protocol (RTCP) feedback method[7], since the command flows
through all the proxies in the signaling path adding delay to the
messages and causing unnecessary overload to the proxies. RTCP
messages flow end to end and not through the signaling proxies. The
RTCP feedback draft[7] also adds other required control functions,
such as flow control command which is missing from this document.
3. Background
SIP typically uses the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [6] for
transferring of real time media.
RTP is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow monitoring of
the data delivery in a manner scalable to large multicast networks.
The RTCP feedback mechanism [8] has been introduced in order to
improve basic RTCP feedback time in case of loss conditions across
different coding schemes. This technique addresses signaling of loss
conditions and the recommended recovery steps.
Just recently an extension to the feedback mechanism has been
proposed [7] to express control operations on media streams as a
result of application logic rather than a result of loss conditions.
Note that in the decomposed systems the implementation of the new
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
mechanism will require proprietary communications between the
applications/call control components and the media components.
This document describes a technology that has been deployed in SIP
based systems for over the last three years and being used across
real-time interactive applications from different vendors in
interoperable manner. This memo documents this technology for the
purpose of describing current practice and new implementation MUST
use the RTCP full intra request command specified in the RTCP based
codec control messages document[7].
4. The Video Control Commands
Output of a video codec is a frame. The frame can carry complete (in
time) information about a picture or about a picture segment. These
frames are known as "Intra" frames. In order to save bandwidth,
other frames can carry only changes relative to previously sent
frames. Frames carrying relative information are known as "Inter"
frames.
Based on application logic (such as need to present a new video
source), the application needs to have an ability to explicitly
request from a remote encoder the complete (in-time) information
about a "full" picture.
The fast update command, defined in this document, MUST be validated
by the remote entity against current media capacity and network
conditions before being executed.
In order to meet the presented requirements, a video primitive is
defined by this document.
The following command is sent to the remote encoder:
o Video Picture Fast Update
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
5. The Schema Definition
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<xs:schema id="TightMediaControl"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:element name="media_control">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="vc_primitive"
type="vc_primitive"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
<xs:element name="general_error"
type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<!-- Video control primitive. -->
<xs:complexType name="vc_primitive">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="to_encoder" type="to_encoder" />
<xs:element name="stream_id"
type="xsd:string"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!-- Encoder Command:
Picture Fast Update
-->
<xs:complexType name="to_encoder">
<xs:choice>
<xsd:element name="picture_fast_update"/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
6. Error Handling
Currently, only a single general error primitive is defined. It MAY
be used for indicating errors in free text format. The general error
primitive MAY report problems regarding XML document parsing,
inadequate level of media control support, inability to perform the
requested action, etc.
The general error primitive MUST NOT be used for indication of errors
other than related to media control parsing or to resultant
execution. The general error primitive MUST NOT be sent back as a
result of getting an error primitive.
When receiving the general error response, the UAC that sent the
request SHOULD NOT send further fast update requests in the current
dialog.
According to RFC 2976 [3], the only allowable final response to a SIP
INFO containing a message body is a 200 OK. If SIP INFO is used to
carry the request, the error message should be carried in a separate
INFO request.
7. Examples
7.1. The Fast Update command for the full picture
In the following example the full picture "Fast Update" command is
issued towards the remote video decoder(s). Note that this primitive
is supported by all known implementations.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<media_control>
<vc_primitive>
<to_encoder>
<picture_fast_update/>
</to_encoder>
</vc_primitive>
</media_control>
7.2. Reporting an error
If an error occurs during the parsing of the XML document, the
following XML document would be sent back to the originator of the
original Media Control document.
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<media_control>
<general_error>
Parsing error: The original XML segment is:...
</general_error>
</media_control>
8. Transport
The defined XML document is conveyed using SIP INFO method [3] with
the "Content-Type" set to "application/media_control+xml". This
approach benefits from the SIP built-in reliability.
9. IANA Considerations
This document registers a new media type.
9.1. Application/media_control+xml media type registration
Type name: application
Subtype name: media_control+xml
Required parameters: None
Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.
Encoding considerations: 8bit
Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit characters, depending on the
character encoding used. See RFC 3023 [4], Section 3.2.
Security considerations: Security considerations specific to uses
of this type are discussed in RFC xxxx [[Note to RFC editor:
replace xxxx with the RFC number of this document when
published]]. RFC 1874 [1] and RFC 3023 [4] discuss security
issues common to all uses of XML.
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: RFC xxxx [[Note to RFC editor: replace
xxxx with the RFC number of this document when published]]
Applications that use this media type: This media type is used to
convey information regarding media control commands and responses
between SIP endpoints particularly for allowing a Video Fast
Update intra-frame request.
Additional information:
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
Magic Number(s): None.
File Extension(s): None.
Macintosh File Type Code(s): None.
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Name: Roni Even
E-Mail: even.roni@gmail.com
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: None.
Author: Roni Even. <even.roni@gmail.com>
Change Controller: Roni Even. <even.roni@gmail.com>
10. Security Considerations
The video control command transported using the method described in
the document may cause the sender of the video data to send more data
within the allowed bandwidth as described in section 4.
The document defines one control message; changing the content of the
message will cause the video sender to ignore the request and send an
error response. This may prevent the display of a video stream. The
control message itself does not carry any sensitive information.
An eavesdropper may inject messages or change them which may lead to
either more data on the network or loss of video image. Using data
integrity validation will prevent adding or changing of messages.
If the video media is sent over a secure transport it is recommended
to secure the signaling using TLS. In most cases securing the media
will require a secure signaling path.
This document does not introduce new security considerations beyond
those covered in [3].
11. Version History
11.1. Changes since -04
This version defines only the picture fast update command since the
rest of the commands are not use by shipping products. The document
now states that RTCP feedback is to be used in new implementations.
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
11.2. Changes since -03
This version reflects the deployment experience since the defined
mechanism has been implemented and tested among the vendors
represented by the authors of this document.
The XML schema is identical to version -03.
11.3. Changes since -02
This version contains editorial changes only.
The XML schema is identical to version -02.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[1] Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December 1995.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Donovan, S., "The SIP INFO Method", RFC 2976, October 2000.
[4] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
RFC 3023, January 2001.
[5] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[6] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[7] Wenger, S., "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual
Profile with Feedback (AVPF)", draft-ietf-avt-avpf-ccm-10 (work
in progress), December 2006.
12.2. Informative References
[8] 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, July 2006.
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
Authors' Addresses
Orit Levin
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Email: oritl@microsoft.com
Roni Even
Polycom
94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
Petach Tikva, 49130
Israel
Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Pierre Hagendorf
RADVISION
24, Raul Wallenberg St.
Tel-Aviv, 69719
Israel
Email: pierre@radvision.com
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Media Control November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Levin, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 11]
