Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
Request for Comments: 5404                                  I. Johansson
Category: Standards Track                                    Ericsson AB
                                                            January 2009

                      RTP Payload Format for G.719

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2008 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 (
   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.


   This document specifies the payload format for packetization of the
   G.719 full-band codec encoded audio signals into the Real-time
   Transport Protocol (RTP).  The payload format supports transmission
   of multiple channels, multiple frames per payload, and interleaving.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions and Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  G.719 Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Payload Format Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Multi-Rate Encoding and Rate Adaptation  . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.2.  Support for Multi-Channel Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.3.  Robustness against Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       4.3.1.  Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC)  . . . . . . . .  5
       4.3.2.  Use of Frame Interleaving  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Payload Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.2.1.  Basic ToC Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  Basic Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.4.  Interleaved Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.5.  Audio Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.6.  Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.6.1.  Receiving Redundant Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.6.2.  Interleaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.6.3.  Decoding Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Payload Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  3 Mono Frames with 2 Different Bitrates  . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  2 Stereo Frame-Blocks of the Same Bitrate  . . . . . . . . 14
     6.3.  4 Mono Frames Interleaved  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Payload Format Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1.  Media Type Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2.  Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       7.2.1.  Offer/Answer Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       7.2.2.  Declarative SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   9.  Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies the payload format for packetization of the
   G.719 full-band (FB) codec encoded audio signals into the Real-time
   Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550].  The payload format supports
   transmission of multiple channels, multiple frames per payload, and
   packet loss robustness methods using redundancy or interleaving.

   This document starts with conventions, a brief description of the
   codec, and the payload format's capabilities.  The payload format is
   specified in Section 5.  Examples can be found in Section 6.  The
   media type and its mappings to the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   and usage in SDP offer/answer are then specified.  The document ends
   with considerations regarding congestion control and security.

2.  Definitions and Conventions

   The term "frame-block" is used in this document to describe the time-
   synchronized set of audio frames in a multi-channel audio session.
   In particular, in an N-channel session, a frame-block will contain N
   audio frames, one from each of the channels, and all N speech frames
   represent exactly the same time period.

   This document contains depictions of bit fields.  The most
   significant bit is always leftmost in the figure on each row and has
   the lowest enumeration.  For fields that are depicted over multiple
   rows, the upper row is more significant than the next.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  G.719 Description

   The ITU-T G.719 full-band codec is a transform coder based on
   Modulated Lapped Transform (MLT).  G.719 is a low-complexity full-
   bandwidth codec for conversational speech and audio coding.  The
   encoder input and decoder output are sampled at 48 kHz.  The codec
   enables full-bandwidth from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, encoding of speech,
   music, and general audio content at rates from 32 kbit/s up to 128
   kbit/s.  The codec operates on 20-ms frames and has an algorithmic
   delay of 40 ms.

   The codec provides excellent quality for speech, music, and other
   types of audio.  Some of the applications for which this coder is
   suitable are:

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   o  Real-time communications such as video conferencing and telephony

   o  Streaming audio

   o  Archival and messaging

   The encoding and decoding algorithm can change the bitrate at any
   20-ms frame boundary.  The encoder receives the audio sampled at 48
   kHz.  The support of other sampling rates is possible by re-sampling
   the input signal to the codec's sampling rate, i.e., 48 kHz; however,
   this functionality is not part of the standard.

   The encoding is performed on equally sized frames.  For each frame,
   the encoder decides between two encoding modes, a transient mode and
   a stationary mode.  The decision is based on statistics derived from
   the input signal.  The stationary mode uses a long MLT that leads to
   a spectrum of 960 coefficients, while the transient encoding mode
   uses a short MLT (higher time resolution transform) that results in 4
   spectra (4 x 240 = 960 coefficients).  The encoding of the spectrum
   is done in two steps.  First, the spectral envelope is computed,
   quantized, and Huffman encoded.  The envelope is computed on a non-
   uniform frequency subdivision.  From the coded spectral envelope, a
   weighted spectral envelope is derived and is used for bit allocation;
   this process is also repeated at the decoder.  Thus, only the
   spectral envelope is transmitted.  The output of the bit allocation
   is used in order to quantize the spectra.  In addition, for
   stationary frames, the encoder estimates the amount of noise level.
   The decoder applies the reverse operation upon reception of the bit
   stream.  The non-coded coefficients (i.e., no bits allocated) are
   replaced by entries of a noise codebook that is built based on the
   decoded coefficients.

4.  Payload Format Capabilities

   This payload format has a number of capabilities, and this section
   discusses them in some detail.

4.1.  Multi-Rate Encoding and Rate Adaptation

   G.719 supports a multi-rate encoding capability that enables on a
   per-frame basis variation of the encoding rate.  This enables support
   for bitrate adaptation and congestion control.  The possibility to
   aggregate multiple audio frames into a single RTP payload is another
   dimension of adaptation.  The RTP and payload format overhead can
   thus be reduced by the aggregation at the cost of increased delay and
   reduced packet-loss robustness.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

4.2.  Support for Multi-Channel Sessions

   The RTP payload format defined in this document supports multi-
   channel audio content (e.g., stereophonic or surround audio
   sessions).  Although the G.719 codec itself does not support encoding
   of multi-channel audio content into a single bit stream, it can be
   used to separately encode and decode each of the individual channels.
   To transport (or store) the separately encoded multi-channel content,
   the audio frames for all channels that are framed and encoded for the
   same 20-ms period are logically collected in a "frame-block".

   At the session setup, out-of-band signaling must be used to indicate
   the number of channels in the payload type.  The order of the audio
   frames within the frame-block depends on the number of the channels
   and follows the definition in Section 4.1 of the RTP/AVP profile
   [RFC3551].  When using SDP for signaling, the number of channels is
   specified in the rtpmap attribute.

4.3.  Robustness against Packet Loss

   The payload format supports several means, including forward error
   correction (FEC) and frame interleaving, to increase robustness
   against packet loss.

4.3.1.  Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC)

   Generic forward error correction within RTP is defined, for example,
   in RFC 5109 [RFC5109].  Audio redundancy coding is defined in RFC
   2198 [RFC2198].  Either scheme can be used to add redundant
   information to the RTP packet stream and make it more resilient to
   packet losses, at the expense of a higher bitrate.  Please see either
   of the RFCs for a discussion of the implications of the higher
   bitrate to network congestion.

   In addition to these media-unaware mechanisms, this memo specifies a
   G.719-specific form of audio redundancy coding, which may be
   beneficial in terms of packetization overhead.  Conceptually,
   previously transmitted transport frames are aggregated together with
   new ones.  A sliding window can be used to group the frames to be
   sent in each payload.  However, irregular or non-consecutive patterns
   are also possible by inserting NO_DATA frames between primary and
   redundant transmissions.  Figure 1 below shows an example.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

     | f(n-2) | f(n-1) |  f(n)  | f(n+1) | f(n+2) | f(n+3) | f(n+4) |

      <---- p(n-1) ---->
               <----- p(n) ----->
                        <---- p(n+1) ---->
                                 <---- p(n+2) ---->
                                          <---- p(n+3) ---->
                                                   <---- p(n+4) ---->

              Figure 1: An example of redundant transmission

   Here, each frame is retransmitted once in the following RTP payload
   packet. f(n-2)...f(n+4) denote a sequence of audio frames, and
   p(n-1)...p(n+4) a sequence of payload packets.

   The mechanism described does not really require signaling at the
   session setup.  However, signaling has been defined to allow for the
   sender to voluntarily bind the buffering and delay requirements.  If
   nothing is signaled, the use of this mechanism is allowed and
   unbounded.  For a certain timestamp, the receiver may receive
   multiple copies of a frame containing encoded audio data, even at
   different encoding rates.  The cost of this scheme is bandwidth and
   the receiver delay necessary to allow the redundant copy to arrive.

   This redundancy scheme provides a functionality similar to the one
   described in RFC 2198, but it works only if both original frames and
   redundant representations are G.719 frames.  When the use of other
   media coding schemes is desirable, one has to resort to RFC 2198.

   The sender is responsible for selecting an appropriate amount of
   redundancy based on feedback about the channel conditions, e.g., in
   the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] receiver reports.  The
   sender is also responsible for avoiding congestion, which may be
   exacerbated by redundancy (see Section 9 for more details).

4.3.2.  Use of Frame Interleaving

   To decrease protocol overhead, the payload design allows several
   audio transport frames to be encapsulated into a single RTP packet.
   One of the drawbacks of such an approach is that in the case of
   packet loss, several consecutive frames are lost.  Consecutive frame
   loss normally renders error concealment less efficient and usually
   causes clearly audible and annoying distortions in the reconstructed
   audio.  Interleaving of transport frames can improve the audio
   quality in such cases by distributing the consecutive losses into a
   number of isolated frame losses, which are easier to conceal.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   However, interleaving and bundling several frames per payload also
   increases end-to-end delay and sets higher buffering requirements.
   Therefore, interleaving is not appropriate for all use cases or
   devices.  Streaming applications should most likely be able to
   exploit interleaving to improve audio quality in lossy transmission

   Note that this payload design supports the use of frame interleaving
   as an option.  The usage of this feature needs to be negotiated in
   the session setup.

   The interleaving supported by this format is rather flexible.  For
   example, a continuous pattern can be defined, as depicted in
   Figure 2.

     | f(n-2) | f(n-1) |  f(n)  | f(n+1) | f(n+2) | f(n+3) | f(n+4) |

              [ p(n)   ]
     [ p(n+1) ]                 [ p(n+1) ]
                       [ p(n+2) ]                 [ p(n+2) ]
                                         [ p(n+3) ]
                                                           [ p(n+4) ]

   Figure 2: An example of interleaving pattern that has constant delay

   In Figure 2, the consecutive frames, denoted f(n-2) to f(n+4), are
   aggregated into packets p(n) to p(n+4), each packet carrying two
   frames.  This approach provides an interleaving pattern that allows
   for constant delay in both the interleaving and de-interleaving
   processes.  The de-interleaving buffer needs to have room for at
   least three frames, including the one that is ready to be consumed.
   The storage space for three frames is needed, for example, when f(n)
   is the next frame to be decoded: since frame f(n) was received in
   packet p(n+2), which also carried frame f(n+3), both these frames are
   stored in the buffer.  Furthermore, frame f(n+1) received in the
   previous packet, p(n+1), is also in the de-interleaving buffer.  Note
   also that in this example the buffer occupancy varies: when frame
   f(n+1) is the next one to be decoded, there are only two frames,
   f(n+1) and f(n+3), in the buffer.

5.  Payload Format

   The main purpose of the payload design for G.719 is to maximize the
   potential of the codec to its fullest degree with as minimal overhead
   as possible.  In the design, both basic and interleaved modes have

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   been included, as the codec is suitable both for conversational and
   other low-delay applications as well as streaming, where more delay
   is acceptable.

   The main structural difference between the basic and interleaved
   modes is the extension of the table of contents entries with frame
   displacement fields in the interleaved mode.  The basic mode supports
   aggregation of multiple consecutive frames in a payload.  The
   interleaved mode supports aggregation of multiple frames that are
   non-consecutive in time.  In both modes, it is possible to have
   frames encoded with different frame types in the same payload.

   The payload format also supports the usage of G.719 for carrying
   multi-channel content using one discrete encoder per channel all
   using the same bitrate.  In this case, a complete frame-block with
   data from all channels is included in the RTP payload.  The data is
   the concatenation of all the encoded audio frames in the order
   specified for that number of included channels.  Also, interleaving
   is done on complete frame-blocks rather than on individual audio

5.1.  RTP Header Usage

   The RTP timestamp corresponds to the sampling instant of the first
   sample encoded for the first frame-block in the packet.  The
   timestamp clock frequency SHALL be 48000 Hz.  The timestamp is also
   used to recover the correct decoding order of the frame-blocks.

   The RTP header marker bit (M) SHALL be set to 1 whenever the first
   frame-block carried in the packet is the first frame-block in a
   talkspurt (see definition of the talkspurt in Section 4.1 of
   [RFC3551]).  For all other packets, the marker bit SHALL be set to
   zero (M=0).

   The assignment of an RTP payload type for the format defined in this
   memo is outside the scope of this document.  The RTP profiles in use
   currently mandate binding the payload type dynamically for this
   payload format.  This is basically necessary because the payload type
   expresses the configuration of the payload itself, i.e., basic or
   interleaved mode, and the number of channels carried.

   The remaining RTP header fields are used as specified in [RFC3550].

5.2.  Payload Structure

   The payload consists of one or more table of contents (ToC) entries
   followed by the audio data corresponding to the ToC entries.  The
   following sections describe both the basic mode and the interleaved

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   mode.  Each ToC entry MUST be padded to a byte boundary to ensure
   octet alignment.  The rules regarding maximum payload size given in
   Section 3.2 of [RFC5405] SHOULD be followed.

5.2.1.  Basic ToC Element

   All the different formats and modes in this document use a common
   basic ToC that may be extended in the different options described

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   |F|    L    |R|R|

                        Figure 3: Basic TOC element

   F (1 bit):  If set to 1, indicates that this ToC entry is followed by
      another ToC entry; if set to zero, indicates that this ToC entry
      is the last one in the ToC.

   L (5 bits):  A field that gives the frame length of each individual
      frame within the frame-block.

        L          length(bytes)
        0           0 NO_DATA
        1-7         N/A (reserved)
        8-22        80+10*(L-8)
       23-27        240+20*(L-23)
       28-31        N/A (reserved)

                Figure 4: How to map L values to frame lengths

      L=0 (NO_DATA) is used to indicate an empty frame, which is useful
      if frames are missing (e.g., at re-packetization), or to insert
      gaps when sending redundant frames together with primary frames in
      the same payload.
      The value range [1..7] and [28..31] inclusive is reserved for
      future use in this document version; if these values occur in a
      ToC, the entire packet SHOULD be treated as invalid and discarded.
      A few examples are given below where the frame size and the
      corresponding codec bitrate is computed based on the value L.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

         L    Bytes    Codec Bitrate(kbps)
         8      80        32
         9      90        36
        10     100        40
        12     120        48
        16     160        64
        22     220        88
        23     240        96
        25     280       112
        27     320       128

        Figure 5: Examples of L values and corresponding frame lengths

      This encoding yields a granularity of 4 kbps between 32 and 88
      kbps and a granularity of 8 kbps between 88 and 128 kbps with a
      defined range of 32-128 kbps for the codec data.

   R (2 bits):  Reserved bits.  SHALL be set to zero on sending and
      SHALL be ignored on reception.

5.3.  Basic Mode

   The basic ToC element shown in Figure 3 is followed by a 1-octet
   field for the number of frame-blocks (#frames) to form the ToC entry.
   The frame-blocks field tells how many frame-blocks of the same length
   the ToC entry relates to.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   |    #frames    |

                  Figure 6: Number of frame-blocks field

5.4.  Interleaved Mode

   The basic ToC is followed by a 1-octet field for the number of frame-
   blocks (#frames) and then the DIS fields to form a ToC entry in
   interleaved mode.  The frame-blocks field tells how many frame-blocks
   of the same length the ToC relates to.  The DIS fields, one for each
   frame-block indicated by the #frames field, express the interleaving
   distance between audio frames carried in the payload.  If necessary
   to achieve octet alignment, a 4-bit padding is added.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   |    #frames    | DIS1  |  ...  | DISi  |  ...  | DISn  | Padd  |

            Figure 7: Number of frame-block + interleave fields

   DIS1...DISn (4 bits):  A list of n (n=#frames) displacement fields
      indicating the displacement of the i:th (i=1..n) audio frame-block
      relative to the preceding frame-block in the payload, in units of
      20-ms long audio frame-blocks).  The 4-bit unsigned integer
      displacement values may be between zero and 15 indicating the
      number of audio frame-blocks in decoding order between the
      (i-1):th and the i:th frame in the payload.  Note that for the
      first ToC entry of the payload, the value of DIS1 is meaningless.
      It SHALL be set to zero by a sender and SHALL be ignored by a
      receiver.  This frame-block's location in the decoding order is
      uniquely defined by the RTP timestamp.  Note that for subsequent
      ToC entries DIS1 indicates the number of frames between the last
      frame of the previous group and the first frame of this group.

   Padd (4 bits):  To ensure octet alignment, 4 padding bits SHALL be
      included at the end of the ToC entry in case there is an odd
      number of frame-blocks in the group referenced by this ToC entry.
      These bits SHALL be set to zero and SHALL be ignored by the
      receiver.  If a group containing an even number of frames is
      referenced by this ToC entry, these padding bits SHALL NOT be
      included in the payload.

5.5.  Audio Data

   The audio data part follows the table of contents.  All the octets
   comprising an audio frame SHALL be appended to the payload as a unit.
   For each frame-block, the audio frames are concatenated in the order
   indicated by the table in Section 4.1 of [RFC3551] for the number of
   channels configured for the payload type in use.  So the first
   channel (leftmost) indicated comes first followed by the next
   channel.  The audio frame-blocks are packetized in increasing
   timestamp order within each group of frame-blocks (per ToC entry),
   i.e., oldest frame-block first.  The groups of frame-blocks are
   packetized in the same order as their corresponding ToC entries.

   The audio frames are specified in ITU recommendation [ITU-T-G719].

   The G.719 bit stream is split into a sequence of octets and
   transmitted in order from the leftmost (most significant (MSB)) bit
   to the rightmost (least significant (LSB)) bit.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

5.6.  Implementation Considerations

   An application implementing this payload format MUST understand all
   the payload parameters specified in this specification.  Any mapping
   of the parameters to a signaling protocol MUST support all
   parameters.  So an implementation of this payload format in an
   application using SDP is required to understand all the payload
   parameters in their SDP-mapped form.  This requirement ensures that
   an implementation always can decide whether it is capable of
   communicating when the communicating entities support this version of
   the specification.

   Basic mode SHALL be implemented and the interleaved mode SHOULD be
   implemented.  The implementation burden of both is rather small, and
   supporting both ensures interoperability.  However, interleaving is
   not mandated as it has limited applicability for conversational
   applications that require tight delay boundaries.

5.6.1.  Receiving Redundant Frames

   The reception of redundant audio frames, i.e., more than one audio
   frame from the same source for the same time slot, MUST be supported
   by the implementation.  In the case that the receiver gets multiple
   audio frames in different bitrates for the same time slot, it is
   RECOMMENDED that the receiver keeps the one with the highest bitrate.

5.6.2.  Interleaving

   The use of interleaving requires further considerations.  As
   presented in the example in Section 4.3.2, a given interleaving
   pattern requires a certain amount of the de-interleaving buffer.
   This buffer space, expressed in a number of transport frame slots, is
   indicated by the "interleaving" media type parameter.  The number of
   frame slots needed can be converted into actual memory requirements
   by considering the 320 bytes per frame used by the highest bitrate of

   The information about the frame buffer size is not always sufficient
   to determine when it is appropriate to start consuming frames from
   the interleaving buffer.  Additional information is needed when the
   interleaving pattern changes.  The "int-delay" media type parameter
   is defined to convey this information.  It allows a sender to
   indicate the minimal media time that needs to be present in the
   buffer before the decoder can start consuming frames from the buffer.
   Because the sender has full control over the interleaving pattern, it
   can calculate this value.  In certain cases (for example, if joining
   a multicast session with interleaving mid-session), a receiver may
   initially receive only part of the packets in the interleaving

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   pattern.  This initial partial reception (in frame sequence order) of
   frames can yield too few frames for acceptable quality from the audio
   decoding.  This problem also arises when using encryption for access
   control, and the receiver does not have the previous key.  Although
   the G.719 is robust and thus tolerant to a high random frame erasure
   rate, it would have difficulties handling consecutive frame losses at
   startup.  Thus, some special implementation considerations are

   In order to handle this type of startup efficiently, decoding can
   start provided that:

   1.  There are at least two consecutive frames available.

   2.  More than or equal to half the frames are available in the time
       period from where decoding was planned to start and the most
       forward received decoding.

   After receiving a number of packets, in the worst case as many
   packets as the interleaving pattern covers, the previously described
   effects disappear and normal decoding is resumed.  Similar issues
   arise when a receiver leaves a session or has lost access to the
   stream.  If the receiver leaves the session, this would be a minor
   issue since playout is normally stopped.  The sender can avoid this
   type of problem in many sessions by starting and ending interleaving
   patterns correctly when risks of losses occur.  One such example is a
   key-change done for access control to encrypted streams.  If only
   some keys are provided to clients and there is a risk they will
   receive content for which they do not have the key, it is recommended
   that interleaving patterns do not overlap key changes.

5.6.3.  Decoding Validation

   If the receiver finds a mismatch between the size of a received
   payload and the size indicated by the ToC of the payload, the
   receiver SHOULD discard the packet.  This is recommended because
   decoding a frame parsed from a payload based on erroneous ToC data
   could severely degrade the audio quality.

6.  Payload Examples

   A few examples to highlight the payload format follow.

6.1.  3 Mono Frames with 2 Different Bitrates

   The first example is a payload consisting of 3 mono frames where the
   first 2 frames correspond to a bitrate of 32 kbps (80 bytes/frame)
   and the last is 48 kbps (120 bytes/frame).

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

      The first 32 bits are ToC fields.
      Bit 0 is '1' as another ToC field follows.
      Bits 1..5 are '01000' = 80 bytes/frame.
      Bits 8..15 are '00000010' = 2 frame-blocks with 80 bytes/frame.
      Bit 16 is '0', no more ToC follows.
      Bits 17..21 are '01100' = 120 bytes/frame.
      Bits 24..31 are '00000001' = 1 frame-block with 120 bytes/frame.

       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
      |1|0 1 0 0 0|0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0|0|0 1 1 0 0|0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|
      |d(0)   frame 1                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|
      |d(0)   frame 2                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|
      |d(0)   frame 3                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(959)|

6.2.  2 Stereo Frame-Blocks of the Same Bitrate

   The second example is a payload consisting of 2 stereo frames that
   correspond to a bitrate of 32 kbps (80 bytes/frame) per channel.  The
   receiver calculates the number of frames in the audio block by
   multiplying the value of the "channels" parameter (2) with the
   #frames field value (2) to derive that there are 4 audio frames in
   the payload.

      The first 16 bits is the ToC field.
      Bit 0 is '0' as no ToC field follows.
      Bits 1..5 are '01000' = 80 bytes/frame.
      Bits 8..15 are '00000010' = 2 frame-blocks with 80 bytes/frame.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

       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
      |0|0 1 0 0 0|0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| d(0) frame 1 left ch.         |
      .                                                               .
      |                         d(639)| d(0) frame 1 right ch.        |
      .                                                               .
      |                         d(639)| d(0) frame 2 left ch.         |
      .                                                               .
      |                         d(639)| d(0) frame 2 right ch.        |
      |                         d(639)|

6.3.  4 Mono Frames Interleaved

   The third example is a payload consisting of 4 mono frames that
   correspond to a bitrate of 32 kbps (80 bytes/frame) interleaved.  A
   pattern of interleaving for constant delay when aggregating 4 frames
   is used in the example below.  The actual packet illustrated is
   packet n, while the previous and following packets' frame-block
   content is shown to illustrate the pattern.

      Packet n-3:  1,  6, 11, 16
      Packet n-2:  5, 10, 15, 20
      Packet n-1:  9, 14, 19, 24
      Packet   n: 13, 18, 23, 28
      Packet n+1: 17, 22, 27, 32
      Packet n+2: 21, 26, 31, 36

      The first 32 bits are the ToC field.
      Bit 0 is '0' as there is no ToC field following.
      Bits 1..5 are '01000' = 80 bytes/frame.
      Bits 8..15 are '00000100' = 4 frame-blocks with 80 bytes/frame.
      Bits 16..19 are '0000' = DIS1 (0).
      Bits 20..23 are '0100' = DIS2 (4).
      Bits 24..27 are '0100' = DIS3 (4).
      Bits 28..31 are '0100' = DIS4 (4).

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

       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
      |0|0 1 0 0 0|0 0|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0|0 0 0 0|0 1 0 0|0 1 0 0|0 1 0 0|
      | d(0) frame 13                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|
      | d(0) frame 18                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|
      | d(0) frame 23                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|
      | d(0) frame 28                                                 |
      .                                                               .
      |                                                         d(639)|

7.  Payload Format Parameters

   This RTP payload format is identified using the media type audio/
   G719, which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and uses the
   template of [RFC4288].

7.1.  Media Type Definition

   The media type for the G.719 codec is allocated from the IETF tree
   since G.719 has the potential to become a widely used audio codec in
   general Voice over IP (VoIP), teleconferencing, and streaming
   applications.  This media type registration covers real-time transfer
   via RTP.

   Note, any unspecified parameter MUST be ignored by the receiver to
   ensure that additional parameters can be added in any future revision
   of this specification.

   Type name: audio

   Subtype name: G719

   Required parameters: none

   Optional parameters:

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   interleaving:  Indicates that interleaved mode SHALL be used for the
      payload.  The parameter specifies the number of frame-block slots
      available in a de-interleaving buffer (including the frame that is
      ready to be consumed) for each source.  Its value is equal to one
      plus the maximum number of frames that can precede any frame in
      transmission order and follow the frame in RTP timestamp order.
      The value MUST be greater than zero.  If this parameter is not
      present, interleaved mode SHALL NOT be used.

   int-delay:  The minimal media time delay in milliseconds that is
      needed to avoid underrun in the de-interleaving buffer before
      starting decoding, i.e., the difference in RTP timestamp ticks
      between the earliest and latest audio frame present in the de-
      interleaving buffer expressed in milliseconds.  The value is a
      stream property and provided per source.  The allowed values are
      zero to the largest value expressible by an unsigned 16-bit
      integer (65535).  Please note that in practice, the largest value
      that can be used is equal to the declared size of the interleaving
      buffer of the receiver.  If the value for some reason is larger
      than the receiver buffer declared by or for the receiver, this
      value defaults to the size of the receiver buffer.  For sources
      for which this value hasn't been provided, the value defaults to
      the size of the receiver buffer.  The format is a comma-separated
      list of synchronization source (SSRC) ":" delay in ms pairs, which
      in ABNF [RFC5234] is expressed as:

         int-delay = "int-delay:" source-delay *("," source-delay)

         source-delay = SSRC ":" delay-value

         SSRC = 1*8HEXDIG ; The 32-bit SSRC encoded in hex format

         delay-value = 1*5DIGIT ; The delay value in milliseconds

         Example: int-delay=ABCD1234:1000,4321DCB:640

         NOTE: No white space allowed in the parameter before the end of
         all the value pairs

   max-red:  The maximum duration in milliseconds that elapses between
      the primary (first) transmission of a frame and any redundant
      transmission that the sender will use.  This parameter allows a
      receiver to have a bounded delay when redundancy is used.  Allowed
      values are between zero (no redundancy will be used) and 65535.
      If the parameter is omitted, no limitation on the use of
      redundancy is present.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   channels:  The number of audio channels.  The possible values (1-6)
      and their respective channel order is specified in Section 4.1 of
      [RFC3551].  If omitted, it has the default value of 1.

   CBR:  Constant Bitrate (CBR) indicates the exact codec bitrate in
      bits per second (not including the overhead from packetization,
      RTP header, or lower layers) that the codec MUST use.  "CBR" is to
      be used when the dynamic rate cannot be supported (one case is,
      e.g., gateway to H.320).  "CBR" is mostly used for gateways to
      circuit switch networks.  Therefore, the "CBR" is the rate not
      including any FEC as specified in Section 4.3.1.  If FEC is to be
      used, the "b=" parameter MUST be used to allow the extra bitrate
      needed to send the redundant information.  It is RECOMMENDED that
      this parameter is only used when necessary to establish a working
      communication.  The usage of this parameter has implications for
      congestion control that need to be considered; see Section 9.

   ptime:  see [RFC4566].

   maxptime:  see [RFC4566].

   Encoding considerations:  This media type is framed and binary; see
      Section 4.8 of [RFC4288].

   Security considerations:  See Section 10 of RFC 5404.

   Interoperability considerations:  The support of the Interleaving
      mode is not mandatory and needs to be negotiated.  See Section 7.2
      for how to do that for SDP-based protocols.

   Published specification:  RFC 5404

   Applications that use this media type:  Real-time audio applications
      like Voice over IP and teleconference, and multi-media streaming.

   Additional information:  none

   Person & email address to contact for further         information:
      Ingemar Johansson

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  This media type depends on RTP framing, and
      hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550].  Transport
      within other framing protocols is not defined at this time.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

      Ingemar Johansson <>
      Magnus Westerlund <>

   Change controller:  IETF Audio/Video Transport working group
      delegated from the IESG.

   Additionally, note that file storage of G.719-encoded audio in ISO
   base media file format is specified in Annex A of [ITU-T-G719].
   Thus, media file formats such as MP4 (audio/mp4 or video/mp4)
   [RFC4337] and 3GP (audio/3GPP and video/3GPP) [RFC3839] can contain
   G.719-encoded audio.

7.2.  Mapping to SDP

   The information carried in the media type specification has a
   specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   [RFC4566], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions.  When SDP
   is used to specify sessions employing the G.719 codec, the mapping is
   as follows:

   o  The media type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

   o  The media subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as
      the encoding name.  The RTP clock rate in "a=rtpmap" MUST be
      48000, and the encoding parameter "channels" (Section 7.1) MUST
      either be explicitly set to N or omitted, implying a default value
      of 1.  The values of N that are allowed are specified in Section
      4.1 in [RFC3551].

   o  The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and
      "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.

   o  Any remaining parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by
      copying them directly from the media type parameter string as a
      semicolon-separated list of parameter=value pairs.

7.2.1.  Offer/Answer Considerations

   The following considerations apply when using SDP offer/answer
   procedures to negotiate the use of G.719 payload in RTP:

   o  Each combination of the RTP payload transport format configuration
      parameters ("interleaving" and "channels") is unique in its bit
      pattern and not compatible with any other combination.  When
      creating an offer in an application desiring to use the more
      advanced features (interleaving or more than one channel), the
      offerer is RECOMMENDED to also offer a payload type containing

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

      only the configuration with a single channel.  If multiple
      configurations are of interest to the application, they may all be
      offered; however, care should be taken not to offer too many
      payload types.  An SDP answerer MUST include, in the SDP answer
      for a payload type, the following parameters unmodified from the
      SDP offer (unless it removes the payload type): "interleaving" and
      "channels".  However, the value of the "interleaving" parameter
      MAY be changed.  The SDP offerer and answerer MUST generate G.719
      packets as described by these parameters.

   o  The "interleaving" and "int-delay" parameters' values have a
      specific relationship that needs to be considered.  It also
      depends on the directionality of the streams and their delivery
      method.  The high-level explanation that can be understood from
      the definition is that the value of "interleaving" declares the
      size of the receiver buffer, while "int-delay" is a stream
      property provided by the sender to inform how much buffer space it
      in practice is using for the stream it sends.

      *  For media streams that are sent over multicast, the value of
         "interleaving" SHALL NOT be changed by the answerer.  It shall
         either be accepted or the payload type deleted.  The value of
         the "int-delay" parameter is a stream property and provided by
         the offer/answer agent that intends to send media with this
         payload type, and for each stream coming from that agent (one
         or more).  The value MUST be between zero and what corresponds
         to the buffer size declared by the value of the "interleaving"

      *  For unicast streams that the offerer declares as send-only, the
         value of the "interleaving" parameter is the size that the
         answerer is RECOMMENDED to use by the offerer.  The answerer
         MAY change it to any allowed value.  The "int-delay" parameter
         value will be the one the offerer intends to use unless the
         answerer reduces the value of the "interleaving" parameter
         below what is needed for that "int-delay" value.  If the
         "interleaving" value in the answer is smaller than the offer's
         "int-delay" value, the "int-delay" value is per default reduced
         to be corresponding to the "interleaving" value.  If the
         offerer is not satisfied with this, he will need to perform
         another round of offer/answer.  As the answerer will not send
         any media, it doesn't include any "int-delay" in the answer.

      *  For unicast streams that the offerer declares as recvonly, the
         value of "interleaving" in the offer will be the offerer's size
         of the interleaving buffer.  The answerer indicates its
         preferred size of the interleaving buffer for any future round
         of offer/answer.  The offerer will not provide any "int-delay"

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

         parameter as it is not sending any media.  The answerer is
         recommended to include in its answer an "int-delay" parameter
         to declare what the property is for the stream it is going to
         send.  The answer is expected to be capable of selecting a
         valid parameter value that is between zero and the declared
         maximum number of slots in the de-interleaving buffer.

      *  For unicast streams that the offer declares as sendrecv
         streams, the value of the "interleaving" parameter in the offer
         will be the offerer's size of the interleaving buffer.  The
         answerer will in the answer indicate the size of its actual
         interleaving buffer.  It is recommended that this value is at
         least as big as the offer's.  The offerer is recommended to
         include an "int-delay" parameter that is selected based on the
         answerer having at least as much interleaving space as the
         offerer unless nothing else is known.  As the offerer's
         interleaving buffer size is not yet known, this may fail, in
         which case the default rule is to downgrade the value of the
         "int-delay" to correspond to the full size of the answerer's
         interleaving buffer.  If the offerer isn't satisfied with this,
         it will need to initiate another round of offer/answer.  The
         answerer is recommended in its answer to include an "int-delay"
         parameter to declare what the property is for the stream(s) it
         is going to send.  The answer is expected to be capable of
         selecting a valid parameter value that is between zero and the
         declared maximum number of slots in the de-interleaving buffer.

   o  In most cases, the parameters "maxptime" and "ptime" will not
      affect interoperability; however, the setting of the parameters
      can affect the performance of the application.  The SDP offer/
      answer handling of the "ptime" parameter is described in
      [RFC3264].  The "maxptime" parameter MUST be handled in the same

   o  The parameter "max-red" is a stream property parameter.  For
      sendonly or sendrecv unicast media streams, the parameter declares
      the limitation on redundancy that the stream sender will use.  For
      recvonly streams, it indicates the desired value for the stream
      sent to the receiver.  The answerer MAY change the value, but is
      RECOMMENDED to use the same limitation as the offer declares.  In
      the case of multicast, the offerer MAY declare a limitation; this
      SHALL be answered using the same value.  A media sender using this
      payload format is RECOMMENDED to always include the "max-red"
      parameter.  This information is likely to simplify the media
      stream handling in the receiver.  This is especially true if no
      redundancy will be used, in which case "max-red" is set to zero.

   o  Any unknown parameter in an offer SHALL be removed in the answer.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   o  The "b=" SDP parameter SHOULD be used to negotiate the maximum
      bandwidth to be used for the audio stream.  The offerer may offer
      a maximum rate and the answer may contain a lower rate.  If no
      "b=" parameter is present in the offer or answer, it implies a
      rate up to 128 kbps.

   o  The parameter "CBR" is a receiver capability; i.e., only receivers
      that really require a constant bitrate should use it.  Usage of
      this parameter has a negative impact on the possibility to perform
      congestion control; see Section 9.  For recvonly and sendrecv
      streams, it indicates the desired constant bitrate that the
      receiver wants to accept.  A sender MUST be able to send a
      constant bitrate stream since it is a subset of the variable
      bitrate capability.  If the offer includes this parameter, the
      answerer MUST send G.719 audio at the constant bitrate if it is
      within the allowed session bitrate ("b=" parameter).  If the
      answerer cannot support the stated CBR, this payload type must be
      refused in the answer.  The answerer SHOULD only include this
      parameter if the answerer itself requires to receive at a constant
      bitrate, even if the offer did not include the "CBR" parameter.
      In this case, the offerer SHALL send at the constant bitrate, but
      SHALL be able to accept media at a variable bitrate.  An answerer
      is RECOMMEND to use the same CBR as in the offer, as symmetric
      usage is more likely to work.  If both sides require a particular
      CBR, there is the possibility of communication failure when one or
      both sides can't transmit the requested rate.  In this case, the
      agent detecting this issue will have to perform a second round of
      offer/answer to try to find another working configuration or end
      the established session.  In case the offer contained a "CBR"
      parameter but the answer does not, then the offerer is free to
      transmit at any rate to the answerer, but the answerer is
      restricted to the declared rate.

7.2.2.  Declarative SDP Considerations

   In declarative usage, like SDP in the Real Time Streaming Protocol
   (RTSP) [RFC2326] or the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP)
   [RFC2974], the parameters SHALL be interpreted as follows:

   o  The payload format configuration parameters ("interleaving" and
      "channels") are all declarative, and a participant MUST use the
      configuration(s) that is provided for the session.  More than one
      configuration may be provided if necessary by declaring multiple
      RTP payload types; however, the number of types should be kept

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   o  It might not be possible to know the SSRC values that are going to
      be used by the sources at the time of sending the SDP.  This is
      not a major issue as the size of the interleaving buffer can be
      tailored towards the values that are actually going to be used,
      thus ensuring that the default values for "int-delay" are not
      resulting in too much extra buffering.

   o  Any "maxptime" and "ptime" values should be selected with care to
      ensure that the session's participants can achieve reasonable

   o  The parameter "CBR" if included applies to all RTP streams using
      that payload type for which a particular CBR is declared.  Usage
      of this parameter has a negative impact on the possibility to
      perform congestion control; see Section 9.

8.  IANA Considerations

   One media type (audio/G719) has been defined and registered in the
   media types registry; see Section 7.1.

9.  Congestion Control

   The general congestion control considerations for transporting RTP
   data apply; see RTP [RFC3550] and any applicable RTP profile like AVP
   [RFC3551].  However, the multi-rate capability of G.719 audio coding
   provides a mechanism that may help to control congestion, since the
   bandwidth demand can be adjusted (within the limits of the codec) by
   selecting a different encoding bitrate.

   The number of frames encapsulated in each RTP payload highly
   influences the overall bandwidth of the RTP stream due to header
   overhead constraints.  Packetizing more frames in each RTP payload
   can reduce the number of packets sent and hence the header overhead,
   at the expense of increased delay and reduced error robustness.  If
   forward error correction (FEC) is used, the amount of FEC-induced
   redundancy needs to be regulated such that the use of FEC itself does
   not cause a congestion problem.  In other words, a sender SHALL NOT
   increase the total bitrate when adding redundancy in response to
   packet loss, and needs instead to adjust it down in accordance to the
   congestion control algorithm being run.  Thus, when adding
   redundancy, the media bitrate will need to be reduced to provide room
   for the redundancy.

   The "CBR" signaling parameter allows a receiver to lock down an RTP
   payload type to use a single encoding rate.  As this prevents the
   codec rate from being lowered when congestion is experienced, the
   sender is constrained to either change the packetization or abort the

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   transmission.  Since these responses to congestion are severely
   limited, implementations SHOULD NOT use the "CBR" parameter unless
   they are interacting with a device that cannot support a variable
   bitrate (e.g., a gateway to H.320 systems).  When using CBR mode, a
   receiver MUST monitor the packet loss rate to ensure congestion is
   not caused, following the guidelines in Section 2 of RFC 3551.

10.  Security Considerations

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
   specification [RFC3550] and in any applicable RTP profile.  The main
   security considerations for the RTP packet carrying the RTP payload
   format defined within this memo are confidentiality, integrity, and
   source authenticity.  Confidentiality is achieved by encryption of
   the RTP payload.  Integrity of the RTP packets is achieved through a
   suitable cryptographic integrity protection mechanism.  Such a
   cryptographic system may also allow the authentication of the source
   of the payload.  A suitable security mechanism for this RTP payload
   format should provide confidentiality, integrity protection, and at
   least source authentication capable of determining if an RTP packet
   is from a member of the RTP session.

   Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and
   payloads following this memo may vary.  It is dependent on the
   application, the transport, and the signaling protocol employed.
   Therefore, a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if
   suitable, usage of the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
   [RFC3711] is recommended.  Other mechanisms that may be used are
   IPsec [RFC4301] and Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] (RTP
   over TCP); other alternatives may exist.

   The use of interleaving in conjunction with encryption can have a
   negative impact on confidentiality for a short period of time.
   Consider the following packets (in brackets) containing frame numbers
   as indicated: {10, 14, 18}, {13, 17, 21}, {16, 20, 24} (a popular
   continuous diagonal interleaving pattern).  The originator wishes to
   deny some participants the ability to hear material starting at time
   16.  Simply changing the key on the packet with the timestamp at or
   after 16, and denying that new key to those participants, does not
   achieve this; frames 17, 18, and 21 have been supplied in prior
   packets under the prior key, and error concealment may make the audio
   intelligible at least as far as frame 18 or 19, and possibly further.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

   This RTP payload format and its media decoder do not exhibit any
   significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational
   complexity for packet processing, and thus are unlikely to pose a
   denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological data.
   Nor does the RTP payload format contain any active content.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Roni Even and Anisse Taleb for their
   help with this document.  We would also like to thank the people who
   have provided feedback: Colin Perkins, Mark Baker, and Stephen

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [ITU-T-G719]  ITU-T, "Specification : ITU-T G.719 extension for 20
                 kHz fullband audio", April 2008.

   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3264]     Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer
                 Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
                 RFC 3264, June 2002.

   [RFC3550]     Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
                 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
                 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3551]     Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio
                 and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65,
                 RFC 3551, July 2003.

   [RFC4566]     Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP:
                 Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5234]     Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
                 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5405]     Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage
                 Guidelines for Application Designers", BCP 145,
                 RFC 5405, November 2008.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2198]     Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
                 Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
                 Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data",
                 RFC 2198, September 1997.

   [RFC2326]     Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
                 Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.

   [RFC2974]     Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
                 Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [RFC3711]     Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and
                 K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
                 (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC3839]     Castagno, R. and D. Singer, "MIME Type Registrations
                 for 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
                 Multimedia files", RFC 3839, July 2004.

   [RFC4288]     Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications
                 and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288,
                 December 2005.

   [RFC4301]     Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
                 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4337]     Y Lim and D. Singer, "MIME Type Registration for
                 MPEG-4", RFC 4337, March 2006.

   [RFC4855]     Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
                 Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007.

   [RFC5109]     Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
                 Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007.

   [RFC5246]     Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
                 Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
                 August 2008.

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 5404              RTP Payload Format for G.719          January 2009

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson AB
   Torshamnsgatan 21-23
   SE-164 83 Stockholm

   Phone: +46 10 7190000

   Ingemar Johansson
   Ericsson AB
   Laboratoriegrand 11
   SE-971 28 Lulea

   Phone: +46 10 7190000

Westerlund & Johansson      Standards Track                    [Page 27]