An Extension to the Session Description Protocol (SDP) and Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) for Media Loopback
RFC 6849
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (February 2013) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hadriel Kaplan , Kaynam Hedayat , Nagarjuna Venna , Paul Jones , Nathan Stratton | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Miguel Angel García | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2012-08-08 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6849 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Gonzalo Camarillo | ||
| IESG note | Miguel A. Garcia (miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com) is the Document Shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 6849
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Kaplan, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6849 Acme Packet
Category: Standards Track K. Hedayat
ISSN: 2070-1721 EXFO
N. Venna
Saperix
P. Jones
Cisco Systems, Inc.
N. Stratton
BlinkMind, Inc.
February 2013
An Extension to the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
and Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) for Media Loopback
Abstract
The wide deployment of Voice over IP (VoIP), real-time text, and
Video over IP services has introduced new challenges in managing and
maintaining real-time voice/text/video quality, reliability, and
overall performance. In particular, media delivery is an area that
needs attention. One method of meeting these challenges is
monitoring the media delivery performance by looping media back to
the transmitter. This is typically referred to as "active
monitoring" of services. Media loopback is especially popular in
ensuring the quality of transport to the edge of a given VoIP, real-
time text, or Video over IP service. Today, in networks that deliver
real-time media, short of running 'ping' and 'traceroute' to the
edge, administrators are left without the necessary tools to actively
monitor, manage, and diagnose quality issues with their service. The
extension defined herein adds new Session Description Protocol (SDP)
media types and attributes that enable establishment of media
sessions where the media is looped back to the transmitter. Such
media sessions will serve as monitoring and troubleshooting tools by
providing the means for measurement of more advanced VoIP, real-time
text, and Video over IP performance metrics.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6849.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Use Cases Supported ........................................4
2. Terminology .....................................................6
3. Overview of Operation ...........................................6
3.1. SDP Offerer Behavior .......................................6
3.2. SDP Answerer Behavior ......................................7
4. New SDP Attributes ..............................................7
4.1. Loopback-Type Attribute ....................................7
4.2. Loopback-Role Attributes: loopback-source and
loopback-mirror ............................................8
5. Rules for Generating the SDP Offer/Answer .......................9
5.1. Generating the SDP Offer for Loopback Session ..............9
5.2. Generating the SDP Answer for Loopback Session ............10
5.3. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer ......................12
5.4. Modifying the Session .....................................12
5.5. Establishing Sessions between Entities behind NATs ........12
6. RTP Requirements ...............................................13
7. Payload Formats for Packet Loopback ............................13
7.1. Encapsulated Payload Format ...............................14
7.2. Direct Loopback RTP Payload Format ........................16
8. SRTP Behavior ..................................................17
9. RTCP Requirements ..............................................18
10. Congestion Control ............................................18
11. Examples ......................................................18
11.1. Offer for Specific Media Loopback Type ...................19
11.2. Offer for Choice of Media Loopback Type ..................19
11.3. Answerer Rejecting Loopback Media ........................20
12. Security Considerations .......................................21
13. Implementation Considerations .................................22
14. IANA Considerations ...........................................22
14.1. SDP Attributes ...........................................22
14.2. Media Types ..............................................23
15. Acknowledgements ..............................................31
16. References ....................................................31
16.1. Normative References .....................................31
16.2. Informative References ...................................32
1. Introduction
The overall quality, reliability, and performance of VoIP, real-time
text, and Video over IP services rely on the performance and quality
of the media path. In order to assure the quality of the delivered
media, there is a need to monitor the performance of the media
transport. One method of monitoring and managing the overall quality
of real-time VoIP, real-time text, and Video over IP services is
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
through monitoring the quality of the media in an active session.
This type of "active monitoring" of services is a method of
proactively managing the performance and quality of VoIP-based
services.
The goal of active monitoring is to measure the media quality of a
VoIP, real-time text, or Video over IP session. A way to achieve
this goal is to request an endpoint to loop media back to the other
endpoint and to provide media statistics (e.g., RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) [RFC3550] and RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP-XR) [RFC3611]
information). Another method involves deployment of special
endpoints that always loop incoming media back for all sessions.
Although the latter method has been used and is functional, it does
not scale to support large networks and introduces new network
management challenges. Further, it does not offer the granularity of
testing a specific endpoint that may be exhibiting problems.
The extension defined in this document introduces new SDP media types
and attributes that enable establishment of media sessions where the
media is looped back to the transmitter. The SDP offer/answer model
[RFC3264] is used to establish a loopback connection. Furthermore,
this extension provides guidelines on handling RTP [RFC3550], as well
as usage of RTCP [RFC3550] and RTCP-XR [RFC3611] for reporting media-
related measurements.
1.1. Use Cases Supported
As a matter of terminology in this document, packets flow from one
peer acting as a "loopback source", to the other peer acting as a
"loopback mirror", which in turn returns packets to the loopback
source. In advance of the session, the peers negotiate to determine
which one acts in which role, using the SDP offer/answer exchange.
The negotiation also includes details such as the type of loopback to
be used.
This specification supports three use cases: "encapsulated packet
loopback", "direct loopback", and "media loopback". These are
distinguished by the treatment of incoming RTP packets at the
loopback mirror.
1.1.1. Encapsulated Packet Loopback
In the encapsulated packet loopback case, the entire incoming RTP
packet is encapsulated as payload within an outer RTP packet that is
specific to this use case and specified in Section 7.1. The
encapsulated packet is returned to the loopback source. The loopback
source can generate statistics for one-way path performance up to the
RTP level for each direction of travel by examining sequence numbers
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
and timestamps in the encapsulating outer RTP header and the
encapsulated RTP packet payload. The loopback source can also play
back the returned media content for evaluation.
Because the encapsulating RTP packet header extends the packet size,
it could encounter difficulties in an environment where the original
RTP packet size is close to the path Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
size. The encapsulating payload format therefore offers the
possibility of RTP-level fragmentation of the returned packets. The
use of this facility could affect statistics derived for the return
path. In addition, the increased bit rate required in the return
direction may affect these statistics more directly in a restricted-
bandwidth situation.
1.1.2. Direct Loopback
In the direct loopback case, the loopback mirror copies the payload
of the incoming RTP packet into a new RTP packet, using a payload
format specific to this use case and specified in Section 7.2. The
loopback mirror returns the new packet to the packet source. There
is no provision in this case for RTP-level fragmentation.
This use case has the advantage of keeping the packet size the same
in both directions. The packet source can compute only two-way path
statistics from the direct loopback packet header but can play back
the returned media content.
It has been suggested that the loopback source, knowing that the
incoming packet will never be passed to a decoder, can store a
timestamp and sequence number inside the payload of the packet it
sends to the mirror, then extract that information from the returned
direct loopback packet and compute one-way path statistics as in the
previous case. Obviously, playout of returned content is no longer
possible if this is done.
1.1.3. Media Loopback
In the media loopback case, the loopback mirror submits the incoming
packet to a decoder appropriate to the incoming payload type. The
packet is taken as close as possible to the analog level, then
re-encoded according to an outgoing format determined by SDP
negotiation. The re-encoded content is returned to the loopback
source as an RTP packet with payload type corresponding to the
re-encoding format.
This usage allows troubleshooting at the codec level. The capability
for path statistics is limited to what is available from RTCP
reports.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
2. Terminology
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].
SDP: Session Description Protocol, as defined in [RFC4566]. This
document assumes that the SDP offer/answer model is followed,
per [RFC3264], but does not assume any specific signaling
protocol for carrying the SDP.
The following terms are borrowed from [RFC3264] definitions: offer,
offerer, answer, answerer, and agent.
3. Overview of Operation
This document defines two loopback 'types', two 'roles', and two
encoding formats for loopback. For any given SDP offerer or answerer
pair, one side is the source of RTP packets, while the other is the
mirror looping packets/media back. Those define the two loopback
roles. As the mirror, two 'types' of loopback can be performed:
packet-level or media-level. When media-level is used, there is no
further choice of encoding format -- there is only one format:
whatever is indicated for normal media, since the "looping" is
performed at the codec level. When packet-level looping is
performed, however, the mirror can either send back RTP in an
encapsulated format or direct loopback format. The rest of this
document describes these loopback types, roles, and encoding formats,
and the SDP offer/answer rules for indicating them.
3.1. SDP Offerer Behavior
An SDP offerer compliant to this specification and attempting to
establish a media session with media loopback will include "loopback"
media attributes for each individual media description in the offer
message that it wishes to have looped back. Note that the offerer
may choose to only request loopback for some media
descriptions/streams but not others. For example, it might wish to
request loopback for a video stream but not audio, or vice versa.
The offerer will look for the "loopback" media attributes in the
media description(s) of the response from the SDP answer for
confirmation that the request is accepted.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
3.2. SDP Answerer Behavior
In order to accept a loopback offer (that is, an offer containing
"loopback" in the media description), an SDP answerer includes the
"loopback" media attribute in each media description for which it
desires loopback.
An answerer can reject an offered stream (either with loopback-source
or loopback-mirror) if the loopback-type is not specified, the
specified loopback-type is not supported, or the endpoint cannot
honor the offer for any other reason. The loopback request is
rejected by setting the stream's media port number to zero in the
answer as defined in RFC 3264 [RFC3264] or by rejecting the entire
offer (i.e., by rejecting the session request entirely).
Note that an answerer that is not compliant to this specification and
that receives an offer with the "loopback" media attributes would
ignore the attributes and treat the incoming offer as a normal
request. If the offerer does not wish to establish a "normal" RTP
session, it would need to terminate the session upon receiving such
an answer.
4. New SDP Attributes
Three new SDP media-level attributes are defined: one indicates the
type of loopback, and the other two define the role of the agent.
4.1. Loopback-Type Attribute
This specification defines a new "loopback" attribute, which
indicates that the agent wishes to perform loopback, and the type of
loopback that the agent is able to do. The loopback-type is a value
media attribute [RFC4566] with the following syntax:
a=loopback:<loopback-type>
Following is the Augmented BNF [RFC5234] for loopback-type:
attribute =/ loopback-attr
; attribute defined in RFC 4566
loopback-attr = "loopback:" SP loopback-type
loopback-type = loopback-choice [1*SP loopback-choice]
loopback-choice = loopback-type-pkt / loopback-type-media
loopback-type-pkt = "rtp-pkt-loopback"
loopback-type-media = "rtp-media-loopback"
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
The loopback-type is used to indicate the type of loopback. The
loopback-type values are rtp-pkt-loopback and rtp-media-loopback.
rtp-pkt-loopback: In this mode, the RTP packets are looped back to
the sender at a point before the encoder/decoder function in the
receive direction to a point after the encoder/decoder function in
the send direction. This effectively re-encapsulates the RTP
payload with the RTP/UDP/IP headers appropriate for sending it in
the reverse direction. Any type of encoding-related functions,
such as packet loss concealment, MUST NOT be part of this type of
loopback path. In this mode, the RTP packets are looped back with
a new payload type and format. Section 7 describes the payload
formats that are to be used for this type of loopback. This type
of loopback applies to the encapsulated and direct loopback use
cases described in Section 1.1.
rtp-media-loopback: This loopback is activated as close as possible
to the analog interface and after the decoder so that the RTP
packets are subsequently re-encoded prior to transmission back to
the sender. This type of loopback applies to the media loopback
use case described in Section 1.1.3.
4.2. Loopback-Role Attributes: loopback-source and loopback-mirror
The loopback role defines two property media attributes [RFC4566]
that are used to indicate the role of the agent generating the SDP
offer or answer. The syntax of the two loopback-role media
attributes is as follows:
a=loopback-source
and
a=loopback-mirror
Following is the Augmented BNF [RFC5234] for loopback-source and
loopback-mirror:
attribute =/ loopback-source / loopback-mirror
; attribute defined in RFC 4566
loopback-source = "loopback-source"
loopback-mirror = "loopback-mirror"
loopback-source: This attribute specifies that the entity that
generated the SDP is the media source and expects the receiver of
the SDP message to act as a loopback mirror.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
loopback-mirror: This attribute specifies that the entity that
generated the SDP will mirror (echo) all received media back to
the sender of the RTP stream. No media is generated locally by
the looping-back entity for transmission in the mirrored stream.
The "m=" line in the SDP includes all the payload types that will be
used during the loopback session. The complete payload space for the
session is specified in the "m=" line, and the rtpmap attribute is
used to map from the payload type number to an encoding name denoting
the payload format to be used.
5. Rules for Generating the SDP Offer/Answer
5.1. Generating the SDP Offer for Loopback Session
If an offerer wishes to make a loopback request, it includes both the
loopback-type and loopback-role attributes in a valid SDP offer:
Example: m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 100
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000
a=rtpmap:100 G7221/16000/1
Since media loopback requires bidirectional RTP, its normal direction
mode is "sendrecv"; the "sendrecv" direction attribute MAY be encoded
in SDP or not, as per Section 5.1 of [RFC3264], since it is implied
by default. If either the loopback source or mirror wishes to
disable loopback use during a session, the direction mode attribute
"inactive" MUST be used as per [RFC3264]. The direction mode
attributes "recvonly" and "sendonly" are incompatible with the
loopback mechanism and MUST NOT be indicated when generating an SDP
offer or answer. When receiving an SDP offer or answer, if
"recvonly" or "sendonly" is indicated for loopback, the SDP-receiving
agent SHOULD treat it as a protocol failure of the loopback
negotiation and terminate the session through its normal means (e.g.,
by sending a SIP BYE if SIP is used) or reject the offending media
stream.
The offerer may offer more than one loopback-type in the SDP offer.
The port number and the address in the offer (m/c= lines) indicate
where the offerer would like to receive the media stream(s). The
payload type numbers indicate the value of the payload the offerer
expects to receive. However, the answer might indicate a subset of
payload type numbers from those given in the offer. In that case,
the offerer MUST only send the payload types received in the answer,
per normal SDP offer/answer rules.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
If the offer indicates rtp-pkt-loopback support, the offer MUST also
contain either an encapsulated or direct loopback encoding format
encoding name, or both, as defined in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of this
document. If the offer only indicates rtp-media-loopback support,
then neither encapsulated nor direct loopback encoding formats apply
and they MUST NOT be in the offer.
If loopback-type is rtp-pkt-loopback, the loopback mirror MUST send,
and the loopback source MUST receive, the looped-back packets encoded
in one of the two payload formats (encapsulated RTP or direct
loopback) as defined in Section 7.
Example: m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
Example: m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:112 rtploopback/8000
5.2. Generating the SDP Answer for Loopback Session
As with the offer, an SDP answer for loopback follows SDP
offer/answer rules for the direction attribute, but directions of
"sendonly" or "recvonly" do not apply for loopback operation.
The port number and the address in the answer (m/c= lines) indicate
where the answerer would like to receive the media stream. The
payload type numbers indicate the value of the payload types the
answerer expects to send and receive.
An answerer includes both the loopback-role and loopback-type
attributes in the answer to indicate that it will accept the loopback
request. When a stream is offered with the loopback-source
attribute, the corresponding stream in the response will be
loopback-mirror and vice versa, provided the answerer is capable of
supporting the requested loopback-type.
For example, if the offer contains the loopback-source attribute:
m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-source
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
The answer that is capable of supporting the offer must contain the
loopback-mirror attribute:
m=audio 12345 RTP/AVP 0 8
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
If a stream is offered with multiple loopback-type attributes, the
answer MUST include only one of the loopback types that are accepted
by the answerer. The answerer SHOULD give preference to the first
loopback-type in the SDP offer.
For example, if the offer contains:
m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
The answer that is capable of supporting the offer and chooses to
loopback the media using the rtp-media-loopback type must contain:
m=audio 12345 RTP/AVP 0 8
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
As specified in Section 7, if the loopback-type is rtp-pkt-loopback,
either the encapsulated RTP payload format or direct loopback RTP
payload format MUST be used for looped-back packets.
For example, if the offer contains:
m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112 113
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
The answer that is capable of supporting the offer must contain one
of the following:
m=audio 12345 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
m=audio 12345 RTP/AVP 0 8 113
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000
The previous examples used the 'encaprtp' and 'rtploopback' encoding
names, which will be defined in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.2.3.
5.3. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
If the received SDP answer does not contain an a=loopback-mirror or
a=loopback-source attribute, it is assumed that the loopback
extensions are not supported by the remote agent. This is not a
protocol failure and instead merely completes the SDP offer/answer
exchange with whatever normal rules apply; the offerer MAY decide to
end the established RTP session (if any) through normal means of the
upper-layer signaling protocol (e.g., by sending a SIP BYE).
5.4. Modifying the Session
At any point during the loopback session, either participant MAY
issue a new offer to modify the characteristics of the previous
session, as defined in Section 8 of RFC 3264 [RFC3264]. This also
includes transitioning from a normal media processing mode to
loopback mode, and vice versa.
5.5. Establishing Sessions between Entities behind NATs
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245], Traversal
Using Relays around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766], and Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389] provide a general solution to
establishing media sessions between entities that are behind Network
Address Translators (NATs). Loopback sessions that involve one or
more endpoints behind NATs can also use these general solutions
wherever possible.
If ICE is not supported, then in the case of loopback, the mirroring
entity will not send RTP packets and therefore will not automatically
create the NAT pinhole in the way that other SIP sessions do.
Therefore, if the mirroring entity is behind a NAT, it MUST send some
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
packets to the identified address/port(s) of the peer, in order to
open the NAT pinhole. Using ICE, this would be accomplished with the
STUN connectivity check process or through a TURN server connection.
If ICE is not supported, either [RFC6263] or Section 10 of ICE
[RFC5245] can be followed to open the pinhole and keep the NAT
binding alive/refreshed.
Note that for any form of NAT traversal to function, symmetric
RTP/RTCP [RFC4961] MUST be used, unless the mirror can control the
NAT(s) in its path to create explicit pinholes. In other words, both
agents MUST send packets from the source address and port they
receive packets on, unless some mechanism is used to avoid that need
(e.g., by using the Port Control Protocol).
6. RTP Requirements
A loopback source MUST NOT send multiple source streams on the same
5-tuple, since there is no means for the mirror to indicate which is
which in its mirrored RTP packets.
A loopback mirror that is compliant to this specification and accepts
media with the loopback type rtp-pkt-loopback loops back the incoming
RTP packets using either the encapsulated RTP payload format or the
direct loopback RTP payload format as defined in Section 7 of this
specification.
A device that is compliant to this specification and performing the
mirroring using the loopback type rtp-media-loopback MUST transmit
all received media back to the sender, unless congestion feedback or
other lower-layer constraints prevent it from doing so. The incoming
media is treated as if it were to be played; for example, the media
stream may receive treatment from Packet Loss Concealment (PLC)
algorithms. The mirroring entity re-generates all the RTP header
fields as it would when transmitting media. The mirroring entity MAY
choose to encode the loopback media according to any of the media
descriptions supported by the offering entity. Furthermore, in cases
where the same media type is looped back, the mirroring entity can
choose to preserve the number of frames/packets and the bit rate of
the encoded media according to the received media.
7. Payload Formats for Packet Loopback
The payload formats described in this section MUST be used by a
loopback mirror when 'rtp-pkt-loopback' is the specified
loopback-type. Two different formats are specified here -- an
encapsulated RTP payload format and a direct loopback RTP payload
format. The encapsulated RTP payload format should be used when the
incoming RTP header information needs to be preserved during the
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
loopback operation. This is useful in cases where the loopback
source needs to measure performance metrics in both directions.
However, this comes at the expense of increased packet size as
described in Section 7.1. The direct loopback RTP payload format
should be used when bandwidth requirements prevent the use of the
encapsulated RTP payload format.
7.1. Encapsulated Payload Format
A received RTP packet is encapsulated in the payload section of the
RTP packet generated by a loopback mirror. Each received packet is
encapsulated in a separate encapsulating RTP packet; the encapsulated
packet would be fragmented only if required (for example, due to MTU
limitations).
7.1.1. Usage of RTP Header Fields
Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
packet format is outside the scope of this document; it is either
specified by the RTP profile under which this payload format is
used or more likely signaled dynamically out-of-band (e.g., using
SDP; Section 7.1.3 defines the name binding).
Marker (M) bit: If the received RTP packet is looped back in multiple
encapsulating RTP packets, the M bit is set to 1 in every fragment
except the last packet; otherwise, it is set to 0.
Extension (X) bit: This bit is defined by the RTP profile used.
Sequence Number: The RTP sequence number SHOULD be generated by the
loopback mirror in the usual manner with a constant random offset
as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
Timestamp: The RTP timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when
the loopback mirror is transmitting this packet to the loopback
source. The RTP timestamp MUST use the same clock rate as that of
the encapsulated packet. The initial value of the timestamp
SHOULD be random for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of RFC 3550
[RFC3550]).
Synchronization source (SSRC): This field is set as described in
RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
The CSRC count (CC) and contributing source (CSRC) fields are used as
described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
7.1.2. RTP Payload Structure
The outer RTP header of the encapsulating packet is followed by the
payload header defined in this section, after any header
extension(s). If the received RTP packet has to be looped back in
multiple encapsulating packets due to fragmentation, the
encapsulating RTP header in each packet is followed by the payload
header defined in this section. The header is devised so that the
loopback source can decode looped-back packets in the presence of
moderate packet loss [RFC3550]. The RTP payload of the encapsulating
RTP packet starts with the payload header defined in this section.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| receive timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| F | R | CC |M| PT | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| transmit timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| contributing source (CSRC) identifiers |
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. Encapsulating RTP Packet Payload Header
The 12 octets after the receive timestamp are identical to the
encapsulated RTP header of the received packet except for the first 2
bits of the first octet. In effect, the received RTP packet is
encapsulated by creating a new outer RTP header followed by 4 new
bytes of a receive timestamp, followed by the original received RTP
header and payload, except that the first two bits of the received
RTP header are overwritten as defined here.
Receive timestamp: 32 bits
The receive timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when the last
octet of the received media packet that is being encapsulated by the
loopback mirror is received from the loopback source. The same clock
rate MUST be used by the loopback source. The initial value of the
timestamp SHOULD be random for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of
RFC 3550 [RFC3550]).
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Fragmentation (F): 2 bits
Possible values are First Fragment (00), Last Fragment (01),
No Fragmentation (10), or Intermediate Fragment (11). This field
identifies how much of the received packet is encapsulated in this
packet by the loopback mirror. If the received packet is not
fragmented, this field is set to 10; otherwise, the packet that
contains the first fragments sets this field to 00. The packet that
contains the last fragment sets this field to 01, and all other
packets set this field to 11.
7.1.3. Usage of SDP
The payload type number for the encapsulated stream can be negotiated
using SDP. There is no static payload type assignment for the
encapsulating stream, so dynamic payload type numbers MUST be used.
The binding to the name is indicated by an rtpmap attribute. The
name used in this binding is "encaprtp".
The following is an example SDP fragment for encapsulated RTP.
m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 112
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
7.2. Direct Loopback RTP Payload Format
The direct loopback RTP payload format can be used in scenarios where
the 16-byte overhead of the encapsulated payload format is of
concern, or simply due to local policy. When using this payload
format, the receiver loops back each received RTP packet payload (not
header) in a separate RTP packet.
Because a direct loopback format does not retain the original RTP
headers, there will be no indication of the original payload-type
sent to the mirror, in looped-back packets. Therefore, the loopback
source SHOULD only send one payload type per loopback RTP session if
direct mode is used.
7.2.1. Usage of RTP Header Fields
Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for the
encapsulating packet format is outside the scope of this document;
it is either specified by the RTP profile under which this payload
format is used or more likely signaled dynamically out-of-band
(e.g., using SDP; Section 7.2.3 defines the name binding).
Marker (M) bit: This bit is set to the value in the received packet.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Extension (X) bit: This bit is defined by the RTP profile used.
Sequence Number: The RTP sequence number SHOULD be generated by the
loopback mirror in the usual manner with a constant random offset,
as per [RFC3550].
Timestamp: The RTP timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when
the loopback mirror is transmitting this packet to the loopback
source. The same clock rate MUST be used as that of the received
RTP packet. The initial value of the timestamp SHOULD be random
for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of RFC 3550 [RFC3550]).
SSRC: This field is set as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
The CC and CSRC fields are used as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
7.2.2. RTP Payload Structure
This payload format does not define any payload-specific headers.
The loopback mirror simply copies the RTP payload data from the
payload portion of the RTP packet received from the loopback source.
7.2.3. Usage of SDP
The payload type number for the payload loopback stream can be
negotiated using a mechanism like SDP. There is no static payload
type assignment for the stream, so dynamic payload type numbers MUST
be used. The binding to the name is indicated by an rtpmap
attribute. The name used in this binding is "rtploopback".
The following is an example SDP fragment for the direct loopback RTP
format.
m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 112
a=rtpmap:112 rtploopback/8000
8. SRTP Behavior
Secure RTP (SRTP) [RFC3711] MAY be used for loopback sessions. SRTP
operates at a lower logical layer than RTP, and thus if both sides
negotiate to use SRTP, each side uses its own key and performs
encryption/decryption, authentication, etc. Therefore, the loopback
function on the mirror occurs after the SRTP packet has been
decrypted and authenticated, as a normal cleartext RTP packet without
a Master Key Identifier (MKI) or authentication tag; once the
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
cleartext RTP packet or payload is mirrored -- either at the media-
layer, direct packet-layer, or encapsulated packet-layer -- it is
encrypted by the mirror using its own key.
In order to provide the same level of protection to both forward and
reverse media flows (media to and from the mirror), if SRTP is used
it MUST be used in both directions with the same properties.
9. RTCP Requirements
The use of the loopback attribute is intended for the monitoring of
media quality of the session. Consequently, the media performance
information should be exchanged between the offering and the
answering entities. An offering or answering agent that is compliant
to this specification SHOULD support RTCP per [RFC3550] and RTCP-XR
per RFC 3611 [RFC3611]. Furthermore, if the offerer or answerer
chooses to support RTCP-XR, they SHOULD support the RTCP-XR Loss Run
Length Encoding (RLE) Report Block, Duplicate RLE Report Block,
Statistics Summary Report Block, and VoIP Metrics Report Block per
Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.6, and 4.7 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611]. The offerer
and the answerer MAY support other RTCP-XR reporting blocks as
defined by RFC 3611 [RFC3611].
10. Congestion Control
All the participants in a media-level loopback session SHOULD
implement congestion control mechanisms as defined by the RTP profile
under which the loopback mechanism is implemented. For audio/video
profiles, implementations SHOULD conform to the mechanism defined in
Section 2 of RFC 3551 [RFC3551].
For packet-level loopback types, the loopback source SHOULD implement
congestion control. The mirror will simply reflect back the RTP
packets it receives (either in encapsulated or direct modes);
therefore, the source needs to control the congestion of both forward
and reverse paths by reducing its sending rate to the mirror. This
keeps the loopback mirror implementation simpler and provides more
flexibility for the source performing a loopback test.
11. Examples
This section provides examples for media descriptions using SDP for
different scenarios. The examples are given for SIP-based
transactions; for convenience, they are abbreviated and do not show
the complete signaling.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
11.1. Offer for Specific Media Loopback Type
An agent sends an SDP offer that looks like:
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
The agent is offering to source the media and expects the answering
agent to mirror the RTP stream per the loopback type
rtp-media-loopback.
An answering agent sends an SDP answer that looks like:
v=0
o=bob 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49270 RTP/AVP 0
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
The answerer agrees to mirror the media from the offerer at the media
level.
11.2. Offer for Choice of Media Loopback Type
An agent sends an SDP offer that looks like:
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0 112 113
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
The offerer is offering to source the media and expects the answerer
to mirror the RTP stream at either the media or RTP level.
An answering agent sends an SDP answer that looks like:
v=0
o=bob 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49270 RTP/AVP 0 112
a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
a=loopback-mirror
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
The answerer agrees to mirror the media from the offerer at the
packet level using the encapsulated RTP payload format.
11.3. Answerer Rejecting Loopback Media
An agent sends an SDP offer that looks like:
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
a=loopback-source
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
The offerer is offering to source the media and expects the answerer
to mirror the RTP stream at the media level.
An answering agent sends an SDP answer that looks like:
v=0
o=bob 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Note in this case that the answerer did not indicate loopback
support, although it could have and still used a port number of 0 to
indicate that it does not wish to accept that media session.
Alternatively, the answering agent could have simply rejected the
entire SDP offer through some higher-layer signaling protocol means
(e.g., by rejecting the SIP INVITE request if the SDP offer was in
the INVITE).
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC3264] and [RFC3550] apply.
Given that media loopback may be automated without the end user's
knowledge, the answerer of the media loopback should be aware of
denial-of-service attacks. It is RECOMMENDED that session requests
for media loopback be authenticated and the frequency of such
sessions limited by the answerer.
If the higher-layer signaling protocol were not authenticated, a
malicious attacker could create a session between two parties the
attacker wishes to target, with each party acting as the loopback
mirror to the other, of the rtp-pkt-loopback type. A few RTP packets
sent to either party would then infinitely loop among the two, as
fast as they could process them, consuming their resources and
network bandwidth.
Furthermore, media loopback provides a means of attack indirection,
whereby a malicious attacker creates a loopback session as the
loopback source and uses the mirror to reflect the attacker's packets
against a target -- perhaps a target the attacker could not reach
directly, such as one behind a firewall, for example. Or, the
attacker could initiate the session as the loopback mirror, in the
hopes of making the peer generate media against another target.
If end-user devices such as mobile phones answer loopback requests
without authentication and without notifying the end user, then an
attacker could cause the battery to drain, and possibly deny the end
user normal phone service or cause network data usage fees. This
could even occur naturally if a legitimate loopback session does not
terminate properly and the end device does not have a timeout
mechanism for such.
For the reasons noted above, end-user devices SHOULD provide a means
of indicating to the human user that the device is in a loopback
session, even if it is an authenticated session. Devices that answer
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
or generate loopback sessions SHOULD either perform keepalive/refresh
tests of the session state through some means or time out the session
automatically.
13. Implementation Considerations
The media loopback approach described in this document is a complete
solution that would work under all scenarios. However, it is
possible that the solution may not be lightweight enough for some
implementations. In light of this concern, this section clarifies
which features of the loopback proposal MUST be implemented for all
implementations and which features MAY be deferred if the complete
solution is not desired.
All implementations MUST at least support the rtp-pkt-loopback mode
for loopback-type, with direct media loopback payload encoding. In
addition, for the loopback role, all implementations of an SDP
offerer MUST at least be able to act as a loopback source. These
requirements are intended to provide a minimal level of
interoperability between different implementations.
14. IANA Considerations
14.1. SDP Attributes
This document defines three new media-level SDP attributes. IANA has
registered the following attributes.
Contact name: Kaynam Hedayat
Email address: kh274@cornell.edu
Telephone number: +1-617-899-3279
Attribute name: loopback
Type of attribute: Media level.
Subject to charset: No.
Purpose of attribute: The 'loopback' attribute is used to
indicate the type of media loopback.
Allowed attribute values: The parameters for 'loopback' may be
one or more of "rtp-pkt-loopback" and
"rtp-media-loopback". See Section 4
of RFC 6849 for syntax.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Contact name: Kaynam Hedayat
Email address: kh274@cornell.edu
Telephone number: +1-617-899-3279
Attribute name: loopback-source
Type of attribute: Media level.
Subject to charset: No.
Purpose of attribute: The 'loopback-source' attribute
specifies that the sender is the media
source and expects the receiver to act
as a loopback mirror.
Allowed attribute values: N/A
Contact name: Kaynam Hedayat
Email address: kh274@cornell.edu
Telephone number: +1-617-899-3279
Attribute name: loopback-mirror
Type of attribute: Media level.
Subject to charset: No.
Purpose of attribute: The 'loopback-mirror' attribute
specifies that the receiver will
mirror (echo) all received media back
to the sender of the RTP stream.
Allowed attribute values: N/A
14.2. Media Types
The IANA has registered the following media types.
14.2.1. audio/encaprtp
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type audio/encaprtp
Type name: audio
Subtype name: encaprtp
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
VoIP service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.2. video/encaprtp
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type video/encaprtp
Type name: video
Subtype name: encaprtp
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
Video Over IP service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.3. text/encaprtp
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type text/encaprtp
Type name: text
Subtype name: encaprtp
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
real-time text service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.4. application/encaprtp
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type application/encaprtp
Type name: application
Subtype name: encaprtp
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
real-time application service.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.5. audio/rtploopback
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type audio/rtploopback
Type name: audio
Subtype name: rtploopback
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
VoIP service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.6. video/rtploopback
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type video/rtploopback
Type name: video
Subtype name: rtploopback
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
Video Over IP service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.7. text/rtploopback
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type text/rtploopback
Type name: text
Subtype name: rtploopback
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
real-time text service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
14.2.8. application/rtploopback
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type application/rtploopback
Type name: application
Subtype name: rtploopback
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. This is specified by the loopback source and reflected by
the mirror.
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed.
Security considerations: See Section 12 of RFC 6849.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 6849.
Applications that use this media type: Applications wishing to
monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the edge of a given
real-time application service.
Additional information: N/A
Contact: the authors of RFC 6849.
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP. Transfer within other
framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Author: Kaynam Hedayat.
Change controller: IETF PAYLOAD working group delegated from
the IESG.
15. Acknowledgements
This document's editor would like to thank the original authors of
the document: Kaynam Hedayat, Nagarjuna Venna, Paul E. Jones, Arjun
Roychowdhury, Chelliah SivaChelvan, and Nathan Stratton. The editor
has made fairly insignificant changes in the end. Also, we'd like to
thank Magnus Westerlund, Miguel Garcia, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal,
Jeff Bernstein, Paul Kyzivat, Dave Oran, Flemming Andreasen, Gunnar
Hellstrom, Emil Ivov, and Dan Wing for their feedback, comments, and
suggestions.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, November 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
[RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
16.2. Informative References
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal
Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766,
April 2010.
[RFC6263] Marjou, X. and A. Sollaud, "Application Mechanism for
Keeping Alive the NAT Mappings Associated with RTP / RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Flows", RFC 6263, June 2011.
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 6849 SDP Media Loopback February 2013
Authors' Addresses
Hadriel Kaplan (editor)
Acme Packet
100 Crosby Drive
Bedford, MA 01730
US
EMail: hkaplan@acmepacket.com
URI: http://www.acmepacket.com
Kaynam Hedayat
EXFO
285 Mill Road
Chelmsford, MA 01824
US
EMail: kh274@cornell.edu
URI: http://www.exfo.com/
Nagarjuna Venna
Saperix
c/o DogPatch Labs
One Cambridge Center, 6th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
US
EMail: vnagarjuna@saperix.com
URI: http://www.saperix.com/
Paul E. Jones
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
EMail: paulej@packetizer.com
URI: http://www.cisco.com/
Nathan Stratton
BlinkMind, Inc.
2027 Briarchester Dr.
Katy, TX 77450
US
EMail: nathan@robotics.net
URI: http://www.robotics.net/
Kaplan, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]