RTP Payload Format for G.711.0
RFC 7655
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2015; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Ramalho , Paul Jones , Noboru Harada , Muthu Perumal , Miao Lei | ||
| Last updated | 2019-03-19 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ramalho-payload-g7110 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Roni Even | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-04-01) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7655 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ben Campbell | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Ramalho, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7655 P. Jones
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 N. Harada
NTT
M. Perumal
Ericsson
L. Miao
Huawei Technologies
November 2015
RTP Payload Format for G.711.0
Abstract
This document specifies the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
payload format for ITU-T Recommendation G.711.0. ITU-T Rec. G.711.0
defines a lossless and stateless compression for G.711 packet
payloads typically used in IP networks. This document also defines a
storage mode format for G.711.0 and a media type registration for the
G.711.0 RTP payload format.
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/rfc7655.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. G.711.0 Codec Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General Information and Use of the ITU-T G.711.0 Codec . 4
3.2. Key Properties of G.711.0 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. G.711 Input Frames to G.711.0 Output Frames . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Multiple G.711.0 Output Frames per RTP Payload
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. RTP Header and Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. G.711.0 RTP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. G.711.0 RTP Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Single G.711.0 Frame per RTP Payload Example . . . . 12
4.2.2. G.711.0 RTP Payload Definition . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2.1. G.711.0 RTP Payload Encoding Process . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. G.711.0 RTP Payload Decoding Process . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.4. G.711.0 RTP Payload for Multiple Channels . . . . . . 17
5. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. SDP Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.1. SDP Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.2. SDP Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. G.711.0 Storage Mode Conventions and Definition . . . . . . . 24
6.1. G.711.0 PLC Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. G.711.0 Erasure Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3. G.711.0 Storage Mode Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
1. Introduction
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation
G.711.0 [G.711.0] specifies a stateless and lossless compression for
G.711 packet payloads typically used in Voice over IP (VoIP)
networks. This document specifies the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) RFC 3550 [RFC3550] payload format and storage modes for this
compression.
2. Requirements Language
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].
3. G.711.0 Codec Background
ITU-T Recommendation G.711.0 [G.711.0] is a lossless and stateless
compression mechanism for ITU-T Recommendation G.711 [G.711] and thus
is not a "codec" in the sense of "lossy" codecs typically carried by
RTP. When negotiated end-to-end, ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 is negotiated as
if it were a codec, with the understanding that ITU-T Rec. G.711.0
losslessly encoded the underlying (lossy) G.711 Pulse Code Modulation
(PCM) sample representation of an audio signal. For this reason,
ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 will be interchangeably referred to in this
document as a "lossless data compression algorithm" or a "codec",
depending on context. Within this document, individual G.711 PCM
samples will be referred to as "G.711 symbols" or just "symbols" for
brevity.
This section describes the ITU-T Recommendation G.711 [G.711] codec,
its properties, typical uses cases, and its key design properties.
3.1. General Information and Use of the ITU-T G.711.0 Codec
ITU-T Recommendation G.711 is the benchmark standard for narrowband
telephony. It has been successful for many decades because of its
proven voice quality, ubiquity, and utility. A new ITU-T
recommendation, G.711.0, has been established for defining a
stateless and lossless compression for G.711 packet payloads
typically used in VoIP networks. ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 is also known as
ITU-T Rec. G.711 Annex A [G.711-A1], as ITU-T Rec. G.711 Annex A is
effectively a pointer ITU-T Rec. G.711.0. Henceforth in this
document, ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 will simply be referred to as "G.711.0"
and ITU-T Rec. G.711 simply as "G.711".
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
G.711.0 may be employed end-to-end, in which case the RTP payload
format specification and use is nearly identical to the G.711 RTP
specification found in RFC 3551 [RFC3551]. The only significant
difference for G.711.0 is the required use of a dynamic payload type
(the static PT of 0 or 8 is presently almost always used with G.711
even though dynamic assignment of other payload types is allowed) and
the recommendation not to use Voice Activity Detection (see
Section 4.1).
G.711.0, being both lossless and stateless, may also be employed as a
lossless compression mechanism for G.711 payloads anywhere between
end systems that have negotiated use of G.711. Because the only
significant difference between the G.711 RTP payload format header
and the G.711.0 payload format header defined in this document is the
payload type, a G.711 RTP packet can be losslessly converted to a
G.711.0 RTP packet simply by compressing the G.711 payload (thus
creating a G.711.0 payload), changing the payload type to the dynamic
value desired and copying all the remaining G.711 RTP header fields
into the corresponding G.711.0 RTP header. In a similar manner, the
corresponding decompression of the G.711.0 RTP packet thus created
back to the original source G.711 RTP packet can be accomplished by
losslessly decompressing the G.711.0 payload back to the original
source G.711 payload, changing the payload type back to the payload
type of the original G.711 RTP packet and copying all the remaining
G.711.0 RTP header fields into the corresponding G.711 RTP header.
As a packet produced by the compression and decompression as
described above is indistinguishable in every detail to the source
G.711 packet, such compression can be made invisible to the end
systems. Specification of how systems on the path between the end
systems discover each other and negotiate the use of G.711.0
compression as described in this paragraph is outside the scope of
this document.
It is informative to note that G.711.0, being both lossless and
stateless, can be employed multiple times (e.g., on multiple,
individual hops or series of hops) of a given flow with no
degradation of quality relative to end-to-end G.711. Stated another
way, multiple "lossless transcodes" from/to G.711.0/G.711 do not
affect voice quality as typically occurs with lossy transcodes to/
from dissimilar codecs.
Lastly, it is expected that G.711.0 will be used as an archival
format for recorded G.711 streams. Therefore, a G.711.0 Storage Mode
Format is also included in this document.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
3.2. Key Properties of G.711.0 Design
The fundamental design of G.711.0 resulted from the desire to
losslessly encode and compress frames of G.711 symbols independent of
what types of signals those G.711 frames contained. The primary
G.711.0 use case is for G.711 encoded, zero-mean, acoustic signals
(such as speech and music).
G.711.0 attributes are below:
A1 Compression for zero-mean acoustic signals: G.711.0 was designed
as its primary use case for the compression of G.711 payloads
that contained "speech" or other zero-mean acoustic signals.
G.711.0 obtains greater than 50% average compression in service
provider environments [ICASSP].
A2 Lossless for any G.711 payload: G.711.0 was designed to be
lossless for any valid G.711 payload - even if the payload
consisted of apparently random G.711 symbols (e.g., a modem or
FAX payload). G.711.0 could be used for "aggregate 64 kbps
G.711 channels" carried over IP without explicit concern if a
subset of these channels happened to be carrying something
other than voice or general audio. To the extent that a
particular channel carried something other than voice or
general audio, G.711.0 ensured that it was carried losslessly,
if not significantly compressed.
A3 Stateless: Compression of a frame of G.711 symbols was only to be
dependent on that frame and not on any prior frame. Although
greater compression is usually available by observing a longer
history of past G.711 symbols, it was decided that the
compression design would be stateless to completely eliminate
error propagation common in many lossy codec designs (e.g.,
ITU-T Rec. G.729 [G.729] and ITU-T Rec. G.722 [G.722]). That
is, the decoding process need not be concerned about lost prior
packets because the decompression of a given G.711.0 frame is
not dependent on potentially lost prior G.711.0 frames. Owing
to this stateless property, the frames input to the G.711.0
encoder may be changed "on-the-fly" (a 5 ms encoding could be
followed by a 20 ms encoding).
A4 Self-describing: This property is defined as the ability to
determine how many source G.711 samples are contained within
the G.711.0 frame solely by information contained within the
G.711.0 frame. Generally, the number of source G.711 symbols
can be determined by decoding the initial octets of the
compressed G.711.0 frame (these octets are called "prefix
codes" in the standard). A G.711.0 decoder need not know how
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
many symbols are contained in the original G.711 frame (e.g.,
parameter ptime in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
[RFC4566]), as it is able to decompress the G.711.0 frame
presented to it without signaling knowledge.
A5 Accommodate G.711 payload sizes typically used in IP: G.711 input
frames of length typically found in VoIP applications represent
SDP ptime values of 5 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 30 ms, or 40 ms.
Because the dominant sampling frequency for G.711 is 8000
samples per second, G.711.0 was designed to compress G.711
input frames of 40, 80, 160, 240, or 320 samples.
A6 Bounded expansion: Since attribute A2 above requires G.711.0 to
be lossless for any payload (which could consist of any
combination of octets with each octet spanning the entire space
of 2^8 values), by definition there exists at least one
potential G.711 payload that must be "uncompressible". Since
the quantum of compression is an octet, the minimum expansion
of such an uncompressible payload was designed to be the
minimum possible of one octet. Thus, G.711.0 "compressed"
frames can be of length one octet to X+1 octets, where X is the
size of the input G.711 frame in octets. G.711.0 can therefore
be viewed as a Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding in which the
size of the G.711.0 output frame is a function of the G.711
symbols input to it.
A7 Algorithmic delay: G.711.0 was designed to have the algorithmic
delay equal to the time represented by the number of samples in
the G.711 input frame (i.e., no "look-ahead").
A8 Low Complexity: Less than 1.0 Weighted Million Operations Per
Second (WMOPS) average and low memory footprint (~5k octets
RAM, ~5.7k octets ROM, and ~3.6 basic operations) [ICASSP]
[G.711.0].
A9 Both A-law and mu-law supported: G.711 has two operating laws,
A-law and mu-law. These two laws are also known as PCMA and
PCMU in RTP applications [RFC3551].
These attributes generally make it trivial to compress a G.711 input
frame consisting of 40, 80, 160, 240, or 320 samples. After the
input frame is presented to a G.711.0 encoder, a G.711.0 "self-
describing" output frame is produced. The number of samples
contained within this frame is easily determined at the G.711.0
decoder by virtue of attribute A4. The G.711.0 decoder can decode
the G.711.0 frame back to a G.711 frame by using only data within the
G.711.0 frame.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Lastly we note that losing a G.711.0 encoded packet is identical in
effect to losing a G.711 packet (when using RTP); this is because a
G.711.0 payload, like the corresponding G.711 payload, is stateless.
Thus, it is anticipated that existing G.711 Packet Loss Concealment
(PLC) mechanisms will be employed when a G.711.0 packet is lost and
an identical MOS degradation relative to G.711 loss will be achieved.
3.3. G.711 Input Frames to G.711.0 Output Frames
G.711.0 is a lossless and stateless compression of G.711 frames.
Figure 1 depicts this where "A" is the process of G.711.0 encoding
and "B" is the process of G.711.0 decoding.
|--------------------------| A |------------------------------|
| G.711 Input Frame |----->| G.711.0 Output Frame |
| of X Octets | | containing 1 to X+1 Octets |
| (where X MUST be 40, 80, | | (precise value dependent on |
| 160, 240, or 320 octets) |<-----| G.711.0 ability to compress) |
|__________________________| B |______________________________|
Figure 1: 1:1 Mapping from G.711 Input Frame to G.711.0 Output Frame
Note that the mapping is 1:1 (lossless) in both directions, subject
to two constraints. The first constraint is that the input frame
provided to the G.711.0 encoder (process "A") has a specific number
of input G.711 symbols consistent with attribute A5 (40, 80, 160,
240, or 320 octets). The second constraint is that the companding
law used to create the G.711 input frame (A-law or mu-law) must be
known, consistent with attribute A9.
Subject to these two constraints, the input G.711 frame is processed
by the G.711.0 encoder ("process A") and produces a "self-describing"
G.711.0 output frame, consistent with attribute A4. Depending on the
source G.711 symbols, the G.711.0 output frame can contain anywhere
from 1 to X+1 octets, where X is the number of input G.711 symbols.
Compression results for virtually every zero-mean acoustic signal
encoded by G.711.0.
Since the G.711.0 output frame is "self-describing", a G.711.0
decoder (process "B") can losslessly reproduce the original G.711
input frame with only the knowledge of which companding law was used
(A-law or mu-law). The first octet of a G.711.0 frame is called the
"Prefix Code" octet; the information within this octet conveys how
many G.711 symbols the decoder is to create from a given G.711.0
input frame (i.e., 0, 40, 80, 160, 240, or 320). The Prefix Code
value of 0x00 is used to denote zero G.711 source symbols, which
allows the use of 0x00 as a payload padding octet (described later in
Section 3.3.1).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Since G.711.0 was designed with typical G.711 payload lengths as a
design constraint (attribute A5), this lossless encoding can be
performed only with knowledge of the companding law being used. This
information is anticipated to be signaled in SDP and is described
later in this document.
If the original inputs were known to be from a zero-mean acoustic
signal coded by G.711, an intelligent G.711.0 encoder could infer the
G.711 companding law in use (via G.711 input signal amplitude
histogram statistics). Likewise, an intelligent G.711.0 decoder
producing G.711 from the G.711.0 frames could also infer which
encoding law is in use. Thus, G.711.0 could be designed for use in
applications that have limited stream signaling between the G.711
endpoints (i.e., they only know "G.711 at 8k sampling is being used",
but nothing more). Such usage is not further described in this
document. Additionally, if the original inputs were known to come
from zero-mean acoustic signals, an intelligent G.711.0 encoder could
tell if the G.711.0 payload had been encrypted -- as the symbols
would not have the distribution expected in either companding law and
would appear random. Such determination is also not further
discussed in this document.
It is easily seen that this process is 1:1 and that lossless
compression based on G.711.0 can be employed multiple times, as the
original G.711 input symbols are always reproduced with 100%
fidelity.
3.3.1. Multiple G.711.0 Output Frames per RTP Payload Considerations
As a general rule, G.711.0 frames containing more source G.711
symbols (from a given channel) will typically result in higher
compression, but there are exceptions to this rule. A G.711.0
encoder may choose to encode 20 ms of input G.711 symbols as: 1) a
single 20 ms G.711.0 frame, or 2) as two 10 ms G.711.0 frames, or 3)
any other combination of 5 ms or 10 ms G.711.0 frames -- depending on
which encoding resulted in fewer bits. As an example, an intelligent
encoder might encode 20 ms of G.711 symbols as two 10 ms G.711.0
frames if the first 10 ms was "silence" and two G.711.0 frames took
fewer bits than any other possible encoding combination of G.711.0
frame sizes.
During the process of G.711.0 standardization, it was recognized that
although it is sometimes advantageous to encode integer multiples of
40 G.711 symbols in whatever input symbol format resulted in the most
compression (as per above), the simplest choice is to encode the
entire ptime's worth of input G.711 symbols into one G.711.0 frame
(if the ptime supported it). This is especially so since the larger
number of source G.711 symbols typically resulted in the highest
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
compression anyway and there is added complexity in searching for
other possibilities (involving more G.711.0 frames) that were
unlikely to produce a more bit efficient result.
The design of ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 [G.711.0] foresaw the possibility of
multiple G.711.0 input frames in that the decoder was defined to
decode what it refers to as an incoming "bit stream". For this
specification, the bit stream is the G.711.0 RTP payload itself.
Thus, the decoder will take the G.711.0 RTP payload and will produce
an output frame containing the original G.711 symbols independent of
how many G.711.0 frames were present in it. Additionally, any number
of 0x00 padding octets placed between the G.711.0 frames will be
silently (and safely) ignored by the G.711.0 decoding process
Section 4.2.3).
To recap, a G.711.0 encoder may choose to encode incoming G.711
symbols into one or more than one G.711.0 frames and put the
resultant frame(s) into the G.711.0 RTP payload. Zero or more 0x00
padding octets may also be included in the G.711.0 RTP payload. The
G.711.0 decoder, being insensitive to the number of G.711.0 encoded
frames that are contained within it, will decode the G.711.0 RTP
payload into the source G.711 symbols. Although examples of single
or multiple G.711 frame cases are illustrated in Section 4.2, the
multiple G.711.0 frame cases MUST be supported and there is no need
for negotiation (SDP or otherwise) required for it.
4. RTP Header and Payload
In this section, we describe the precise format for G.711.0 frames
carried via RTP. We begin with an RTP header description relative to
G.711, then provide two G.711.0 payload examples.
4.1. G.711.0 RTP Header
Relative to G.711 RTP headers, the utilization of G.711.0 does not
create any special requirements with respect to the contents of the
RTP packet header. The only significant difference is that the
payload type (PT) RTP header field MUST have a value corresponding to
the dynamic payload type assigned to the flow. This is in contrast
to most current uses of G.711 that typically use the static payload
assignment of PT = 0 (PCMU) or PT = 8 (PCMA) [RFC3551] even though
the negotiation and use of dynamic payload types is allowed for
G.711. With the exception of rare PT exhaustion cases, the existing
G.711 PT values of 0 and 8 MUST NOT be used for G.711.0 (helping to
avoid possible payload confusion with G.711 payloads).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Voice Activity Detection (VAD) SHOULD NOT be used when G.711.0 is
negotiated because G.711.0 obtains high compression during "VAD
silence intervals" and one of the advantages of G.711.0 over G.711
with VAD is the lack of any VAD-inducing artifacts in the received
signal. However, if VAD is employed, the Marker bit (M) MUST be set
in the first packet of a talkspurt (the first packet after a silence
period in which packets have not been transmitted contiguously as per
rules specified in [RFC3551] for G.711 payloads). This definition,
being consistent with the G.711 RTP VAD use, further allows lossless
transcoding between G.711 RTP packets and G.711.0 RTP packets as
described in Section 3.1.
With this introduction, the RTP packet header fields are defined as
follows:
V - As per [RFC3550]
P - As per [RFC3550]
X - As per [RFC3550]
CC - As per [RFC3550]
M - As per [RFC3550] and [RFC3551]
PT - 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 (e.g., see [RFC3550] and
[RFC4585]).
SN - As per [RFC3550]
timestamp - As per [RFC3550]
SSRC - As per [RFC3550]
CSRC - As per [RFC3550]
V (version bits), P (padding bit), X (extension bit), CC (CSRC
count), M (marker bit), PT (payload type), SN (sequence number),
timestamp, SSRC (synchronizing source) and CSRC (contributing
sources) are as defined in [RFC3550] and are as typically used with
G.711. PT (payload type) is as defined in [RFC3551].
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
4.2. G.711.0 RTP Payload
This section defines the G.711.0 RTP payload and illustrates it by
means of two examples.
The first example, in Section 4.2.1, depicts the case in which
carrying only one G.711.0 frame in the RTP payload is desired. This
case is expected to be the dominant use case and is shown separately
for the purposes of clarity.
The second example, in Section 4.2.2, depicts the general case in
which carrying one or more G.711.0 frames in the RTP payload is
desired. This is the actual definition of the G.711.0 RTP payload.
4.2.1. Single G.711.0 Frame per RTP Payload Example
This example depicts a single G.711.0 frame in the RTP payload. This
is expected to be the dominant RTP payload case for G.711.0, as the
G.711.0 encoding process supports the SDP packet times (ptime and
maxptime, see [RFC4566]) commonly used when G.711 is transported in
RTP. Additionally, as mentioned previously, larger G.711.0 frames
generally compress more effectively than a multiplicity of smaller
G.711.0 frames.
The following figure illustrates the single G.711.0 frame per RTP
payload case.
|-------------------|-------------------|
| One G.711.0 Frame | Zero or more 0x00 |
| | Padding Octets |
|___________________|___________________|
Figure 2: Single G.711.0 Frame in RTP Payload Case
Encoding Process: A single G.711.0 frame is inserted into the RTP
payload. The amount of time represented by the G.711 symbols
compressed in the G.711.0 frame MUST correspond to the ptime signaled
for applications using SDP. Although generally not desired, padding
desired in the RTP payload after the G.711.0 frame MAY be created by
placing one or more 0x00 octets after the G.711.0 frame. Such
padding may be desired based on the Security Considerations (see
Section 8).
Decoding Process: Passing the entire RTP payload to the G.711.0
decoder is sufficient for the G.711.0 decoder to create the source
G.711 symbols. Any padding inserted after the G.711.0 frame (i.e.,
the 0x00 octets) present in the RTP payload is silently ignored by
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
the G.711.0 decoding process. The decoding process is fully
described in Section 4.2.3.
4.2.2. G.711.0 RTP Payload Definition
This section defines the G.711.0 RTP payload and illustrates the case
in which one or more G.711.0 frames are to be placed in the payload.
All G.711.0 RTP decoders MUST support the general case described in
this section (rationale presented previously in Section 3.3.1).
Note that since each G.711.0 frame is self-describing (see Attribute
A4 in Section 3.2), the individual G.711.0 frames in the RTP payload
need not represent the same duration of time (i.e., a 5 ms G.711.0
frame could be followed by a 20 ms G.711.0 frame). Owing to this,
the amount of time represented in the RTP payload MAY be any integer
multiple of 5 ms (as 5 ms is the smallest interval of time that can
be represented in a G.711.0 frame).
The following figure illustrates the one or more G.711.0 frames per
RTP payload case where the number of G.711.0 frames placed in the RTP
payload is N. We note that when N is equal to 1, this case is
identical to the previous example.
|----------|---------|----------|---------|----------------|
| First | Second | | Nth | Zero or more |
| G.711.0 | G.711.0 | ... | G.711.0 | 0x00 |
| Frame | Frame | | Frame | Padding Octets |
|__________|_________|__________|_________|________________|
Figure 3: One or More G.711.0 Frames in RTP Payload Case
We note here that when we have multiple G.711.0 frames, the
individual frames can be, and generally are, of different lengths.
The decoding process described in Section 4.2.3 is used to determine
the frame boundaries.
Encoding Process: One or more G.711.0 frames are placed in the RTP
payload simply by concatenating the G.711.0 frames together. The
amount of time represented by the G.711 symbols compressed in all the
G.711.0 frames in the RTP payload MUST correspond to the ptime
signaled for applications using SDP. Although not generally desired,
padding in the RTP payload SHOULD be placed after the last G.711.0
frame in the payload and MAY be created by placing one or more 0x00
octets after the last G.711.0 frame. Such padding may be desired
based on security considerations (see Section 8). Additional details
about the encoding process and considerations are specified later in
Section 4.2.2.1.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Decoding Process: As G.711.0 frames can be of varying length, the
payload decoding process described in Section 4.2.3 is used to
determine where the individual G.711.0 frame boundaries are. Any
padding octets inserted before or after any G.711.0 frame in the RTP
payload is silently (and safely) ignored by the G.711.0 decoding
process specified in Section 4.2.3.
4.2.2.1. G.711.0 RTP Payload Encoding Process
ITU-T G.711.0 supports five possible input frame lengths: 40, 80,
160, 240, and 320 samples per frame, and the rationale for choosing
those lengths was given in the description of property A5 in
Section 3.2. Assuming a frequency of 8000 samples per second, these
lengths correspond to input frames representing 5 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms,
30 ms, or 40 ms. So while the standard assumed the input "bit
stream" consisted of G.711 symbols of some integer multiple of 5 ms
in length, it did not specify exactly what frame lengths to use as
input to the G.711.0 encoder itself. The intent of this section is
to provide some guidance for the selection.
Consider a typical IETF use case of 20 ms (160 octets) of G.711 input
samples represented in a G.711.0 payload and signaled by using the
SDP parameter ptime. As described in Section 3.3.1, the simplest way
to encode these 160 octets is to pass the entire 160 octets to the
G.711.0 encoder, resulting in precisely one G.711.0 compressed frame,
and put that singular frame into the G.711.0 RTP payload. However,
neither the ITU-T G.711.0 standard nor this IETF payload format
mandates this. In fact, 20 ms of input G.711 symbols can be encoded
as 1, 2, 3, or 4 G.711.0 frames in any one of six combinations (i.e.,
{20ms}, {10ms:10ms}, {10ms:5ms:5ms}, {5ms:10ms:5ms}, {5ms:5ms:10ms},
{5ms:5ms:5ms:5ms}) and any of these combinations would decompress
into the same source 160 G.711 octets. As an aside, we note that the
first octet of any G.711.0 frame will be the prefix code octet and
information in this octet determines how many G.711 symbols are
represented in the G.711.0 frame.
Notwithstanding the above, we expect one of two encodings to be used
by implementers: the simplest possible (one 160-byte input to the
G.711.0 encoder that usually results in the highest compression) or
the combination of possible input frames to a G.711.0 encoder that
results in the highest compression for the payload. The explicit
mention of this issue in this IETF document was deemed important
because the ITU-T G.711.0 standard is silent on this issue and there
is a desire for this issue to be documented in a formal Standards
Developing Organization (SDO) document (i.e., here).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
4.2.3. G.711.0 RTP Payload Decoding Process
The G.711.0 decoding process is a standard part of G.711.0 bit stream
decoding and is implemented in the ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 reference code.
The decoding process algorithm described in this section is a slight
enhancement of the ITU-T reference code to explicitly accommodate RTP
padding (as described above).
Before describing the decoding, we note here that the largest
possible G.711.0 frame is created whenever the largest number of
G.711 symbols is encoded (320 from Section 3.2, property A5) and
these 320 symbols are "uncompressible" by the G.711.0 encoder. In
this case (via property A6 in Section 3.2), the G.711.0 output frame
will be 321 octets long. We also note that the value 0x00 chosen for
the optional padding cannot be the first octet of a valid ITU-T Rec.
G.711.0 frame (see [G.711.0]). We also note that whenever more than
one G.711.0 frame is contained in the RTP payload, decoding of the
individual G.711.0 frames will occur multiple times.
For the decoding algorithm below, let N be the number of octets in
the RTP payload (i.e., excluding any RTP padding, but including any
RTP payload padding), let P equal the number of RTP payload octets
processed by the G.711.0 decoding process, let K be the number of
G.711 symbols presently in the output buffer, let Q be the number of
octets contained in the G.711.0 frame being processed, and let "!="
represent not equal to. The keyword "STOP" is used below to indicate
the end of the processing of G.711.0 frames in the RTP payload. The
algorithm below assumes an output buffer for the decoded G.711 source
symbols of length sufficient to accommodate the expected number of
G.711 symbols and an input buffer of length 321 octets.
G.711.0 RTP Payload Decoding Heuristic:
H1 Initialization of counters: Initialize P, the number of processed
octets counter, to zero. Initialize K, the counter for how
many G.711 symbols are in the output buffer, to zero.
Initialize N to the number of octets in the RTP payload
(including any RTP payload padding). Go to H2.
H2 Read internal buffer: Read min{320+1, (N-P)-1} octets into the
internal buffer from the (P+1) octet of the RTP payload. We
note at this point, N-P octets have yet to be processed and
that 320+1 octets is the largest possible G.711.0 frame. Also
note that in the common case of zero-based array indexing of a
uint8 array of octets, that this operation will read octets
from index P through index [min{320+1, (N-P)}] from the RTP
payload. Go to H3.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
H3 Analyze the first octet in the internal buffer: If this octet is
0x00 (a padding octet), go to H4; otherwise, go to H5 (process
a G.711.0 frame).
H4 Process padding octet (no G.711 symbols generated): Increment the
processed packets counter by one (set P = P + 1). If the
result of this increment results in P >= N, then STOP (as all
RTP Payload octets have been processed); otherwise, go to H2.
H5 Process an individual G.711.0 frame (produce G.711 samples in the
output frame): Pass the internal buffer to the G.711.0 decoder.
The G.711.0 decoder will read the first octet (called the
"prefix code" octet in ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 [G.711.0]) to
determine the number of source G.711 samples M are contained in
this G.711.0 frame. The G.711.0 decoder will produce exactly M
G.711 source symbols (M can only have values of 0, 40, 80, 160,
240, or 320). If K = 0, these M symbols will be the first in
the output buffer and are placed at the beginning of the output
buffer. If K != 0, concatenate these M symbols with the prior
symbols in the output buffer (there are K prior symbols in the
buffer). Set K = K + M (as there are now this many G.711
source symbols in the output buffer). The G.711.0 decoder will
have consumed some number of octets, Q, in the internal buffer
to produce the M G.711 symbols. Increment the number of
payload octets processed counter by this quantity (set P = P +
Q). If the result of this increment results in P >= N, then
STOP (as all RTP Payload octets have been processed);
otherwise, go to H2.
At this point, the output buffer will contain precisely K G.711
source symbols that should correspond to the ptime signaled if SDP
was used and the encoding process was without error. If ptime was
signaled via SDP and the number of G.711 symbols in the output buffer
is something other than what corresponds to ptime, the packet MUST be
discarded unless other system design knowledge allows for otherwise
(e.g., occasional 5 ms clock slips causing one more or one less
G.711.0 frame than nominal to be in the payload). Lastly, due to the
buffer reads in H2 being bounded (to 321 octets or less), N being
bounded to the size of the G.711.0 RTP payload, and M being bounded
to the number of source G.711 symbols, there is no buffer overrun
risk.
We also note, as an aside, that the algorithm above (and the ITU-T
G.711.0 reference code) accommodates padding octets (0x00) placed
anywhere between G.711.0 frames in the RTP payload as well as prior
to or after any or all G.711.0 frames. The ITU-T G.711.0 reference
code does not have Steps H3 and H4 as separate steps (i.e., Step H5
immediately follows H2) at the added computational cost of some
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
additional buffer passing to/from the G.711.0 frame decoder
functions. That is, the G.711.0 decoder in the reference code
"silently ignores" 0x00 padding octets at the beginning of what it
believes to be a frame boundary encoded by G.711.0. Thus, Steps H3
and H4 above are an optimization over the reference code shown for
clarity.
If the decoder is at a playout endpoint location, this G.711 buffer
SHOULD be used in the same manner as a received G.711 RTP payload
would have been used (passed to a playout buffer, to a PLC
implementation, etc.).
We explicitly note that a framing error condition will result
whenever the buffer sent to a G.711.0 decoder does not begin with a
valid first G.711.0 frame octet (i.e., a valid G.711.0 prefix code or
a 0x00 padding octet). The expected result is that the decoder will
not produce the desired/correct G.711 source symbols. However, as
already noted, the output returned by the G.711.0 decoder will be
bounded (to less than 321 octets per G.711.0 decode request) and if
the number of the (presumed) G.711 symbols produced is known to be in
error, the decoded output MUST be discarded.
4.2.4. G.711.0 RTP Payload for Multiple Channels
In this section, we describe the use of multiple "channels" of G.711
data encoded by G.711.0 compression.
The dominant use of G.711 in RTP transport has been for single
channel use cases. For this case, the above G.711.0 encoding and
decoding process is used. However, the multiple channel case for
G.711.0 (a frame-based compression) is different from G.711 (a
sample-based encoding) and is described separately here.
Section 4 of RFC 3551 [RFC3551] provides guidelines for encoding
audio channels and Section 4.1 of RFC 3551 [RFC3551] for the ordering
of the channels within the RTP payload. The ordering guidelines in
Section 4.1 of RFC 3551 SHOULD be used unless an application-specific
channel ordering is more appropriate.
An implicit assumption in RFC 3551 is that all the channel data
multiplexed into an RTP payload MUST represent the same physical time
span. The case for G.711.0 is no different; the underlying G.711
data for all channels in a G.711.0 RTP payload MUST span the same
interval in time (e.g., the same "ptime" for a SDP-specified codec
negotiation).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Section 4.2 of RFC 3551 provides guidelines for sample-based
encodings such as G.711. This guidance is tantamount to interleaving
the individual samples in that they SHOULD be packed in consecutive
octets.
RFC 3551 provides guidelines for frame-based encodings in which the
frames are interleaved. However, this guidance stems from the stated
assumption that "the frame size for the frame-oriented codecs is
given". However, this assumption is not valid for G.711.0 in that
individual consecutive G.711.0 frames (as per Section 4.2.2 of this
document) can:
1. represent different time spans (e.g., two 5 ms G.711.0 frames in
lieu of one 10 ms G.711.0 frame), and
2. be of different lengths in octets (and typically are).
Therefore, a different, but also simple, concatenation-based approach
is specified in this RFC.
For the multiple channel G.711.0 case, each G.711 channel is
independently encoded into one or more G.711.0 frames defined here as
a "G.711.0 channel superframe". Each one of these superframes is
identical to the multiple G.711.0 frame case illustrated in Figure 3
of Section 4.2.2 in which each superframe can have one or more
individual G.711.0 frames within it. Then each G.711.0 channel
superframe is concatenated -- in channel order -- into a G.711.0 RTP
payload. Then, if optional G.711.0 padding octets (0x00) are
desired, it is RECOMMENDED that these octets are placed after the
last G.711.0 channel superframe. As per above, such padding may be
desired based on Security Considerations (see Section 8). This is
depicted in Figure 4.
|----------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| First | Second | | Nth | Zero |
| G.711.0 | G.711.0 | ... | G.711.0 | or more |
| Channel | Channel | | Channel | 0x00 |
| Super- | Super- | | Super | Padding |
| Frame | Frame | | Frame | Octets |
|__________|_________|__________|_________|_________|
Figure 4: Multiple G.711.0 Channel Superframes in RTP Payload
We note that although the individual superframes can be of different
lengths in octets (and usually are), the number of G.711 source
symbols represented -- in compressed form -- in each channel
superframe is identical (since all the channels represent the
identically same time interval).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
The G.711.0 decoder at the receiving end simply decodes the entire
G.711.0 (multiple channel) payload into individual G.711 symbols. If
M such G.711 symbols result and there were N channels, then the first
M/N G.711 samples would be from the first channel, the second M/N
G.711 samples would be from the second channel, and so on until the
Nth set of G.711 samples are found. Similarly, if the number of
channels was not known, but the payload "ptime" was known, one could
infer (knowing the sampling rate) how many G.711 symbols each channel
contained; then, with this knowledge, the number of channels of data
contained in the payload could be determined. When SDP is used, the
number of channels is known because the optional parameter is a MUST
when there is more than one channel negotiated (see Section 5.1).
Additionally, when SDP is used, the parameter ptime is a RECOMMENDED
optional parameter. We note that if both parameters channels and
ptime are known, one could provide a check for the other and the
converse. Whichever algorithm is used to determine the number of
channels, if the length of the source G.711 symbols in the payload
(M) is not an integer multiple of the number of channels (N), then
the packet SHOULD be discarded.
Lastly, we note that although any padding for the multiple channel
G.711.0 payload is RECOMMENDED to be placed at the end of the
payload, the G.711.0 decoding algorithm described in Section 4.2.3
will successfully decode the payload in Figure 4 if the 0x00 padding
octet is placed anywhere before or after any individual G.711.0 frame
in the RTP payload. The number of padding octets introduced at any
G.711.0 frame boundary therefore does not affect the number M of the
source G.711 symbols produced. Thus, the decision for padding MAY be
made on a per-superframe basis.
5. Payload Format Parameters
This section defines the parameters that may be used to configure
optional features in the G.711.0 RTP transmission.
The parameters defined here are a part of the media subtype
registration for the G.711.0 codec. Mapping of the parameters into
SDP RFC 4566 [RFC4566] is also provided for those applications that
use SDP.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
5.1. Media Type Registration
Type name: audio
Subtype name: G711-0
Required parameters:
clock rate: The RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
sampling rate. The typical rate used with G.711 encoding is 8000,
but other rates may be specified. The default rate is 8000.
complaw: This format-specific parameter, specified on the "a=fmtp:
line", indicates the companding law (A-law or mu-law) employed.
This format-specific parameter, as per RFC 4566 [RFC4566], is
given unchanged to the media tool using this format. The case-
insensitive values are "complaw=al" or "complaw=mu" are used for
A-law and mu-law, respectively.
Optional parameters:
channels: See RFC 4566 [RFC4566] for definition. Specifies how
many audio streams are represented in the G.711.0 payload and MUST
be present if the number of channels is greater than one. This
parameter defaults to 1 if not present (as per RFC 4566) and is
typically a non-zero, small-valued positive integer. It is
expected that implementations that specify multiple channels will
also define a mechanism to map the channels appropriately within
their system design; otherwise, the channel order specified in
Section 4.1 of RFC 3551 [RFC3551] will be assumed (e.g., left,
right, center). Similar to the usual interpretation in RFC 3551
[RFC3551], the number of channels SHALL be a non-zero, positive
integer.
maxptime: See RFC 4566 [RFC4566] for definition.
ptime: See RFC 4566 [RFC4566] for definition. The inclusion of
"ptime" is RECOMMENDED and SHOULD be in the SDP unless there is an
application-specific reason not to include it (e.g., an
application that has a variable ptime on a packet-by-packet
basis). For constant ptime applications, it is considered good
form to include "ptime" in the SDP for session diagnostic
purposes. For the constant ptime multiple channel case described
in Section 4.2.2, the inclusion of "ptime" can provide a desirable
payload check.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Encoding considerations:
This media type is framed binary data (see Section 4.8 in RFC 6838
[RFC6838]) compressed as per ITU-T Rec. G.711.0.
Security considerations:
See Section 8.
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification:
ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 and RFC 7655 (this document).
Applications that use this media type:
Although initially conceived for VoIP, the use of G.711.0, like
G.711 before it, may find use within audio and video streaming
and/or conferencing applications for the audio portion of those
applications.
Additional information:
The following applies to stored-file transfer methods:
Magic numbers: #!G7110A\n or #!G7110M\n (for A-law or MU-law
encodings respectively, see Section 6).
File Extensions: None
Macintosh file type code: None
Object identifier or OIL: None
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Michael A. Ramalho <mramalho@cisco.com> or <mar42@cornell.edu>
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.
Author: Michael A. Ramalho
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Change controller:
IETF Payload working group delegated from the IESG.
5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters
The information carried in the media type specification has a
specific mapping to fields in SDP, which is commonly used to describe
an RTP session. When SDP is used to specify sessions employing
G.711.0, the mapping is as follows:
o The media type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
o The media subtype ("G711-0") goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the
encoding name.
o The required parameter "rate" also goes in "a=rtpmap" as the clock
rate.
o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and
"a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.
o Remaining parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying
them directly from the media type string as a semicolon-separated
list of parameter=value pairs.
5.3. Offer/Answer Considerations
The following considerations apply when using the SDP offer/answer
mechanism [RFC3264] to negotiate the "channels" attribute.
o If the offering endpoint specifies a value for the optional
channels parameter that is greater than one, and the answering
endpoint both understands the parameter and cannot support that
value requested, the answer MUST contain the optional channels
parameter with the highest value it can support.
o If the offering endpoint specifies a value for the optional
channels parameter, the answer MUST contain the optional channels
parameter unless the only value the answering endpoint can support
is one, in which case the answer MAY contain the optional channels
parameter with a value of 1.
o If the offering endpoint specifies a value for the ptime parameter
that the answering endpoint cannot support, the answer MUST
contain the optional ptime parameter.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
o If the offering endpoint specifies a value for the maxptime
parameter that the answering endpoint cannot support, the answer
MUST contain the optional maxptime parameter.
5.4. SDP Examples
The following examples illustrate how to signal G.711.0 via SDP.
5.4.1. SDP Example 1
m=audio RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 G711-0/8000
a=fmtp:98 complaw=mu
In the above example, the dynamic payload type 98 is mapped to
G.711.0 via the "a=rtpmap" parameter. The mandatory "complaw" is on
the "a=fmtp" parameter line. Note that neither optional parameters
"ptime" nor "channels" is present; although, it is generally good
form to include "ptime" in the SDP if the session is a constant ptime
session for diagnostic purposes.
5.4.2. SDP Example 2
The following example illustrates an offering endpoint requesting 2
channels, but the answering endpoint can only support (or render) one
channel.
Offer:
m=audio RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 G711-0/8000/2
a=ptime:20
a=fmtp:98 complaw=al
Answer:
m=audio RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap: 98 G711-0/8000/1
a=ptime: 20
a=fmtp:98 complaw=al
In this example, the offer had an optional channels parameter. The
answer must have the optional channels parameter also unless the
value in the answer is one. Shown here is when the answer explicitly
contains the channels parameter (it need not have and it would be
interpreted as one channel). As mentioned previously, it is
considered good form to include "ptime" in the SDP for session
diagnostic purposes if the session is a constant ptime session.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
6. G.711.0 Storage Mode Conventions and Definition
The G.711.0 storage mode definition in this section is similar to
many other IETF codecs (e.g., iLBC RFC 3951 [RFC3951] and EVRC-NW RFC
6884 [RFC6884]), and is essentially a concatenation of individual
G.711.0 frames.
We note that something must be stored for any G.711.0 frames that are
not received at the receiving endpoint, no matter what the cause. In
this section, we describe two mechanisms, a "G.711.0 PLC Frame" and a
"G.711.0 Erasure Frame". These G.711.0 PLC and G.711.0 Erasure
Frames are described prior to the G.711.0 storage mode definition for
clarity.
6.1. G.711.0 PLC Frame
When G.711 RTP payloads are not received by a rendering endpoint, a
PLC mechanism is typically employed to "fill in" the missing G.711
symbols with something that is auditorially pleasing; thus, the loss
may be not noticed by a listener. Such a PLC mechanism for G.711 is
specified in ITU-T Rec. G.711 - Appendix 1 [G.711-AP1].
A natural extension when creating G.711.0 frames for storage
environments is to employ such a PLC mechanism to create G.711
symbols for the span of time in which G.711.0 payloads were not
received -- and then to compress the resulting "G.711 PLC symbols"
via G.711.0 compression. The G.711.0 frame(s) created by such a
process are called "G.711.0 PLC Frames".
Since PLC mechanisms are designed to render missing audio data with
the best fidelity and intelligibility, G.711.0 frames created via
such processing is likely best for most recording situations (such as
voicemail storage) unless there is a requirement not to fabricate
(audio) data not actually received.
After such PLC G.711 symbols have been generated and then encoded by
a G.711.0 encoder, the resulting frames may be stored in G.711.0
frame format. As a result, there is nothing to specify here -- the
G.711.0 PLC frames are stored as if they were received by the
receiving endpoint. In other words, PLC-generated G.711.0 frames
appear as "normal" or "ordinary" G.711.0 frames in the storage mode
file.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
6.2. G.711.0 Erasure Frame
"Erasure Frames", or equivalently "Null Frames", have been designed
for many frame-based codecs since G.711 was standardized. These
null/erasure frames explicitly represent data from incoming audio
that were either not received by the receiving system or represent
data that a transmitting system decided not to send. Transmitting
systems may choose not to send data for a variety of reasons (e.g.,
not enough wireless link capacity in radio-based systems) and can
choose to send a "null frame" in lieu of the actual audio. It is
also envisioned that erasure frames would be used in storage mode
applications for specific archival purposes where there is a
requirement not to fabricate audio data that was not actually
received.
Thus, a G.711.0 erasure frame is a representation of the amount of
time in G.711.0 frames that were not received or not encoded by the
transmitting system.
Prior to defining a G.711.0 erasure frame, it is beneficial to note
what many G.711 RTP systems send when the endpoint is "muted". When
muted, many of these systems will send an entire G.711 payload of
either 0+ or 0- (i.e., one of the two levels closest to "analog zero"
in either G.711 companding law). Next we note that a desirable
property for a G.711.0 erasure frame is for "non-G.711.0 Erasure
Frame-aware" endpoints to be able to playback a G.711.0 erasure frame
with the existing G.711.0 ITU-T reference code.
A G.711.0 Erasure Frame is defined as any G.711.0 frame for which the
corresponding G.711 sample values are either the value 0++ or the
value 0-- for the entirety of the G.711.0 frame. The levels of 0++
and 0-- are defined to be the two levels above or below analog zero,
respectively. An entire frame of value 0++ or 0-- is expected to be
extraordinarily rare when the frame was in fact generated by a
natural signal, as analog inputs such as speech and music are zero-
mean and are typically acoustically coupled to digital sampling
systems. Note that the playback of a G.711.0 frame characterized as
an erasure frame is auditorially equivalent to a muted signal (a very
low value constant).
These G.711.0 erasure frames can be reasonably characterized as null
or erasure frames while meeting the desired playback goal of being
decoded by the G.711.0 ITU-T reference code. Thus, similarly to
G.711 PLC frames, the G.711.0 erasure frames appear as "normal" or
"ordinary" G.711.0 frames in the storage mode format.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
6.3. G.711.0 Storage Mode Definition
The storage format is used for storing G.711.0 encoded frames. The
format for the G.711.0 storage mode file defined by this RFC is shown
below.
|---------------------------|----------|--------------|
| Magic Number | | |
| | Version | Concatenated |
| "#!G7110A\n" (for A-law) | Octet | G.711.0 |
| or | | Frames |
| "#!G7110M\n" (for mu-law) | "0x00" | |
|___________________________|__________|______________|
Figure 5: G.711.0 Storage Mode Format
The storage mode file consists of a magic number and a version octet
followed by the individual G.711.0 frames concatenated together.
The magic number for G.711.0 A-law corresponds to the ASCII character
string "#!G7110A\n", i.e., "0x23 0x21 0x47 0x37 0x31 0x31 0x30 0x41
0x0A". Likewise, the magic number for G.711.0 MU-law corresponds to
the ASCII character string "#!G7110M\n", i.e., "0x23 0x21 0x47 0x37
0x31 0x31 0x4E 0x4D 0x0A".
The version number octet allows for the future specification of other
G.711.0 storage mode formats. The specification of other storage
mode formats may be desirable as G.711.0 frames are of variable
length and a future format may include an indexing methodology that
would enable playout far into a long G.711.0 recording without the
necessity of decoding all the G.711.0 frames since the beginning of
the recording. Other future format specification may include support
for multiple channels, metadata, and the like. For these reasons, it
was determined that a versioning strategy was desirable for the
G.711.0 storage mode definition specified by this RFC. This RFC only
specifies Version 0 and thus the value of "0x00" MUST be used for the
storage mode defined by this RFC.
The G.711.0 codec data frames, including any necessary erasure or PLC
frames, are stored in consecutive order concatenated together as
shown in Section 4.2.2. As the Version 0 storage mode only supports
a single channel, the RTP payload format supporting multiple channels
defined in Section 4.2.4 is not supported in this storage mode
definition.
To decode the individual G.711.0 frames, the algorithm presented in
Section 4.2.2 may be used to decode the individual G.711.0 frames.
If the version octet is determined not to be zero, the remainder of
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
the payload MUST NOT be passed to the G.711.0 decoder, as the ITU-T
G.711.0 reference decoder can only decode concatenated G.711.0 frames
and has not been designed to decode elements in yet to be specified
future storage mode formats.
7. IANA Considerations
One media type (audio/G711-0) has been defined and registered in
IANA's "Media Types" registry. See Section 5.1 for details.
8. 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 (such as
RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/
SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol Framework:
Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202]
discusses, it is not a responsibility of the RTP payload format to
discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic security
goals like confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity for
RTP in general. This responsibility lays on anyone using RTP in an
application. They can find guidance on available security mechanisms
and important considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions"
[RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong
security mechanisms. The rest of this Security Considerations
section discusses the security impacting properties of the playload
format itself.
Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied
end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression.
Note that end-to-end security with either authentication, integrity,
or confidentiality protection will prevent a network element not
within the security context from performing media-aware operations
other than discarding complete packets. To allow any (media-aware)
intermediate network element to perform its operations, it is
required to be a trusted entity that is included in the security
context establishment.
G.711.0 has no known denial-of-service (DoS) attacks due to decoding,
as data posing as a desired G711.0 payload will be decoded into
something (as per the decoding algorithm) with a finite amount of
computation. This is due to the decompression algorithm having a
finite worst-case processing path (no infinite computational loops
are possible). We also note that the data read by the G.711.0
decoder is controlled by the length of the individual encoded G.711.0
frame(s) contained in the RTP payload. The decoding algorithm
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
specified previously in Section 4.2.3 ensures that the G.711.0
decoder will not read beyond the length of the internal buffer
specified (which is in turn specified to be no greater than the
largest possible G.711.0 frame of 321 octets). Therefore, a G.711.0
payload does not carry "active content" that could impose malicious
side-effects upon the receiver.
G.711.0 is a VBR audio codec. There have been recent concerns with
VBR speech codecs where a passive observer can identify phrases from
a standard speech corpus by means of the lengths produced by the
encoder even when the payload is encrypted [IEEE]. In this paper, it
was determined that some Code-Excited Linear Prediction (CELP) codecs
would produce discrete packet lengths for some phonemes.
Furthermore, with the use of appropriately designed Hidden Markov
Models (HMMs), such a system could predict phrases with unexpected
accuracy. One CELP codec studied, SPEEX, had the property that
produced 21 different packet lengths in its wideband mode, and these
packet lengths probabilistically mapped to phonemes that an HMM
system could be trained on. In this paper, it was determined that a
mitigation technique would be to pad the output of the encoder with
random padding lengths to the effect: 1) that more discrete payload
sizes would result, and 2) that the probabilistic mapping to phonemes
would become less clear. As G.711 is not a speech-model-based codec,
neither is G.711.0. A G.711.0 encoding, during talking periods,
produces frames of varying frame lengths that are not likely to have
a strong mapping to phonemes. Thus, G.711.0 is not expected to have
this same vulnerability. It should be noted that "silence" (only one
value of G.711 in the entire G.711 input frame) or "near silence"
(only a few G.711 values) is easily detectable as G.711.0 frame
lengths or one or a few octets. If one desires to mitigate for
silence/non-silence detection, statistically variable padding should
be added to G.711.0 frames that resulted in very small G.711.0 frames
(less than about 20% of the symbols of the corresponding G.711 input
frame). Methods of introducing padding in the G.711.0 payloads have
been provided in the G.711.0 RTP payload definition in Section 4.2.2.
9. Congestion Control
The G.711 codec is a Constant Bit Rate (CBR) codec that does not have
a means to regulate the bitrate. The G.711.0 lossless compression
algorithm typically compresses the G.711 CBR stream into a lower-
bandwidth VBR stream. However, being lossless, it does not possess
means of further reducing the bitrate beyond the compression result
based on G.711.0. The G.711.0 RTP payloads can be made arbitrarily
large by means of adding optional padding bytes (subject only to MTU
limitations).
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Therefore, there are no explicit ways to regulate the bit rate of the
transmissions outlined in this RTP payload format except by means of
modulating the number of optional padding bytes in the RTP payload.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[G.711] ITU-T, "Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) of Voice
Frequencies", ITU-T Recommendation G.711 PCM, 1988.
[G.711-A1] ITU-T, "New Annex A on Lossless Encoding of PCM Frames",
ITU-T Recommendation G.711 Amendment 1, 2009.
[G.711-AP1] ITU-T, "A high quality low-complexity algorithm for
packet loss concealment with G.711", ITU-T
Recommendation G.711 AP1, 1999.
[G.711.0] ITU-T, "Lossless Compression of G.711 Pulse Code
Modulation", ITU-T Recommendation G.711 LC PCM, 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio
and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65,
RFC 3551, DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP)", RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
[RFC3951] Andersen, S., Duric, A., Astrom, H., Hagen, R., Kleijn,
W., and J. Linden, "Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC)",
RFC 3951, DOI 10.17487/RFC3951, December 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3951>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J.
Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport
Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)",
RFC 4585, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based
Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124,
February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6884] Fang, Z., "RTP Payload Format for the Enhanced Variable
Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)", RFC 6884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6884, March 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6884>.
[RFC7201] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201>.
[RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>.
10.2. Informative References
[G.722] ITU-T, "7 kHz audio-coding within 64 kbit/s", ITU-T
Recommendation G.722, 1988.
[G.729] ITU-T, "Coding of speech at 8 kbit/s using conjugate-
structure algebraic-code-excited linear prediction
(CS-ACELP)", ITU-T Recommendation G.729, 2007.
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
[ICASSP] Harada, N., Yamamoto, Y., Moriya, T., Hiwasaki, Y.,
Ramalho, M., Netsch, L., Stachurski, J., Miao, L.,
Taddei, H., and F. Qi, "Emerging ITU-T Standard G.711.0 -
Lossless Compression of G.711 Pulse Code Modulation,
International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), 2010, ISBN 978-1-4244-4244-4295-9",
March 2010.
[IEEE] Wright, C., Ballard, L., Coull, S., Monrose, F., and G.
Masson, "Spot Me if You Can: Uncovering Spoken Phrases in
Encrypted VoIP Conversations, IEEE Symposium on Security
and Privacy, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-7695-3168-7", May 2008.
Acknowledgements
There have been many people contributing to G.711.0 in the course of
its development. The people listed here deserve special mention:
Takehiro Moriya, Claude Lamblin, Herve Taddei, Simao Campos, Yusuke
Hiwasaki, Jacek Stachurski, Lorin Netsch, Paul Coverdale, Patrick
Luthi, Paul Barrett, Jari Hagqvist, Pengjun (Jeff) Huang, John Gibbs,
Yutaka Kamamoto, and Csaba Kos. The review and oversight by the IETF
Payload working group chairs Ali Begen and Roni Even during the
development of this RFC is appreciated. Additionally, the careful
review by Richard Barnes, the extensive review by David Black, and
the reviews provided by the IESG are likewise very much appreciated.
Contributors
The authors thank everyone who have contributed to this document.
The people listed here deserve special mention: Ali Begen, Roni Even,
and Hadriel Kaplan.
Authors' Addresses
Michael A. Ramalho (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
6310 Watercrest Way Unit 203
Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202
United States
Phone: +1 919 476 2038
Email: mramalho@cisco.com
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 7655 G.711.0 Payload Format November 2015
Paul E. Jones
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Phone: +1 919 476 2048
Email: paulej@packetizer.com
Noboru Harada
NTT Communications Science Labs
3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya
Atsugi, Kanagawa 243-0198
Japan
Phone: +81 46 240 3676
Email: harada.noboru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Ericsson
Ferns Icon
Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
Phone: +91 9449288768
Email: muthu.arul@gmail.com
Lei Miao
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Q22-2-A15R, Environment Protection Park
No. 156 Beiqing Road
HaiDian District
Beijing 100095
China
Phone: +86 1059728300
Email: lei.miao@huawei.com
Ramalho, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]