| PAYLOAD | V. Singh |
| Internet-Draft | callstats.io |
| Intended status: Standards Track | A. Begen |
| Expires: May 4, 2017 | Networked Media |
| M. Zanaty | |
| Cisco | |
| G. Mandyam | |
| Qualcomm Innovation Center | |
| October 31, 2016 |
RTP Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction (FEC)
draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-03
This document defines new RTP payload formats for the Forward Error Correction (FEC) packets that are generated by the non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes from a source media encapsulated in RTP. These parity codes are systematic codes, where a number of repair symbols are generated from a set of source symbols. These repair symbols are sent in a repair flow separate from the source flow that carries the source symbols. The non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes which are defined in this specification offer a good protection against random and bursty packet losses, respectively, at a cost of decent complexity. Moreover, alternate FEC codes may be used with the payload formats presented. The RTP payload formats that are defined in this document address the scalability issues experienced with the earlier specifications including RFC 2733, RFC 5109 and SMPTE 2022-1, and offer several improvements. Due to these changes, the new payload formats are not backward compatible with the earlier specifications, but endpoints that do not implement the scheme can still work by simply ignoring the FEC packets.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 defines new RTP payload formats for the Forward Error Correction (FEC) that is generated by the non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes from a source media encapsulated in RTP [RFC3550]. These payload formats may also be used for other types of FEC codes. The type of the source media protected by these parity codes can be audio, video, text or application. The FEC data are generated according to the media type parameters, which are communicated out-of-band (e.g., in SDP). Furthermore, the associations or relationships between the source and repair flows may be communicated in-band or out-of-band. Situations where adaptivitiy of FEC parameters is desired, the endpoint can use the in-band mechanism, whereas when the FEC parameters are fixed, the endpoint may prefer to negotiate them out-of-band.
The repair packets proposed in this document protect the source stream packets that belong to the same RTP session.
Both the non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes use the eXclusive OR (XOR) operation to generate the repair symbols. In a nutshell, the following steps take place:
Note that the source and repair packets belong to different source and repair flows, and the sender must provide a way for the receivers to demultiplex them, even in the case they are sent in the same 5-tuple (i.e., same source/destination address/port with UDP). This is required to offer backward compatibility for endpoints that do not understand the FEC packets (See Section 4). At the receiver side, if all of the source packets are successfully received, there is no need for FEC recovery and the repair packets are discarded. However, if there are missing source packets, the repair packets can be used to recover the missing information. Figure 1 and Figure 2 describe example block diagrams for the systematic parity FEC encoder and decoder, respectively.
+------------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Encoder |
| (Sender) | --> +==+ +==+
+------------+ +==+ +==+
Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+
+--+ +==+
Figure 1: Block diagram for systematic parity FEC encoder
+------------+
+--+ X X +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Decoder |
+==+ +==+ --> | (Receiver) |
+==+ +==+ +------------+
Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+ Lost Packet: X
+--+ +==+
Figure 2: Block diagram for systematic parity FEC decoder
In Figure 2, it is clear that the FEC packets have to be received by the endpoint within a certain amount of time for the FEC recovery process to be useful. In this document, we refer to the time that spans a FEC block, which consists of the source packets and the corresponding repair packets, as the repair window. At the receiver side, the FEC decoder should wait at least for the duration of the repair window after getting the first packet in a FEC block, to allow all the repair packets to arrive. (The waiting time can be adjusted if there are missing packets at the beginning of the FEC block.) The FEC decoder can start decoding the already received packets sooner; however, it should not register a FEC decoding failure until it waits at least for the duration of the repair window.
Suppose that we have a group of D x L source packets that have sequence numbers starting from 1 running to D x L, and a repair packet is generated by applying the XOR operation to every L consecutive packets as sketched in Figure 3. This process is referred to as 1-D non-interleaved FEC protection. As a result of this process, D repair packets are generated, which we refer to as non-interleaved (or row) FEC packets.
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_1 S_2 S3 ... S_L | + |XOR| = |R_1|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_L+1 S_L+2 S_L+3 ... S_2xL | + |XOR| = |R_2|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_(D-1)xL+1 S_(D-1)xL+2 S_(D-1)xL+3 ... S_DxL | + |XOR| = |R_D|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
Figure 3: Generating non-interleaved (row) FEC packets
If we apply the XOR operation to the group of the source packets whose sequence numbers are L apart from each other, as sketched in Figure 4. In this case the endpoint generates L repair packets. This process is referred to as 1-D interleaved FEC protection, and the resulting L repair packets are referred to as interleaved (or column) FEC packets.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------+
| S_1 | | S_2 | | S3 | ... | S_L |
| S_L+1 | | S_L+2 | | S_L+3 | ... | S_2xL |
| . | | . | | | | |
| . | | . | | | | |
| . | | . | | | | |
| S_(D-1)xL+1 | | S_(D-1)xL+2 | | S_(D-1)xL+3 | ... | S_DxL |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------+
+ + + +
------------- ------------- ------------- -------
| XOR | | XOR | | XOR | ... | XOR |
------------- ------------- ------------- -------
= = = =
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| ... |C_L|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 4: Generating interleaved (column) FEC packets
We generate one non-interleaved repair packet out of L consecutive source packets or one interleaved repair packet out of D non-consecutive source packets. Regardless of whether the repair packet is a non-interleaved or an interleaved one, it can provide a full recovery of the missing information if there is only one packet missing among the corresponding source packets. This implies that 1-D non-interleaved FEC protection performs better when the source packets are randomly lost. However, if the packet losses occur in bursts, 1-D interleaved FEC protection performs better provided that L is chosen large enough, i.e., L-packet duration is not shorter than the observed burst duration. If the sender generates non-interleaved FEC packets and a burst loss hits the source packets, the repair operation fails. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X X | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
Figure 5: Example scenario where 1-D non-interleaved FEC protection fails error recovery (Burst Loss)
The sender may generate interleaved FEC packets to combat with the bursty packet losses. However, two or more random packet losses may hit the source and repair packets in the same column. In that case, the repair operation fails as well. This is illustrated in Figure 6. Note that it is possible that two burst losses may occur back-to-back, in which case interleaved FEC packets may still fail to recover the lost data.
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 1 | X | 3 | | 4 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 5 | X | 7 | | 8 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 6: Example scenario where 1-D interleaved FEC protection fails error recovery (Periodic Loss)
In networks where the source packets are lost both randomly and in bursts, the sender ought to generate both non-interleaved and interleaved FEC packets. This type of FEC protection is known as 2-D parity FEC protection. At the expense of generating more FEC packets, thus increasing the FEC overhead, 2-D FEC provides superior protection against mixed loss patterns. However, it is still possible for 2-D parity FEC protection to fail to recover all of the lost source packets if a particular loss pattern occurs. An example scenario is illustrated in Figure 7.
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X X | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X X | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 7: Example scenario #1 where 2-D parity FEC protection fails error recovery
2-D parity FEC protection also fails when at least two rows are missing a source and the FEC packet and the missing source packets (in at least two rows) are aligned in the same column. An example loss pattern is sketched in Figure 8. Similarly, 2-D parity FEC protection cannot repair all missing source packets when at least two columns are missing a source and the FEC packet and the missing source packets (in at least two columns) are aligned in the same row.
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 1 | | 2 | X | 4 | X
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 9 | | 10| X | 12| X
+---+ +---+ +---+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 8: Example scenario #2 where 2-D parity FEC protection fails error recovery
The overhead is defined as the ratio of the number of bytes belonging to the repair packets to the number of bytes belonging to the protected source packets.
Generally, repair packets are larger in size compared to the source packets. Also, not all the source packets are necessarily equal in size. However, if we assume that each repair packet carries an equal number of bytes carried by a source packet, we can compute the overhead for different FEC protection methods as follows:
where L and D are the number of columns and rows in the source block, respectively.
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 [RFC2119].
This document uses a number of definitions from [RFC6363].
This section defines the formats of the source and repair packets.
The source packets MUST contain the information that identifies the source block and the position within the source block occupied by the packet. Since the source packets that are carried within an RTP stream already contain unique sequence numbers in their RTP headers [RFC3550], we can identify the source packets in a straightforward manner and there is no need to append additional field(s). The primary advantage of not modifying the source packets in any way is that it provides backward compatibility for the receivers that do not support FEC at all. In multicast scenarios, this backward compatibility becomes quite useful as it allows the non-FEC-capable and FEC-capable receivers to receive and interpret the same source packets sent in the same multicast session.
The repair packets MUST contain information that identifies the source block they pertain to and the relationship between the contained repair symbols and the original source block. For this purpose, we use the RTP header of the repair packets as well as another header within the RTP payload, which we refer to as the FEC header, as shown in Figure 9.
Note that all the source stream packets that are protected by a particular FEC packet need to be in the same RTP session.
+------------------------------+
| IP Header |
+------------------------------+
| Transport Header |
+------------------------------+
| RTP Header | __
+------------------------------+ |
| FEC Header | \
+------------------------------+ > RTP Payload
| Repair Symbols | /
+------------------------------+ __|
Figure 9: Format of repair packets
The RTP header is formatted according to [RFC3550] with some further clarifications listed below:
The format of the FEC header is shown in Figure 10.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|F| P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | length recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRCCount | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC_i |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SN base_i |k| Mask [0-14] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|k| Mask [15-45] (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|k| |
+-+ Mask [46-108] (optional) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... next in SSRC_i ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Format of the FEC header
The FEC header consists of the following fields:
+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| F bit | Use |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 0 | flexible mask |
| 1 | packets indicated by offset M and N |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Figure 11: F-bit values
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | length recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRCCount | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC_i |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SN base_i |k| Mask [0-14] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|k| Mask [15-45] (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|k| |
+-+ Mask [46-108] (optional) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... next in SSRC_i ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Protocol format for F=0
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | length recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRCCount | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC_i |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SN base_i | M (columns) | N (rows) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Protocol format for F=1
If M>0, N=0, is Row FEC, and no column FEC will follow
Hence, FEC = SN, SN+1, SN+2, ... , SN+(M-1), SN+M.
If M>0, N=1, is Row FEC, and column FEC will follow.
Hence, FEC = SN, SN+1, SN+2, ... , SN+(M-1), SN+M.
and more to come
If M>0, N>1, indicates column FEC of every M packet
in a group of N packets starting at SN base.
Hence, FEC = SN+(Mx0), SN+(Mx1), ... , SN+(MxN).
Figure 14: Interpreting the M and N field values
By setting R to 1, F to 1, this FEC protects only one packet, i.e., the FEC payload carries just the packet indicated by SN Base_i, which is effectively retransmitting the packet.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retransmission |
: payload :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Protocol format for Retransmission
Note that the parsing of this packet is different. The sequence number (SN base_i) replaces the length recovery in the FEC packet. The SSRC_count which would be 1, M and N would be set to 0, and the reserved bits from the FEC header are removed. By doing this, we save 64 bits.
The details on setting the fields in the FEC header are provided in Section 6.2.
It should be noted that a mask-based approach (similar to the ones specified in [RFC2733] and [RFC5109]) may not be very efficient to indicate which source packets in the current source block are associated with a given repair packet. In particular, for the applications that would like to use large source block sizes, the size of the mask that is required to describe the source-repair packet associations may be prohibitively large. The 8-bit fields proposed in [SMPTE2022-1] indicate a systematized approach. Instead the approach in this document uses the 8-bit fields to indicate packet offsets protected by the FEC packet. The approach in [SMPTE2022-1] is inherently more efficient for regular patterns, it does not provide flexibility to represent other protection patterns (e.g., staircase).
This section provides the media subtype registration for the non-interleaved and interleaved parity FEC. The parameters that are required to configure the FEC encoding and decoding operations are also defined in this section. If no specific FEC code is specified in the subtype, then the FEC code defaults to the parity code defined in this specification.
This registration is done using the template defined in [RFC6838] and following the guidance provided in [RFC3555].
Note to the RFC Editor: In the following sections, please replace "XXXX" with the number of this document prior to publication as an RFC.
Type name: audio
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFCXXXX].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group.
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG.
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): Yes.
Type name: video
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFCXXXX].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group.
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG.
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): Yes.
Type name: text
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFCXXXX].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information: Varun Singh <vvarun@callstats.io> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group.
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG.
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): Yes.
Type name: application
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFCXXXX].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group.
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG.
Provisional registration? (standards tree only): Yes.
Applications that are using RTP transport commonly use Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] to describe their RTP sessions. The information that is used to specify the media types in an RTP session has specific mappings to the fields in an SDP description. In this section, we provide these mappings for the media subtypes registered by this document. Note that if an application does not use SDP to describe the RTP sessions, an appropriate mapping must be defined and used to specify the media types and their parameters for the control/description protocol employed by the application.
The mapping of the media type specification for "non-interleaved-parityfec" and "interleaved-parityfec" and their parameters in SDP is as follows:
SDP examples are provided in
When offering 1-D interleaved parity FEC over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model [RFC3264], the following considerations apply:
In declarative usage, like SDP in the Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [RFC2326] or the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) [RFC2974], the following considerations apply:
This section provides a complete specification of the 1-D and 2-D parity codes and their RTP payload formats.
The following sections specify the steps involved in generating the repair packets and reconstructing the missing source packets from the repair packets.
The RTP header of a repair packet is formed based on the guidelines given in Section 4.2.
The FEC header includes 12 octets (or upto 28 octets when the longer optional masks are used). It is constructed by applying the XOR operation on the bit strings that are generated from the individual source packets protected by this particular repair packet. The set of the source packets that are associated with a given repair packet can be computed by the formula given in Section 6.3.1.
The bit string is formed for each source packet by concatenating the following fields together in the order specified:
By applying the parity operation on the bit strings produced from the source packets, we generate the FEC bit string. The FEC header is generated from the FEC bit string as follows:
Section 4.2, the SN base field of the FEC header MUST be set to the lowest sequence number of the source packets protected by this repair packet. When MSK represents a bitmask (MSK=00,01,10), the SN base field corresponds to the lowest sequence number indicated in the bitmask. When MSK=11, the following considerations apply: 1) for the interleaved FEC packets, this corresponds to the lowest sequence number of the source packets that forms the column, 2) for the non-interleaved FEC packets, the SN base field MUST be set to the lowest sequence number of the source packets that forms the row.
As described in
The repair packet payload consists of the bits that are generated by applying the XOR operation on the payloads of the source RTP packets. If the payload lengths of the source packets are not equal, each shorter packet MUST be padded to the length of the longest packet by adding octet 0's at the end.
Due to this possible padding and mandatory FEC header, a repair packet has a larger size than the source packets it protects. This may cause problems if the resulting repair packet size exceeds the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size of the path over which the repair flow is sent.
This section describes the recovery procedures that are required to reconstruct the missing source packets. The recovery process has two steps. In the first step, the FEC decoder determines which source and repair packets should be used in order to recover a missing packet. In the second step, the decoder recovers the missing packet, which consists of an RTP header and RTP payload.
In the following, we describe the RECOMMENDED algorithms for the first and second steps. Based on the implementation, different algorithms MAY be adopted. However, the end result MUST be identical to the one produced by the algorithms described below.
Note that the same algorithms are used by the 1-D parity codes, regardless of whether the FEC protection is applied over a column or a row. The 2-D parity codes, on the other hand, usually require multiple iterations of the procedures described here. This iterative decoding algorithm is further explained in Section 6.3.4.
We denote the set of the source packets associated with repair packet p* by set T(p*). Note that in a source block whose size is L columns by D rows, set T includes D source packets plus one repair packet for the FEC protection applied over a column, and L source packets plus one repair packet for the FEC protection applied over a row. Recall that 1-D interleaved and non-interleaved FEC protection can fully recover the missing information if there is only one source packet missing in set T. If there are more than one source packets missing in set T, 1-D FEC protection will not work.
The first step is associating the source and repair packets. If the endpoint relies entirely on out-of-band signaling (MSK=11, and M=N=0), then this information may be inferred from the media type parameters specified in the SDP description. Furthermore, the payload type field in the RTP header, assists the receiver distinguish an interleaved or non-interleaved FEC packet.
Mathematically, for any received repair packet, p*, we can determine the sequence numbers of the source packets that are protected by this repair packet as follows:
p*_snb + i * X_1 (modulo 65536)
where p*_snb denotes the value in the SN base field of p*'s FEC header, X_1 is set to L and 1 for the interleaved and non-interleaved FEC packets, respectively, and
0 <= i < X_2
where X_2 is set to D and L for the interleaved and non-interleaved FEC packets, respectively.
When using fixed size bitmasks (16-, 48-, 112-bits), the SN base field in the FEC header indicates the lowest sequence number of the source packets that forms the FEC packet. Finally, the bits maked by "1" in the bitmask are offsets from the SN base and make up the rest of the packets protected by the FEC packet. The bitmasks are able to represent arbitrary protection patterns, for example, 1-D interleaved, 1-D non-interleaved, 2-D, staircase.
When value of M is non-zero, the 8-bit fields indicate the offset of packets protected by an interleaved (N>0) or non-interleaved (N=0) FEC packet. Using a combination of interleaved and non-interleaved FEC packets can form 2-D protection patterns.
Mathematically, for any received repair packet, p*, we can determine the sequence numbers of the source packets that are protected by this repair packet are as follows:
When N = 0:
p*_snb, p*_snb+1,..., p*_snb+(M-1), p*_snb+M
When N > 0:
p*_snb, p*_snb+(Mx1), p*_snb+(Mx2),..., p*_snb+(Mx(N-1)), p*_snb+(MxN)
For a given set T, the procedure for the recovery of the RTP header of the missing packet, whose sequence number is denoted by SEQNUM, is as follows:
This procedure recovers the header of an RTP packet up to (and including) the SSRC field.
Following the recovery of the RTP header, the procedure for the recovery of the RTP payload is as follows:
In 2-D parity FEC protection, the sender generates both non-interleaved and interleaved FEC packets to combat with the mixed loss patterns (random and bursty). At the receiver side, these FEC packets are used iteratively to overcome the shortcomings of the 1-D non-interleaved/interleaved FEC protection and improve the chances of full error recovery.
The iterative decoding algorithm runs as follows:
The algorithm terminates either when all missing source packets are fully recovered or when there are still remaining missing source packets but the FEC packets are not able to recover any more source packets. For the example scenarios when the 2-D parity FEC protection fails full recovery, refer to Section 1.1.2. Upon termination, variable num_recovered_so_far has a value equal to the total number of recovered source packets.
Example:
Suppose that the receiver experienced the loss pattern sketched in Figure 16.
+---+ +---+ +===+
X X | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X X | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 16: Example loss pattern for the iterative decoding algorithm
The receiver executes the iterative decoding algorithm and recovers source packets #1 and #11 in the first iteration. The resulting pattern is sketched in Figure 17.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 17: The resulting pattern after the first iteration
Since the if condition holds true, the receiver runs a new iteration. In the second iteration, source packets #2 and #10 are recovered, resulting in a full recovery as sketched in Figure 18.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 18: The resulting pattern after the second iteration
This section provides two SDP [RFC4566] examples. The examples use the FEC grouping semantics defined in [RFC5956].
In this example, we have one source video stream and one FEC repair stream. The source and repair streams are multiplexed on different SSRCs. The repair window is set to 200 ms.
v=0
o=mo 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=FlexFEC minimal SDP signalling Example
t=0 0
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 96 98
c=IN IP4 143.163.151.157
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:98 flexfec/90000
a=fmtp:98; repair-window=200ms
In this example, we have one source video stream (ssrc:1234) and one FEC repair streams (ssrc:2345). We form one FEC group with the "a=ssrc-group:FEC-FR 1234 2345" line. The source and repair streams are multiplexed on different SSRCs. The repair window is set to 200 ms.
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=2-D Parity FEC with no in band signalling Example
t=0 0
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100 110
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
a=rtpmap:110 flexfec/90000
a=fmtp:110 L:5; D:10; ToP:2; repair-window:200000
a=ssrc:1234
a=ssrc:2345
a=ssrc-group:FEC-FR 1234 2345
FEC is an effective approach to provide applications resiliency against packet losses. However, in networks where the congestion is a major contributor to the packet loss, the potential impacts of using FEC SHOULD be considered carefully before injecting the repair flows into the network. In particular, in bandwidth-limited networks, FEC repair flows may consume most or all of the available bandwidth and consequently may congest the network. In such cases, the applications MUST NOT arbitrarily increase the amount of FEC protection since doing so may lead to a congestion collapse. If desired, stronger FEC protection MAY be applied only after the source rate has been reduced [I-D.singh-rmcat-adaptive-fec].
In a network-friendly implementation, an application SHOULD NOT send/receive FEC repair flows if it knows that sending/receiving those FEC repair flows would not help at all in recovering the missing packets. However, it MAY still continue to use FEC if considered for bandwidth estimation instead of speculatively probe for additional capacity [Holmer13][Nagy14]. It is RECOMMENDED that the amount of FEC protection is adjusted dynamically based on the packet loss rate observed by the applications.
In multicast scenarios, it may be difficult to optimize the FEC protection per receiver. If there is a large variation among the levels of FEC protection needed by different receivers, it is RECOMMENDED that the sender offers multiple repair flows with different levels of FEC protection and the receivers join the corresponding multicast sessions to receive the repair flow(s) that is best for them.
Editor's note: Additional congestion control considerations regarding the use of 2-D parity codes should be added here.
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [RFC3550] and in any applicable RTP profile. The main security considerations for the RTP packet carrying the RTP payload format defined within this memo are confidentiality, integrity and source authenticity. Confidentiality is achieved by encrypting the RTP payload. Integrity of the RTP packets is achieved through a suitable cryptographic integrity protection mechanism. Such a cryptographic system may also allow the authentication of the source of the payload. A suitable security mechanism for this RTP payload format should provide confidentiality, integrity protection, and at least source authentication capable of determining if an RTP packet is from a member of the RTP session.
Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and payloads following this memo may vary. It is dependent on the application, transport and signaling protocol employed. Therefore, a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if suitable, using the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] is recommended. Other mechanisms that may be used are IPsec [RFC4301] and Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] (RTP over TCP); other alternatives may exist.
New media subtypes are subject to IANA registration. For the registration of the payload formats and their parameters introduced in this document, refer to Section 5.
Some parts of this document are borrowed from [RFC5109]. Thus, the author would like to thank the editor of [RFC5109] and those who contributed to [RFC5109].
Thanks to Bernard Aboba , Rasmus Brandt , Roni Even , Stefan Holmer , Jonathan Lennox , and Magnus Westerlund for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this draft.
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to publication as an RFC.
FEC packet format changed as per discussions in IETF96, Berlin.
Removed section on non-parity codes and flexfec-raptor.
FEC packet format changed as per discussions in IETF94, Tokyo.
Added section on non-parity codes.
Registration of application/flexfec-raptor.
FEC packet format changed as per discussions in IETF93, Prague.
Replaced non-interleaved-parityfec and interleaved-parity-fec with flexfec.
SDP simplified for the case when association to RTP is made in the FEC header and not in the SDP.
Initial WG version, based on draft-singh-payload-1d2d-parity-scheme-00.
This is the initial version, which is based on draft-ietf-fecframe-1d2d-parity-scheme-00. The following are the major changes compared to that document: