Internet DRAFT - draft-avtext-berger-framemarking
draft-avtext-berger-framemarking
Network Working Group E. Berger
Internet-Draft S. Nandakumar
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: April 24, 2014 October 21, 2013
Frame marking for RTP packets
draft-avtext-berger-framemarking-00
Abstract
This document describes a mechanisms to provide frame markings to
allow RTP switches to perform stream operations on encrypted payload.
The mechanisms support extensions to allow for codec specific
information.
Status of this Memo
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 April 24, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. RTP header extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Signaling information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Considerations on use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
1. Introduction
It is common practice in modern voice and video conferencing systems
to implement a centralized component that acts as a RTP switch. It
receives voice and video streams from each participant, which may be
encrypted using SRTP [RFC3711]. The goal is to provide a set of
streams back to the participants which enable them to render the
right media content. In a simple video configuration, for example,
the goal will be that each participant sees and hears just the active
speaker. In that case, the goal of the switch is to receive the
voice and video streams from each participant, determine the active
speaker based on energy in the voice packets, and select the
corresponding video stream for transmission to participants, see
Figure 1
In this document, an "RTP switch" is used as a common short term for
the terms switching RTP mixer", "source projecting middlebox", and
"video switching MCU" as discussed in
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update].
+---+ +------------+ +---+
| A |<---->| |<---->| B |
+---+ | | +---+
| RTP |
+---+ | Switch | +---+
| C |<---->| |<---->| D |
+---+ +------------+ +---+
Figure 1: RTP switch
In order to properly support switching of video streams, the RTP
switch typically needs information in order to do a proper job:
o Because of inter-frame dependencies, it should ideally switch
video streams at a point where the first frame from the new
speaker can be decoded by recipients without prior frames, e.g
switch on an intra-frame.
o In many cases, the switch may need to drop frames in order to
realize congestion control techniques, and needs to know which
frames can be dropped with minimal impact to video quality
o Furthermore, it is highly desirable to do this in a way which is
not specific to the video codec. Nearly all modern video codecs
share common concepts around I, P, B frames.
o It is also desirable to be able to do this for SRTP without
requiring the video switch to decrypt the packets. SRTP will
encrypt the RTP payload format contents and consequently this data
is not usable for the switching function.
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
By providing meta-information about the RTP streams outside the
encrypted media payload a RTP switch can do selective forwarding
without decrypting the payload. This document provides a solution to
this problem.
2. Solution
The solution uses RTP header extensions as defined in [RFC5285]. A
subset of meta-information from the video stream is provided as an
header extension to allow a RTP switch to do generic video switching
handling of video streams encoded with different video codecs.
The following information are extracted from the media payload.
o Discardable - The flag must be true for packets that can be
dropped, and still provide a decodable media stream.
o Switching point (1 bit) - The flag must be true for RTP packets in
a frame that can be used as a switcing point. A switching point
is the first packet where a new receiver can start decoding a
video stream without prior frames, e.g an IDR frame from
[RFC6184].
o Temporal ID (3 bits) - The base temporal quality starts with 0,
and increases with 1 for each temporal layer.
o frame Type (3 bits) - Abstract frame type; P-frame=0, IDR=1,
GDR=2. The abstracted frame types are:
* P-frame - a frame depending on a previous frame
* IDR - a frame without references to other frames
* GDR - a Gradual Decoder Refresh (GDR) packet includes both
p-frame and frame information to allow a receiver to build of a
IDR frame over a short period.
Video codec specific information can be provided as an extension.
2.1. RTP header extension
The values of frame information can be carried as RTP header
extensions encoded using the one-byte header as described in
[RFC5285]. Only the one-byte header version is listed with examples
in the document.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID=2 | L=0 |D|S|TID |Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The frame marking can be extended with codec specific information
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
using a longer length value in the one-byte header. The codec
specific information included in the header extension MUST match the
SDP negotiated payload format for the RTP stream.
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID=2 | L=2 |D|S|TID |Type | video codec specific information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In the following example the H265 LayerID is included as video codec
specific information. The length field is 1 to add another 1 byte of
data, the H265 LayerId is a 6-bit field and a 2-bit PADding at the
end.
0 1 2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID=2 | L=1 |D|S|TID |Type | H265-LayerId|PAD|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2. Signaling information
The URI for declaring this header extension in an extmap attribute is
"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarkinginfo". It does not contain
any extension attributes.
An example attribute line in SDP:
a=extmap:3 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarkinginfo
2.3. Considerations on use
The header extension values MUST represent what is already in the RTP
payload.
When a RTP switch needs to discard a received video frame due to
congestion control considerations, it is RECOMMENDED that it
preferably drop frames marked with the "discardable" bit.
When a RTP switch want to forward a new video stream to a receiver,
its RECOMMENDED to forward the new video stream from the first
switching point and forward. A RTP switch can request a media source
to generate a switching point for H264 by sending Full Intra Request
(RTCP FIR) as defined in [RFC5104].
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
3. Security Considerations
In the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711], RTP
header extensions are authenticated but not encrypted. When header
extensions are used some of the payload type information are exposed
and is visible to middle boxes. The encrypted media data is not
exposed, so this is not seen as a high risk exposure.
4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new extension URI to the RTP Compact
HeaderExtensions sub-registry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol
(RTP) Parameters registry, according to the following data:
Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarkinginfo
Description: Frame marking information for video streams
Contact: espeberg@cisco.com
Reference: RFC XXXX
Note to RFC Editor: please replace RFC XXXX with the number of this
RFC.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
5.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]
Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies",
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update (work in
progress), April 2013.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Frame marking October 2013
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.
[RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.
[RFC6184] Wang, Y., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184, May 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Espen Berger
Cisco Systems
Phone: +47 98228179
Email: espeberg@cisco.com
Suhas Nandakumar
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: snandaku@cisco.com
Berger & Nandakumar Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 7]
