Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avtcore-idms
draft-ietf-avtcore-idms
AVTCore R. van Brandenburg
Internet-Draft H. Stokking
Intended status: Standards Track O. van Deventer
Expires: March 02, 2014 TNO
F. Boronat
M. Montagud
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
K. Gross
AVA Networks
August 29, 2013
Inter-destination Media Synchronization using the RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP)
draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-13
Abstract
This document defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packet Type
and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block Type to be used for achieving
Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS). IDMS is the process
of synchronizing playout across multiple geographically distributed
media receivers. Using the RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this
document, media playout information from participants in a
synchronization group can be collected. Based on the collected
information, an RTCP IDMS Settings Packet can then be sent to
distribute a common target playout point to which all the distributed
receivers, sharing a media experience, can synchronize.
Typical use cases in which IDMS is useful are social TV, shared
service control (i.e. applications where two or more geographically
separated users are watching a media stream together), distance
learning, networked video walls, networked loudspeakers, etc.
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."
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 02, 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Applicability of RTCP to IDMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. IDMS and ETSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) use cases . . 4
5. Overview of IDMS operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Architecture for Inter-Destination Media Synchronization . . 7
6.1. Media Synchronization Application Server (MSAS) . . . . . 7
6.2. Synchronization Client (SC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Communication between MSAS and SCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. RTCP XR Block for IDMS (IDMS Report Block) . . . . . . . . . 8
8. RTCP Packet Type for IDMS (IDMS Settings) . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Timing and NTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. On the use of presentation timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. SDP Signalling for RTCP IDMS Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. SDP rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Offer/Answer rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Declarative cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.1. RTCP IDMS Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.2. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.3. RTCP-IDMS SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.4. IDMS XR Block SPST Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.5. Contact Information for Registrations . . . . . . . . . 20
15. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) refers to the playout
of media streams at two or more geographically distributed locations
in a time synchronized manner. It can be applied to both unicast and
multicast media streams and can be applied to any type and/or
combination of streaming media, such as audio, video and text
(subtitles).[Ishibashi2006] and [Boronat2009] provide an overview of
technologies and algorithms for IDMS.
IDMS requires the exchange of information on media receipt and
playout times among participants in an IDMS session. It may also
require signaling for the initiation and maintenance of IDMS sessions
and groups of receivers.
The presented RTCP specification for IDMS is independent of the used
synchronization algorithm, which is out-of-scope of this document.
2. Rationale
2.1. Applicability of RTCP to IDMS
Currently, a large share of real-time applications make use of RTP
and RTCP [RFC3550]. RTP provides end-to-end network transport
functions suitable for applications requiring real-time data
transport, such as audio, video or data, over multicast or unicast
network services. The timestamps, sequence numbers, and payload
(content) type identification mechanisms provided by RTP packets are
very useful for reconstructing the original media timing, the
original order of packets and for detecting packet loss at the client
side.
The data transport is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow
monitoring of the data delivery in a manner that is scalable to large
groups, and to provide minimal control and identification
functionality. RTP receivers and senders provide reception quality
feedback by sending out RTCP Receiver Report (RR) and Sender Report
(SR) packets [RFC3550], respectively, which may be augmented by
eXtended Reports (XR) [RFC3611]. Both RTP and RTCP are intended to
be tailored to modifications in order to include profile-specific
information required by particular applications, and the guidelines
on doing so are specified in [RFC5868].
IDMS involves the collection, summarizing and distribution of RTP
packet arrival and playout times. As information on RTP packet
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
arrival times and playout times can be considered reception quality
feedback information, RTCP is well suited for carrying out IDMS,
which may facilitate the implementation and deployment in typical
multimedia applications.
2.2. IDMS and ETSI
A first version of IDMS for use with RTP/RTCP was standardized by
ETSI TISPAN in [TS183063], resulting in an IANA registration for an
RTCP IDMS XR Block. At some point in time, this work was brought as
input to the IETF AVTCORE WG for further standardization, leveraging
the RTP/RTCP expertise present in the AVTCORE WG. This document is
the result of that effort.
Although the IDMS protocol described in this document has evolved
significantly from the version that was originally specified by ETSI
TISPAN, it is still backwards compatible with the ETSI version. As
such, it had been decided in ETSI to update the TS 183 063 document
to reference this document as the normative specification of IDMS.
This update can be found in newer versions of TS 183 063 (>3.5.2).
In accordance, this document proposes to update the IANA registration
for the RTCP IDMS XR Block to point to this document. Finally, this
document proposes an IANA registry for SPST values, allowing the
registration of extensions to this document.
3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
4. Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) use cases
There are a large number of use cases in which IDMS might be useful.
This section will highlight some of them. It should be noted that
this section is in no way meant to be exhaustive.
A first usage scenario for IDMS is social TV. Social TV is the
combination of media content consumption by two or more users at
different devices and locations combined with the real-time
communication between those users. An example of social TV is when
two or more users are watching the same television broadcast at
different devices and locations, while communicating with each other
using text, audio and/or video. A skew in their media playout
processes can have adverse effects on their experience. A well-known
use case here is one friend experiencing a goal in a football match
well before or after other friend(s).
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
Another potential use case for IDMS is a networked video wall. A
video wall consists of multiple computer monitors, video projectors,
or television sets tiled together contiguously or overlapped in order
to form one large screen. Each of the screens reproduces a portion
of the larger picture. In some implementations, each screen may be
individually connected to the network and receive its portion of the
overall image from a network-connected video server or video scaler.
Screens are refreshed at 60 hertz (every 16-2/3 milliseconds) or
potentially faster. If the refresh is not synchronized, the effect
of multiple screens acting as one is broken, with users noticing
tearing effects and no longer perceiving a single image.
A third usage scenario is that of the networked loudspeakers, in
which two or more speakers are connected to the network individually.
Such situations can for example be found in large conference rooms,
legislative chambers, classrooms (especially those supporting
distance learning) and other large-scale environments such as
stadiums. Since humans are more susceptible to differences in audio
delay, this use case needs even more accuracy than the video wall use
case. Depending on the exact application, the need for accuracy can
then be in the range of microseconds.
5. Overview of IDMS operation
This section provides a brief example of how the RTCP functionality
is used for achieving IDMS. The section is tutorial in nature and
does not contain any normative statements.
Alice's . . . . . . .tv:abc.com . . . . . . . Bob's
TV (Sync Client) (Sync Server) Laptop (Sync Client)
| | |
| Media Session | |
|<=====================>| |
| Invite(URL, SyncGroupId) |
|------------------------------------------------->|
| | Media Session Set-up |
| |<========================>|
| | |
| Call set-up |
|<================================================>|
| | |
| RTP Packets | RTP Packets |
|<----------------------|------------------------->|
| RR + XR IDMS Report | |
|---------------------->| RR + XR IDMS Report |
| |<-------------------------|
| RTCP IDMS Settings | RTCP IDMS Settings |
|<----------------------|------------------------->|
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
| | |
Figure 1: Example of a typical IDMS session
Alice is watching TV in her living room. At some point she sees that
a football game of Bob's favorite team is on. She sends him an
invite to watch the program together. Embedded in the invitation is
the link to the media server and a unique sync-group identifier.
Bob, who is also at home, receives the invite on his laptop. He
accepts Alice's invitation and the RTP client on his laptop sets up a
session to the media server. A VoIP connection to Alice's TV is also
set up, so that Alice and Bob can talk while watching the game
together.
As is common with RTP, both the RTP client in Alice's TV as well as
the one in Bob's laptop send periodic RTCP Receiver Reports (RR) to
the media server. However, in order to make sure Alice and Bob see
the events in the football game at (approximately) the same time,
their clients also periodically send an RTCP XR IDMS Report Block to
the Sync Server function of the media server. Included in the XR
IDMS blocks are timestamps on when both Alice and Bob received (and,
optionally, when they played out) a particular RTP packet.
The Sync Server function in the media server calculates a reference
client from the received XR IDMS Report Blocks (e.g. by selecting the
most lagged client as the reference for IDMS). It then sends an RTCP
IDMS Settings packet containing the playout information of this
reference client to the sync clients of both Alice and Bob.
In this case Bob's connection has the longest delay and the reference
client therefore includes a delay similar to the one experienced by
Bob. Upon reception of this information, Alice's RTP client can
choose what to do with this information. In this case it decreases
its playout rate temporarily until the playout time matches with the
reference client playout (and thus matches Bob's playout). Another
option for Alice's TV would be to simply pause playback until it
catches up. The exact implementation of the synchronization
algorithm is up to the client.
Upon reception of the RTCP IDMS Settings packet, Bob's client does
not have to do anything since it is already synchronized to the
reference client (since it is based on Bob's delay). Note that other
synchronization algorithms may introduce even more delay than the one
experienced by the most delayed client, e.g. to account for delay
variations, for new clients joining an existing synchronization
group, etc.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
For this functionality to work correctly, it is necessary that the
wall clocks of the receivers are synchronized with each other. Alice
and Bob both report when they receive, and optionally when they play
out, certain RTP packets. In order to correlate their reports to
each other, it is necessary that their wallclocks are synchronized.
6. Architecture for Inter-Destination Media Synchronization
The architecture for IDMS, which is based on a sync-maestro
architecture [Boronat2009], is sketched below. In this particular
case, the Synchronization Client (SC) and Media Synchronization
Application Server (MSAS) entities are shown as additional
functionality for the RTP receiver and sender respectively.
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| | SR + | |
| RTP Receiver | RTCP | RTP Sender |
| | IDMS | |
| +-----------------+ | <----- | +-----------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | Synchronization | | | | Media | |
| | Client | | | | Synchronization | |
| | (SC) | | | | Application | |
| | | | | | Server | |
| | | | RR+XR | | (MSAS) | |
| | | | -----> | | | |
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ |
| | | |
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
IDMS Architecture Diagram
6.1. Media Synchronization Application Server (MSAS)
An MSAS collects RTP packet arrival times and playout times from one
or more SC(s) in a synchronization group by receiving RTCP IDMS XR
Reports. The MSAS summarizes and distributes this information to the
SCs in the synchronization group as synchronization settings via the
RTCP IDMS Settings messages, e.g. by determining the SC with the most
lagged playout and using its reported RTP packet arrival time and
playout time as a summary.
It should be noted that while the figure above shows the MSAS as part
of the RTP Sender, this is not necessary. For example, an MSAS might
also be implemented as an independent function in the network or in a
master/slave type of architecture where one of the SC devices also
acts as an MSAS. Wherever the MSAS is implemented, it is important
that the MSAS has access to the RTP stream to which the XR Reports
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
apply, so that it is able to correlate the IDMS XR Reports coming
from different SCs.
6.2. Synchronization Client (SC)
An SC reports on RTP packet arrival times and playout times of a
media stream. It can receive summaries of such information, and use
that to adjust its playout buffer. The SC sends RTCP IDMS XR Reports
to the MSAS.
6.3. Communication between MSAS and SCs
Two different message types are used for the communication between
MSAS and SCs. For the SC->MSAS message containing the playout
information of a particular client, an RTCP XR IDMS Report Block is
used (see Section 7). For the MSAS->SC message containing the
synchronization settings instructions, a new RTCP IDMS Settings
Packet Type is defined (see Section 8).
7. RTCP XR Block for IDMS (IDMS Report Block)
This section specifies a new RTCP XR Block Type, the RTCP XR IDMS
Report Block, for reporting IDMS information to an MSAS. In
particular it is used to provide feedback information on receipt
times and presentation times of RTP packets. Its definition is based
on [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
In most cases, a single RTP receiver will only be part of a single
IDMS session, i.e. it will report on receipt and presentation times
of RTP packets from a single RTP stream in a certain synchronization
group. In some cases, however, an RTP receiver may be a member of
multiple synchronization groups for the same RTP stream, e.g.
watching a single television program simultaneously with different
groups. In even further cases, a receiver may wish to synchronize
different RTP streams at the same time, either as part of the same
synchronization group or as part of multiple synchronization groups.
These are all valid scenarios for IDMS, and will require multiple
reports by an SC.
This document does not define new rules on when to send RTCP reports,
but uses the existing rules specified in [RFC3550] for sending RTCP
reports. When the RTCP reporting timer allows an SC to send an IDMS
report, the SC SHOULD report on an RTP packet received during the
period since the last RTCP XR IDMS Report Block was sent. Because of
RTP timestamp rollover, there is ambiguity in mapping RTP timestamps
to NTP timestamps. The recommendation to report on recent RTP
packets serves to manage this ambiguity. For more details on which
packet to report on, see below under 'Packet Received RTP timestamp'.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT=12 | SPST |Resrv|P| block length=7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PT | Resrv |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Media Stream Correlation Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received RTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IDMS report block consists of 8 32-bit words, with the following
fields:
Block Type (BT): 8 bits. It identifies the block format. Its value
is set to 12.
Synchronization Packet Sender Type (SPST): 4 bits. This field
identifies the role of the packet sender for this specific eXtended
Report. It can have the following values, as maintained by IANA (see
Section 14.4):
SPST=0 Reserved for future use.
SPST=1 The packet sender is an SC. It uses this XR to report
synchronization status information. Timestamps relate to the SC
input.
SPST=2-4 Values defined by ETSI TISPAN (see [TS183063]).
SPST=5-15 Unassigned.
Reserved bits (Resrv): 3 bits. These bits are reserved for future
definition. In the absence of such a definition, the bits in this
field MUST be set to zero at transmission and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
Packet Presented NTP timestamp flag (P): 1 bit. Bit set to 1 if the
Packet Presented NTP timestamp field contains a value, 0 if it is
empty. If this flag is set to zero, then the Packet Presented NTP
timestamp SHALL be ignored by the receiver.
Block Length: 16 bits. This field indicates the length of the block
in 32 bit words minus one and is set to 7, as this RTCP Block Type
has a fixed length.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits. This field identifies the format of the
media payload, according to [RFC3551]. This is the payload type of
the RTP packet reported upon. The PT field is needed in the case
where the MSAS is neither the Media Server nor a receiver of the
media stream, i.e. it is implemented as a third-part entity. In such
cases, the MSAS needs the PT to determine the rate of advancement of
the timestamps of the RTP media stream to be able to relate reports
from different SCs on different RTP timestamp values.
Reserved bits (Resrv): 25 bits. These bits are reserved for future
use and SHALL be set to 0 at transmission and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
Media Stream Correlation Identifier: 32 bits. This identifier is
used to correlate synchronized media streams. The value 0 (all bits
are set "0") indicates that this field is empty. The value 2^32-1
(all bits are set "1") is reserved for future use. If the RTCP
Packet Sender is an SC (SPST=1), then the Media Stream Correlation
Identifier field contains the Synchronization Group Identifier
(SyncGroupId) to which the report applies.
SSRC: 32 bits. The SSRC of the media source is set to the value of
the SSRC identifier carried in the RTP header [RFC3550] of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates.
Packet Received NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wall clock time at the moment of arrival of the first octet of the
RTP packet to which the XR IDMS relates. It is formatted based on
the NTP timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905]. See Section 9
for more information on how this field is used.
Packet Received RTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp has the value
of the RTP timestamp carried in the RTP header [RFC3550] of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates. Several consecutive RTP packets
will have equal timestamps if they are (logically) generated at once,
e.g., belong to the same video frame. It may well be the case that
one receiver reports on the first RTP packet having a certain RTP
timestamp and a second receiver reports on the last RTP packet having
that same RTP timestamp. This would lead to an error in the
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
synchronization algorithm due to the faulty interpretation of
considering both reports to be on the same RTP packet. When
reporting on an RTP packet which is one of several consecutive RTP
packets having equal timestamps, an SC SHOULD report on the RTP
packet it received with the lowest sequence number. Note that with
'lowest sequence number' here is meant the first in the sequence of
RTP packets just received, not from an earlier time before the last
wrap-around of RTP timestamps (unless this wrap-around occurs during
the sequence with equal RTP timestamps).
Packet Presented NTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wall clock time at the moment the rendered media unit (e.g. video
frame or audio sample) contained in the first byte of the associated
RTP packet is presented to the user. It is based on the time format
used by NTP and consists of the least significant 16 bits of the NTP
seconds part and the most significant 16 bits of the NTP fractional
second part. If no Packet Presented NTP timestamp is available, this
field SHALL be set to 0 and be considered empty and the Packet
Presented NTP timestamp flag (P) SHALL be set to 0. With regards to
NTP epoch and rollover, the value of the Packet Presented NTP
timestamp is considered to always be greater than the Packet Received
NTP Timestamp and to be within 2^16 seconds of it. Presented in this
context means the moment the data is played out to the user of the
system, i.e. sound played out through speakers, video images being
displayed on some display, etc. The accuracy resulting from the
synchronization algorithm will only be as good as the accuracy with
which the SCs can determine the delay between receiving packets and
presenting them to the end-user.
8. RTCP Packet Type for IDMS (IDMS Settings)
This section specifies the RTCP Packet Type for indicating
synchronization settings instructions to the receivers of the RTP
media stream. Its definition is based on [RFC3550].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P| Resrv | PT=TBD | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of packet sender |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Media Stream Correlation Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received RTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The first 64 bits form the header of the RTCP Packet Type, as defined
in [RFC3550]. The SSRC of packet sender identifies the sender of the
specific RTCP packet.
The RTCP IDMS packet consists of 7 32-bit words, with the following
fields:
PT: To be determined upon registration with IANA, inserted by the RFC
Editor upon registration with IANA.
SSRC: 32 bits. The SSRC of the media source is set to the value of
the SSRC identifier of the media source carried in the RTP header
[RFC3550] of the RTP packet to which the RTCP IDMS packet relates.
Media Stream Correlation Identifier: 32 bits. This identifier is
used to correlate synchronized media streams. The value 0 (all bits
are set "0") indicates that this field is empty. The value 2^32-1
(all bits are set "1") is reserved for future use. The Media Stream
Correlation Identifier contains the SyncGroupId of the group to which
this packet is sent.
Packet Received NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wall clock time at the reference client at the moment it received the
first octet of the RTP packet to which this packet relates. It can
be used by the synchronization algorithm on the receiving SC to
adjust its playout timing in order to achieve synchronization, e.g.
to set the required playout delay. The timestamp is formatted based
on the NTP timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905]. See Section 9
for more information on how this field is used. Because RTP
timestamps do wrap around, the sender of this packet MUST use recent
values, i.e. choose NTP timestamps that reflect current time and not
too far in the future or in the past so as to create ambiguity with
regards to RTP timestamp wrap around.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
Packet Received RTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp has the value
of the RTP timestamp carried in the RTP header [RFC3550] of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates. This SHOULD relate to the first
arriving RTP packet containing this particular RTP timestamp, in case
multiple RTP packets contain the same RTP timestamp.
Packet Presented NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wall clock time at the reference client at the moment it presented
the rendered media unit (e.g. video frame or audio sample) contained
in the first octet of the associated RTP packet to the user. The
timestamp is formatted based on the NTP timestamp format as specified
in [RFC5905]. If no Packet Presented NTP timestamp is available,
this field SHALL be set to 0 and be considered empty. This field MAY
be left empty if none or only one of the receivers reported on
presentation timestamps. Presented here means the moment the data is
played out to the user of the system.
In some use cases (e.g. phased array transducers), the level of
control an MSAS might need to have over the exact moment of playout
is so precise that a 32bit Presented Timestamp will not suffice. For
this reason, this RTCP Packet Type for IDMS includes a 64bit
Presented Timestamp field. Since an MSAS will in practice always add
some extra delay to the delay reported by the most lagged receiver
(to account for packet jitter), it suffices for the IDMS XR Block
Type with which the SCs report on their playout to have a 32bit
Presented Timestamp field.
9. Timing and NTP Considerations
To achieve IDMS, the different receivers involved need synchronized
(wall) clocks as a common timeline for synchronization. This
synchronized clock is used for reporting the Packet Received NTP
Timestamps and the Packet Presented NTP Timestamp, and for
interpretation of these fields in received IDMS reports. Depending
on the synchronization accuracy required, different clock
synchronization methods can be used. For social TV, synchronization
accuracy should be achieved on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.
In that case, correct use of NTP on receivers will in most situations
achieve the required accuracy. As a guideline, to deal with clock
drift of receivers, receivers should synchronize their clocks at the
beginning of a synchronized session. In case of high required
accuracy, the synchronized clocks of different receivers should not
drift beyond the accuracy required for the synchronization mechanism.
In practice, this can mean that receivers need to synchronize their
clocks repeatedly during a synchronization session.
Because of the stringent synchronization requirements for achieving
good audio quality in some use cases, a high accuracy will be needed.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
In this case, use of the global NTP system may not be sufficient.
For improved accuracy, a local NTP server could be set up, or some
other more accurate clock synchronization mechanism can be used, such
as GPS time or the Precision Time Protocol [IEEE-1588].
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc] defines a set of SDP parameters for
signaling the clock synchronization source or sources available to
and used by the individual receivers. SCs MAY use this draft to
indicate their clock synchronization source or sources in use and
available. Using these parameters, an SC can indicate which
synchronization source is being used at the moment, the last time the
SC synchronized with this source and the synchronization frequency.
An SC can also indicate any other synchronization sources available
to it. This allows multiple SCs in an IDMS session to use the same
or a similar clock source for their session.
Applications performing IDMS may or may not be able to choose a
synchronization method for the system clock, because this may be a
system-wide setting which the application cannot change. How
applications deal with this is up to the implementation. The
application might control the system clock, or it might use a
separate application clock or even a separate IDMS session clock. It
might also report on the system clock and the synchronization method
used, without being able to change it.
[I-D.draft-ietf-leap-seconds] presents some guidelines on how RTP
senders and receivers should deal with leap seconds. When relying on
NTP for clock synchronization, IDMS is particularly sensitive to leap
second induced timing discrepancies. It is RECOMMENDED to take the
guidelines specified in [I-D.draft-ietf-leap-seconds] into account
when implementing IDMS.
10. On the use of presentation timestamps
A receiver can report on different timing events, i.e. on packet
arrival times and on playout or presentation times. A receiver SHALL
report on arrival times and a receiver MAY report on playout times.
RTP packet arrival times are relatively easy to report on. Normally,
the processing and playout of the same media stream by different
receivers will take roughly the same amount of time. Synchronizing
on packet arrival times, may lead to some accuracy loss, but it will
be adequate for many applications, such as social TV.
Also, if the receivers are in some way controlled, e.g. having the
same buffer settings, decoding and rendering times, high accuracy can
be achieved. However, if all receivers in a synchronization session
have the ability to report on, and thus synchronize on, actual
playout times, or packet presentation times, this may be more
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
accurate. It is up to applications and implementations of this RTCP
extension whether to implement and use this.
11. SDP Signalling for RTCP IDMS Packet Type
The SDP attribute rtcp-idms is used to signal the use of the RTCP
IDMS Packet Type for IDMS and the associated RTCP XR Block for IDMS.
It is also used to carry an identifier of the synchronization group
to which clients belong or will belong. The SDP attribute is used as
a media-level attribute during session setup. This means that in
case of multiple related streams, IDMS is performed on one of them.
The other streams will be synchronized to this reference or master
stream using existing inter-stream synchronization (i.e. lip-sync)
solutions, i.e. using Sender Reports based on a common clock source.
Basic guidelines for choosing the media stream for IDMS is to choose
audio above video, as humans are more sensitive to degradation in
audio quality than in video quality. When using multi-description or
multi-view codecs, the IDMS control should be performed on the base
layer.
This SDP attribute is defined as follows, using Augmented Backus-Naur
Form [RFC5234].
rtcp-idms = "a=" "rtcp-idms" ":" sync-grp CRLF
sync-grp = "sync-group=" SyncGroupId
SyncGroupId = 1*10DIGIT ; Decimal value from 0 through 4294967294
DIGIT = %x30-39
SyncGroupId is a 32-bit unsigned integer and represented in decimal.
SyncGroupId identifies a group of SCs for IDMS. The value
SyncGroupId=0 represents an empty SyncGroupId. The value 4294967295
(2^32-1) is reserved for future use. For a description on the value
of SyncGroupId to include, see Section 12.
The following is an example of the SDP attribute for IDMS.
a=rtcp-idms:sync-group=42
12. SDP rules
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
12.1. Offer/Answer rules
The SDP usage for IDMS follows the rules defined in [RFC4566] and
section 5 of [RFC3611] on SDP signalling, with the exception of what
is stated here. The IDMS usage of RTCP is a (loosely coupled)
collaborative attribute, in the sense that receivers send their
status information and, in response, the MSAS (asynchronously) sends
synchronization setting instructions. The rtcp-idms attribute thus
indicates the ability to send and receive indicated RTCP messages.
This section defines how this SDP attribute should be used with
regard to an offer/answer context.
It is expected that, in most cases, the rtcp-idms attribute will be
used in an offer/answer context where receivers will have pre-
determined, through some means outside the scope of this document, a
SyncGroupId before the media session is setup. However, it is also
supported that the MSAS assigns such a SyncGroupId, for example if
the MSAS contains group management functionality. Thus, both the
MSAS and the SCs can insert the attribute and the SyncGroupId.
Furthermore, it is allowed to insert the attribute for more than one
media stream, allowing an SC to become part of multiple
synchronization groups simultaneously. This effectively couples two
(or more) synchronization groups to each other. If the rtcp-idms
attribute is inserted more than once for a particular media session,
each SyncGroupId SHALL only be inserted once.
In order to join an IDMS session, the receiver (the SC) inserts the
rtcp-idms attribute as a media level attribute in the SDP offer.
This SDP offer can be an initial offer, if the media session is
starting as a synchronized session. The SDP offer can also be an
update to an existing media session, converting the session to an
IDMS session. If the receiver has a pre-determined SyncGroupId
value, it SHOULD use this value for setting the SyncGroupId parameter
in the rtcp-idms attribute. If the receiver does not know the
SyncGroupId to be used, it MAY leave the SyncGroupId parameter empty
by setting its value to 0.
The MSAS SHALL include the rtcp-idms attribute in its answer. If the
value of the SyncGroupId parameter in the offer was not empty (not
equal to 0), the MSAS SHOULD NOT change the SyncGroupId in its
answer. If the SyncGroupId was empty, the MSAS SHALL include the
proper SyncGroupId in its answer. If the MSAS receives an offer with
the value of the SyncGroupId parameter set to 0, and cannot determine
the proper SyncGroupId, it SHALL remove the attribute from its
answer.
An MSAS receiving an SDP offer without the rtcp-idms attribute can
also decide that IDMS is applicable to that media session. In such a
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
case, the MSAS MAY insert the rtcp-idms attribute, including a non-
empty SyncGroupId, as part of its answer.
A receiver receiving an rtcp-idms attribute as part of the SDP answer
from an MSAS, SHALL start sending IDMS XR reports (following all the
normal RTCP rules for sending RTCP XR blocks) and SHALL be ready to
start receiving IDMS Settings. As usual, if a receiver does not
support the attribute (e.g. in case of an MSAS-inserted IDMS
attribute), it SHALL ignore the attribute.
Different updates are applicable to such an IDMS session. Updates
can be sent ommitting the rtcp-idms attribute, thereby ending the
(involvement in) the synchronization session. Updates can also be
sent including the rtcp-idms attribute, but with a different
SyncGroupId. This indicates a switch in synchronization group.
Updates can also be sent including another rtcp-idms attribute,
indicating a membership of another synchronization group, effectively
merging the current group(s) with the new one.
12.2. Declarative cases
In certain situations, there is no offer/answer context, but only a
declarative modus. In this case, the MSAS just inserts the rtcp-idms
attribute and a valid SyncGroupId. Any receiver receiving the rtcp-
idms attribute in such a declarative case SHALL start sending IDMS XR
Report Blocks and SHALL be ready to start receiving RTCP IDMS
Settings packets.
13. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC3611] apply to this
document as well.
The RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this document is used to
collect, summarize and distribute information on packet reception-
and playout-times of streaming media. The information may be used to
orchestrate the media playout at multiple devices.
Errors in the information, either accidental or malicious, may lead
to undesired behavior. For example, if one device erroneously or
maliciously reports a two-hour delayed playout, then another device
in the same synchronization group could decide to delay its playout
by two hours as well, in order to keep its playout synchronized. A
user would likely interpret this two hour delay as a malfunctioning
service.
Therefore, the application logic of both SCs and MSASs should check
for out-of-bound information. Differences in playout time exceeding
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
configured limits (e.g. more than ten seconds) could be an indication
of such out-of-bound information.
Apart from checking for out-of-bound information in the end-points,
an IDMS implementation can reduce its vulnerability to attacks by
including source authentication and message integrity measures,
reducing the potential for man-in-the-middle attacks.
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options] provides an overview of
the security options in RTP environments, and includes a set of
recommendations for message integrity and source authentication which
are applicable to IDMS. In addition to preventing man-in-the-middle
attacks from inserting erroneous IDMS Reports, the message
confidentiality mechanisms outlined in
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options] also prevent third
parties from determining that two or more end hosts are receiving the
same stream by looking at the Media Stream Correlation Identifier.
Apart from attacking an IDMS session directly by sending incorrect
IDMS Reports, and with it introducing delays for all devices in a
synchronization group, another potential vulnerability comes from the
used clock synchronization method. Should an attacker succeed in
adjusting an SC's wallclock, that SC will report incorrect IDMS
Reports. In order to prevent such clock synchronization attacks, it
is recommended to use a secure time synchronization service.
14. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new RTCP packet type, the RTCP IDMS Packet
(IDMS Settings), within the existing Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) registry of RTCP Control Packet Types. This
document also defines a new RTCP XR Block Type, the IDMS XR Report
Block, within the existing IANA registry of RTCP Extended Reports
(RTCP XR) Block Types.
Further, this document defines a new SDP attribute "rtcp-idms" within
the existing IANA registry of SDP Parameters, part of the "att-field
(media level only)". Finally, this document defines a new IANA
registry subordinate to the IANA RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR)
Block Type Registry: the IDMS XR Block SPST Registry.
14.1. RTCP IDMS Packet Type
This document assigns the packet type value TBD in the IANA 'RTCP
Control Packet types (PT) Registry' to the RTCP IDMS Packet Type.
[Note to RFC Editor: please replace TBD with the IANA-provided RTCP
Packet Type value for this packet type, both in this section as well
as in the figure and text in Section 8]
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
14.2. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block
This document updates the assignment of value 12 from the RTCP XR
Block Type for reporting IDMS information as per [TS183063] to the
RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this document.
[Note to RFC Editor: this block type value is currently assigned to
[TS183063]. This document replaces [TS183063] as the normative
specification of the RTCP XR IDMS Report Block. Upon publication of
this document as RFC, [TS183063] will be changed to reflect this.
The RTCP XR IDMS Report Block contains an extensible SPST value field
and therefore a new registry for this field is required. This new
registry is defined in Section 14.4.
14.3. RTCP-IDMS SDP Attribute
The SDP attribute "rtcp-idms" defined by this document is registered
with the IANA registry of SDP Parameters as follows:
SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
Attribute name: rtcp-idms
Long form: RTCP IDMS Parameters
Type of name: att-field
Type of attribute: media level
Subject to charset: no
Purpose: see Section 11 of this document
Reference: this document
Values: see this document
14.4. IDMS XR Block SPST Registry
This document defines a new IANA registry subordinate to the IANA
RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry: the IDMS XR
Block SPST Registry.
Initial values for the IDMS XR Block SPST Registry are given below;
future assignments are to be made through the Specification Required
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
policy [RFC5226]. The registry is limited to 16 entries (numbered
0-15), with 0 being Reserved. Values 5-15 are available for
assignment.
In accordance with [RFC5226], a Designated Expert will review any
applications made to IANA for the registry. Primary criteria for the
Designated Expert to use when reviewing new applications are clarity
of the specification and, due to the relative small value range of
SPST values available, potential overlap in functionality with
existing SPST registrations.
Value Name Reference
----- ---- ---------
1 Synchronization Client section 7
2 MSAS [TS183063]
3 SC Prime Input [TS183063]
4 SC Prime Output [TS183063]
14.5. Contact Information for Registrations
The contact information for the registrations is:
Ray van Brandenburg (ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl)
Brassersplein 2
2612CT, Delft, The Netherlands
15. Contributors
The following people have participated as co-authors or provided
substantial contributions to this document: Omar Niamut, Fabian
Walraven, Ishan Vaishnavi and Rufael Mekuria. In addition, the
authors would like to thank Aidan Williams, Colin Perkins, Magnus
Westerlund, Roni Even, Peter Musgrave, Ali Begen, Qin Wu and Rob
Koenen for their review comments and contributions to the text.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc]
Williams, A., Gross, K., van Brandenburg, R., and H.
Stokking, "RTP Clock Source Signalling, draft-ietf-
avtcore-clksrc-05", May 2013.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels, RFC 2119", March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications, RFC3550", July 2003.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video conferences with Minimal Control, RFC3551", July
2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR),
RFC3611", November 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol, RFC4566", July 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications, RFC5234", January 2008.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specifications, RFC5905", February 2010.
16.2. Informative References
[Boronat2009]
Boronat, F., Lloret, J., and M. Garcia, "Multimedia group
and inter-stream synchronization techniques: a comparative
study, Elsevier Information Systems 34 (2009), pp.
108-131", 2009.
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options]
Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", July 2013.
[I-D.draft-ietf-leap-seconds]
Gross, K. and R. Brandenburg, van, "RTP and Leap Seconds,
draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-02", October 2012.
[IEEE-1588]
, "1588-2008 - IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", 2008.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
[Ishibashi2006]
Ishibashi, Y., Nagasaka, M., and N. Fujiyoshi, "Subjective
Assessment of Fairness among users in multipoint
communications, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI
internation conference on Advances in computer
entertainment technology, 2006", .
[RFC3711] Baughner, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Normann, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
March 2004.
[RFC5868] Ott, J. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Extending the RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP), RFC5968", September 2010.
[TS183063]
, "IMS-based IPTV stage 3 specification, TS 183 063
v3.5.2", March 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Ray van Brandenburg
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
the Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
Email: ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl
Hans Stokking
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
the Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
Email: hans.stokking@tno.nl
M. Oskar van Deventer
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
the Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
Email: oskar.vandeventer@tno.nl
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RTCP for IDMS August 2013
Fernando Boronat
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV)
Valencia 46730
Spain
Phone: +34 962 849 341
Email: fboronat@dcom.upv.es
Mario Montagud
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV)
Valencia 46730
Spain
Phone: +34 962 849 341
Email: mamontor@posgrado.upv.es
Kevin Gross
AVA Networks
Phone: +1-303-447-0517
Email: Kevin.Gross@AVAnw.com
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires March 02, 2014 [Page 23]
