Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip
Payload Working Group D. Hanson
Internet-Draft M. Faller
Intended status: Standards Track K. Maver
Expires: 16 August 2024 General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
13 February 2024
RTP Payload Format for the Secure Communication Interoperability
Protocol (SCIP) Codec
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-09
Abstract
This document describes the RTP payload format of the Secure
Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP). SCIP is an
application layer protocol that provides end-to-end capability
exchange, packetization/de-packetization of media, reliable
transport, and payload encryption.
SCIP handles packetization/de-packetization of the encrypted media
and acts as a tunneling protocol, treating SCIP payloads as opaque
octets to be encapsulated within RTP payloads prior to transmission
or decapsulated on reception. SCIP payloads are sized to fit within
the maximum transmission unit (MTU) when transported over RTP thereby
avoiding fragmentation.
SCIP transmits encrypted traffic and does not require the use of
Secure RTP (SRTP) for payload protection. SCIP also provides for
reliable transport at the application layer, so it is not necessary
to negotiate RTCP retransmission capabilities.
To establish reliable communications using SCIP over RTP, it is
important that middle boxes avoid parsing or modifying SCIP payloads.
Because SCIP payloads are confidentiality and integrity protected and
are only decipherable by the originating and receiving SCIP devices,
modification of the payload by middle boxes would be detected as an
integrity failure in SCIP devices, resulting in retransmission and/or
communication failure. Middle boxes do not need to parse the SCIP
payloads to correctly transport them. Not only is parsing
unnecessary to tunnel/detunnel SCIP within RTP, but the parsing and
filtering of SCIP payloads by middle boxes would likely lead to
ossification of the evolving SCIP protocol.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
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 https://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 16 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. RTP Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Use of Augmented RTP Transport Protocols with SCIP . . . 9
5. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Media Subtype "audio/scip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Media Subtype "video/scip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. SDP Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. SCIP Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Key Points
* SCIP is an application layer protocol that uses RTP as a
transport. This document defines the SCIP media subtypes to be
listed in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) and only requires
a basic RTP transport channel for SCIP payloads. This basic
transport channel is comparable to [RFC4040] Clearmode.
* SCIP is designed to be network agnostic. It can operate over any
digital link, including non-IP modem-based PSTN and ISDN. The
SCIP media subtypes listed in this document were developed for
SCIP to operate over RTP.
* SCIP handles packetization/de-packetization of payloads by
producing encrypted media packets that are not greater than the
MTU size. The SCIP payload is opaque to the network, therefore,
SCIP functions as a tunneling protocol for the encrypted media,
without the need for middle boxes to parse SCIP payloads. Since
SCIP payloads are integrity protected, modification of the SCIP
payload is detected as an integrity violation by SCIP endpoints
leading to communication failure.
* SCIP includes built-in mechanisms that negotiate protocol message
versions and capabilities. To avoid SCIP protocol ossification
(as described in [RFC9170]), it is important for middle boxes to
not attempt parsing of the SCIP payload. As described in this
document, such parsing serves no useful purpose.
2. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide enough information to
enable SCIP payloads to be transported through the network without
modification or filtering. The document provides a reference for
network security policymakers; network equipment OEMs,
administrators, and architects; procurement personnel; and government
agency and commercial industry representatives.
The document details usage of the "audio/scip" and "video/scip"
pseudo-codecs [AUDIOSCIP], [VIDEOSCIP] as a secure session
establishment protocol and media transport protocol over RTP. It
discusses (1) how encrypted audio and video codec payloads are
transported over RTP; (2) the IP network layer not implementing SCIP
as a protocol since SCIP operates at the application layer in
endpoints; (3) the IP network layer enabling SCIP traffic to
transparently pass through the network; (4) network devices not
recognizing SCIP, and thus removing the scip codecs from the SDP
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
media payload declaration before forwarding to the next network node;
and finally, (5) SCIP endpoint devices not operating on networks due
to the scip media subtype removal from the SDP media payload
declaration.
The United States, along with its NATO Partners, have implemented
SCIP in secure voice, video, and data products operating on
commercial, private, and tactical IP networks worldwide using the
scip media subtype. The SCIP data traversing the network is
encrypted, and network equipment in-line with the session cannot
interpret the traffic stream in any way. SCIP-based RTP traffic is
opaque and can vary significantly in structure and frequency making
traffic profiling not possible. Also, as the SCIP protocol continues
to evolve independently of this document, any network device that
attempts to filter traffic (e.g., deep packet inspection) may cause
unintended consequences in the future when changes to the SCIP
traffic may not be recognized by the network device.
The SCIP protocol defined in SCIP-210 [SCIP210] includes built-in
support for packetization/de-packetization, retransmission,
capability exchange, version negotiation, and payload encryption.
Since the traffic is encrypted, neither the RTP transport nor middle
boxes can usefully parse or modify SCIP payloads; modifications are
detected as integrity violations resulting in retransmission, and
eventually, communication failure.
Because knowledge of the SCIP payload format is not needed to
transport SCIP signaling or media through middle boxes, SCIP-210
represents an informative reference. While older versions of the
SCIP-210 specification are publicly available, the authors strongly
encourage network implementers to treat SCIP payloads as opaque
octets. When handled correctly, such treatment does not require
referring to SCIP-210, and any assumptions about the format of SCIP
messages defined in SCIP-210 are likely to lead to protocol
ossification and communication failures as the protocol evolves.
| Note: The IETF has not conducted a security review of SCIP and
| therefore has not verified the claims contained in this
| document.
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
Best current practices for writing an RTP payload format
specification were followed [RFC2736] [RFC8088].
When referring to the Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol,
the uppercase acronym "SCIP" is used. When referring to the media
subtype scip, lowercase "scip" is used.
2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document.
AVP: Audio/Video Profile
AVPF: Audio/Video Profile Feedback
ICWG: Interoperability Control Working Group
IICWG: International Interoperability Control Working Group
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
SAVP: Secure Audio/Video Profile
SAVPF: Secure Audio/Video Profile Feedback
SCIP: Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol
SDP: Session Description Protocol
SRTP: Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol
STANAG: Standardization Agreement
3. Background
The Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) allows the
negotiation of several voice, data, and video applications using
various cryptographic suites. SCIP also provides several important
characteristics that have led to its broad acceptance as a secure
communications protocol.
SCIP began in the United States as the Future Narrowband Digital
Terminal (FNBDT) Protocol in the late 1990s. A combined U.S.
Department of Defense and vendor consortium formed a governing
organization named the Interoperability Control Working Group (ICWG)
to manage the protocol. In time, the group expanded to include NATO,
NATO partners and European vendors under the name International
Interoperability Control Working Group (IICWG), which was later
renamed the SCIP Working Group.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
First generation SCIP devices operated on circuit-switched networks.
SCIP was then expanded to radio and IP networks. The scip media
subtype transports SCIP secure session establishment signaling and
secure application traffic. The built-in negotiation and flexibility
provided by the SCIP protocols make it a natural choice for many
scenarios that require various secure applications and associated
encryption suites. SCIP has been adopted by NATO in STANAG 5068.
SCIP standards are currently available to participating government/
military communities and select OEMs of equipment that support SCIP.
However, SCIP must operate over global networks (including private
and commercial networks). Without access to necessary information to
support SCIP, some networks may not support the SCIP media subtypes.
Issues may occur simply because information is not as readily
available to OEMs, network administrators, and network architects.
This document provides essential information about audio/scip and
video/scip media subtypes that enables network equipment
manufacturers to include settings for "scip" as a known audio and
video media subtype in their equipment. This enables network
administrators to define and implement a compatible security policy
which includes audio and video media subtypes "audio/scip" and
"video/scip", respectively, as permitted codecs on the network.
All current IP-based SCIP endpoints implement "scip" as a media
subtype. Registration of scip as a media subtype provides a common
reference for network equipment manufacturers to recognize SCIP in an
SDP payload declaration.
4. Payload Format
The "scip" media subtype indicates support for and identifies SCIP
traffic that is being transported over RTP. Transcoding, lossy
compression, or other data modifications MUST NOT be performed by the
network on the SCIP RTP payload. The audio/scip and video/scip media
subtype data streams within the network, including the VoIP network,
MUST be a transparent relay and be treated as "clear-channel data",
similar to the Clearmode media subtype defined by [RFC4040].
RFC 4040 is referenced because Clearmode does not define specific RTP
payload content, packet size, or packet intervals, but rather enables
Clearmode devices to signal that they support a compatible mode of
operation and defines a transparent channel on which devices may
communicate. This document takes a similar approach. Network
devices that implement support for SCIP need to enable SCIP endpoints
to signal that they support SCIP and provide a transparent channel on
which SCIP endpoints may communicate.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
SCIP is an application layer protocol that is defined in SCIP-210.
The SCIP traffic consists of encrypted SCIP control messages and
codec data. The payload size and interval will vary considerably
depending on the state of the SCIP protocol within the SCIP device.
Figure 1 below illustrates the RTP payload format for SCIP.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTP Header |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| |
| SCIP payload |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SCIP RTP Payload Format
The SCIP codec produces an encrypted bitstream that is transported
over RTP. Unlike other codecs, SCIP does not have its own upper
layer syntax (e.g., no Network Adaptation Layer (NAL) units), but
rather encrypts the output of the audio/video codecs that it uses
(e.g., G.729D, H.264 [RFC6184], etc.). SCIP achieves this by
encapsulating the encrypted codec output that has been previously
formatted according to the relevant RTP payload specification for
that codec. SCIP endpoints MAY employ mechanisms, such as Inter-
media RTP Synchronization as described in [RFC8088] Section 3.3.4, to
synchronize audio/scip and video/scip streams.
Figure 2 below illustrates notionally how codec packets and SCIP
control messages are packetized for transmission over RTP.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
+-----------+ +-----------------------+
| Codec | | SCIP control messages |
+-----------+ +-----------------------+
| |
| |
V V
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Packetizer* (<= MTU size) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
V |
+--------------+ |
| Encryption | |
+--------------+ |
| |
| |
V V
+--------------------------------------------------+
| RTP |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: SCIP RTP Architecture
| * Packetizer: The SCIP application layer will ensure that all
| traffic sent to the RTP layer will not exceed the MTU size.
| The receiving SCIP RTP layer will handle packet identification,
| ordering, and reassembly. When required, the SCIP application
| layer handles error detection and retransmission.
As described above, the SCIP RTP payload format is variable and
cannot be described in specificity in this document. Details can be
found in SCIP-210. SCIP will continue to evolve and as such the SCIP
RTP traffic MUST NOT be filtered by network devices based upon what
currently is observed or documented. The focus of this document is
for network devices to consider the SCIP RTP payload as opaque and
allow it to traverse the network. Network devices MUST NOT modify
SCIP RTP packets.
4.1. RTP Header Fields
The SCIP RTP header fields SHALL conform to RFC 3550.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
SCIP traffic may be continuous or discontinuous. The Timestamp field
MUST increment based on the sampling clock for discontinuous
transmission as described in [RFC3550], Section 5.1. The Timestamp
field for continuous transmission applications is dependent on the
sampling rate of the media as specified in the media subtype's
specification (e.g., MELPe). Note that during a SCIP session, both
discontinuous and continuous traffic are highly probable.
The Marker bit SHALL be set to zero for discontinuous traffic. The
Marker bit for continuous traffic is based on the underlying media
subtype specification. The underlying media is opaque within SCIP
RTP packets.
4.2. Congestion Control Considerations
The bitrate of SCIP may be adjusted depending on the capability of
the underlying codec (such as MELPe [RFC8130], G.729D [RFC3551],
etc.). The number of encoded audio frames per packet may also be
adjusted to control congestion. Discontinuous transmission may also
be used if supported by the underlying codec.
Since UDP does not provide congestion control, applications that use
RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
UDP layer [RFC8085] and MAY also implement a transport circuit
breaker [RFC8083]. Work in the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance
Techniques (RMCAT) working group [RMCAT] describes the interactions
and conceptual interfaces necessary between the application
components that relate to congestion control, including the RTP
layer, the higher-level media codec control layer, and the lower-
level transport interface, as well as components dedicated to
congestion control functions.
Use of the packet loss feedback mechanisms in AVPF [RFC4585] and
SAVPF [RFC5124] are OPTIONAL because SCIP itself manages
retransmissions of some errored or lost packets. Specifically, the
Payload-Specific Feedback Messages defined in RFC 4585 section 6.3
are OPTIONAL when transporting video data.
4.3. Use of Augmented RTP Transport Protocols with SCIP
The SCIP application layer protocol uses RTP as a basic transport for
the audio/scip and video/scip payloads. Additional RTP transport
protocols that do not modify the SCIP payload are considered OPTIONAL
in this document and are discretionary for a SCIP device vendor to
implement. Some examples include but are not limited to:
* RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction [RFC5109]
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
* Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port
[RFC5761]
* Symmetric RTP/RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC4961]
* Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description
Protocol (BUNDLE) [RFC9143]
5. Payload Format Parameters
The SCIP RTP payload format is identified using the scip media
subtype, which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and per the
media type registration template form [RFC6838]. A clock rate of
8000 Hz SHALL be used for "audio/scip". A clock rate of 90000 Hz
SHALL be used for "video/scip".
5.1. Media Subtype "audio/scip"
Media type name: audio
Media subtype name: scip
Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: Binary. This media subtype is only defined
for transfer via RTP. There SHALL be no encoding/decoding
(transcoding) of the audio stream as it traverses the network.
Security considerations: See Section 7.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specifications: [SCIP210]
Applications which use this media: N/A
Fragment Identifier considerations: none
Restrictions on usage: N/A
Additional information:
1. Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
2. Magic number(s): N/A
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
3. File extension(s): N/A
4. Macintosh file type code: N/A
5. Object Identifiers: N/A
Person to contact for further information:
1. Name: Michael Faller and Daniel Hanson
2. Email: michael.faller@gd-ms.com and dan.hanson@gd-ms.com
Intended usage: Common
Authors:
Michael Faller - michael.faller@gd-ms.com
Daniel Hanson - dan.hanson@gd-ms.com
Change controller:
SCIP Working Group - ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int
5.2. Media Subtype "video/scip"
Media type name: video
Media subtype name: scip
Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: Binary. This media subtype is only defined
for transfer via RTP. There SHALL be no encoding/decoding
(transcoding) of the video stream as it traverses the network.
Security considerations: See Section 7.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specifications: [SCIP210]
Applications which use this media: N/A
Fragment Identifier considerations: none
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
Restrictions on usage: N/A
Additional information:
1. Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
2. Magic number(s): N/A
3. File extension(s): N/A
4. Macintosh file type code: N/A
5. Object Identifiers: N/A
Person to contact for further information:
1. Name: Michael Faller and Daniel Hanson
2. Email: michael.faller@gd-ms.com and dan.hanson@gd-ms.com
Intended usage: Common
Authors:
Michael Faller - michael.faller@gd-ms.com
Daniel Hanson - dan.hanson@gd-ms.com
Change controller:
SCIP Working Group - ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int
5.3. Mapping to SDP
The mapping of the above defined payload format media subtype and its
parameters SHALL be implemented according to Section 3 of [RFC4855].
Since SCIP includes its own facilities for capabilities exchange, it
is only necessary to negotiate the use of SCIP within SDP Offer/
Answer; the specific codecs to be encapsulated within SCIP are then
negotiated via the exchange of SCIP control messages.
The information carried in the media type specification has a
specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
[RFC8866], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP
is used to specify sessions employing the SCIP codec, the mapping is
as follows:
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
* The media type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name for
audio/scip, and the media type ("video") goes in SDP "m=" as the
media name for video/scip.
* The media subtype ("scip") goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding
name. The required parameter "rate" also goes in "a=rtpmap" as
the clock rate.
* The optional parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP
"a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.
An example mapping for audio/scip is:
m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 96
a=rtpmap:96 scip/8000
An example mapping for video/scip is:
m=video 50002 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 scip/90000
An example mapping for both audio/scip and video/scip is:
m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 96
a=rtpmap:96 scip/8000
m=video 50002 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 scip/90000
5.4. SDP Offer/Answer Considerations
In accordance with the SDP Offer/Answer model [RFC3264], the SCIP
device SHALL list the SCIP payload type number in order of preference
in the "m" media line.
For example, an SDP Offer with scip as the preferred audio media
subtype:
m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 96 0 8
a=rtpmap:96 scip/8000
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
6. Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC3550], and in any applicable RTP profile such as
RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/
SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol Framework:
Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202]
discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility to
discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic security
goals like confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity for
RTP in general. This responsibility lies on anyone using RTP in an
application. They can find guidance on available security mechanisms
and important considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions"
[RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong
security mechanisms. The rest of this Security Considerations
section discusses the security impacting properties of the payload
format itself.
This RTP payload format and its media decoder do not exhibit any
significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational
complexity for packet processing, and thus do not inherently pose a
denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological data.
Nor does the RTP payload format contain any active content.
SCIP only encrypts the contents transported in the RTP payload; it
does not protect the RTP header or RTCP packets. Applications
requiring additional RTP header and/or RTCP security might consider
mechanisms such as SRTP [RFC3711], however these additional
mechanisms are considered OPTIONAL in this document.
7. IANA Considerations
The audio/scip and video/scip media subtypes have previously been
registered with IANA [AUDIOSCIP] [VIDEOSCIP]. IANA should update
[AUDIOSCIP] and [VIDEOSCIP] to reference this document upon
publication.
8. SCIP Contact Information
The SCIP protocol is maintained by the SCIP Working Group. The
current SCIP-210 specification may be requested from the email
address below.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
SCIP Working Group, CIS3 Partnership
NATO Communications and Information Agency
Oude Waalsdorperweg 61
2597 AK The Hague, Netherlands
Email: ncia.cis3@ncia.nato.int
An older public version of the SCIP-210 specification can be
downloaded from https://www.iad.gov/SecurePhone/index.cfm.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2736] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP
Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2736, December 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2736>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8866] Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP:
Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8866, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8866>.
9.2. Informative References
[AUDIOSCIP]
Faller, M. and D. Hanson, "audio/scip: Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA)", 28 January 2021,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/scip>.
[RFC4040] Kreuter, R., "RTP Payload Format for a 64 kbit/s
Transparent Call", RFC 4040, DOI 10.17487/RFC4040, April
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4040>.
[RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
Formats", RFC 4855, DOI 10.17487/RFC4855, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4855>.
[RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
BCP 131, RFC 4961, DOI 10.17487/RFC4961, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4961>.
[RFC5109] Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109, December
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.
[RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5761>.
[RFC6184] Wang, Y.-K., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6184, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6184>.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7201] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201>.
[RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>.
[RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8088] Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload Format",
RFC 8088, DOI 10.17487/RFC8088, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8088>.
[RFC8130] Demjanenko, V. and D. Satterlee, "RTP Payload Format for
the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe)
Codec", RFC 8130, DOI 10.17487/RFC8130, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8130>.
[RFC9143] Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 9143,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9143, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9143>.
[RFC9170] Thomson, M. and T. Pauly, "Long-Term Viability of Protocol
Extension Mechanisms", RFC 9170, DOI 10.17487/RFC9170,
December 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9170>.
[RMCAT] IETF, "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques (rmcat)
Working Group",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/about/>.
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SCIP RTP Payload Format February 2024
[SCIP210] SCIP Working Group, "SCIP Signaling Plan", SCIP-210,
r3.11, September 2023,
<https://www.iad.gov/SecurePhone/index.cfm>.
[VIDEOSCIP]
Faller, M. and D. Hanson, "video/scip: Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA)", 28 January 2021,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/scip>.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Hanson
General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
150 Rustcraft Road
Dedham, MA 02026
United States of America
Email: dan.hanson@gd-ms.com
Michael Faller
General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
150 Rustcraft Road
Dedham, MA 02026
United States of America
Email: michael.faller@gd-ms.com
Keith Maver
General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
150 Rustcraft Road
Dedham, MA 02026
United States of America
Email: keith.maver@gd-ms.com
Hanson, et al. Expires 16 August 2024 [Page 18]
