Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml
A/V Transport Payloads Workgroup J. Sandford
Internet-Draft British Broadcasting Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track 19 November 2019
Expires: 22 May 2020
RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-06
Abstract
This memo describes a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
format for TTML, an XML based timed text format for live and file
based workflows from W3C. This payload format is specifically
targeted at live workflows using TTML.
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 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 22 May 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions, Definitions, and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Media Format Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Relation to Other Text Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. TTML2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Payload Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Payload content restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Payload processing requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. TTML Processor profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.1. Feature extension designation . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.2. Processor profile document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.3. Processor profile signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Payload Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Fragmentation of TTML Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Protection Against Loss of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Clock Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
16. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
TTML (Timed Text Markup Language)[TTML2] is a media type for
describing timed text such as closed captions and subtitles in
television workflows or broadcasts as XML. This document specifies
how TTML should be mapped into an RTP stream in live workflows
including, but not restricted to, those described in the television
broadcast oriented EBU-TT Part 3[TECH3370] specification. This
document does not define a media type for TTML but makes use of the
existing application/ttml+xml media type [TTML-MTPR].
2. Conventions, Definitions, and Abbreviations
Unless otherwise stated, the term "document" refers to the TTML
document being transmitted in the payload of the RTP packet(s).
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
The term "word" refers to a data word aligned to a specified number
of bits in a computing sense and not to refer to linguistic words
that might appear in the transported text.
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
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Media Format Description
3.1. Relation to Other Text Payload Types
Prior payload types for text are not suited to the carriage of closed
captions in Television Workflows. RFC 4103 for Text Conversation
[RFC4103] is intended for low data rate conversation with its own
session management and minimal formatting capabilities. RFC 4734
Events for Modem, Fax, and Text Telephony Signals [RFC4734] deals in
large parts with the control signalling of facsimile and other
systems. RFC 4396 for 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
Timed Text [RFC4396] describes the carriage of a timed text format
with much more restricted formatting capabilities than TTML. The
lack of an existing format for TTML or generic XML has necessitated
the creation of this payload format.
3.2. TTML2
TTML2 (Timed Text Markup Language, Version 2)[TTML2] is an XML-based
markup language for describing textual information with associated
timing metadata. One of its primary use cases is the description of
subtitles and closed captions. A number of profiles exist that adapt
TTML2 for use in specific contexts [TTML-MTPR]. These include both
file based and streaming workflows.
4. Payload Format
In addition to the required RTP headers, the payload contains a
section for the TTML document being transmitted (User Data Words),
and a field for the Length of that data. Each RTP payload contains
one or part of one TTML document.
A representation of the payload format for TTML is Figure 1.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
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|X| CC |M| PT | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Synchronization Source (SSRC) Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| User Data Words...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RTP Payload Format for TTML
4.1. RTP Header Usage
RTP packet header fields SHALL be interpreted as per RFC 3550
[RFC3550], with the following specifics:
Marker Bit (M): 1 bit
The Marker Bit is set to "1" to indicate the last packet of a
document. Otherwise set to "0". Note: The first packet might
also be the last.
Timestamp: 32 bits
The RTP Timestamp encodes the epoch of the TTML document in User
Data Words. Further detail on its usage may be found in
Section 6. The clock frequency used is dependent on the
application and is specified in the media type rate parameter as
per Section 11.1. Documents spread across multiple packets MUST
use the same timestamp but different consecutive Sequence Numbers.
Sequential documents MUST NOT use the same timestamp. Because
packets do not represent any constant duration, the timestamp
cannot be used to directly infer packet loss.
Reserved: 16 bits
These bits are reserved for future use and MUST be set to 0x0 and
ignored at receive.
Length: 16 bits
The length of User Data Words in bytes.
User Data Words: The length of User Data Words MUST match the
value specified in the Length field
User Data Words contains the text of the whole document being
transmitted or a part of the document being transmitted.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
Documents using character encodings where characters are not
represented by a single byte MUST be serialized in big endian
order, a.k.a. network byte order. Where a document will not fit
within the Path MTU, it may be fragmented across multiple packets.
Further detail on fragmentation may be found in Section 8.
4.2. Payload Data
TTML documents define a series of changes to text over time. TTML
documents carried in User Data Words are encoded in accordance with
one or more of the defined TTML profiles specified in the TTML
registry [TTML-MTPR]. These profiles specify the document structure
used, systems models, timing, and other considerations. TTML
profiles may restrict the complexity of the changes and operational
requirements may limit the maximum duration of TTML documents by a
deployment configuration. Both of these cases are out of scope of
this document.
Documents carried over RTP MUST conform to the following profile in
addition to any others used.
5. Payload content restrictions
This section defines constraints on the content of TTML documents
carried over RTP.
Multiple TTML subtitle streams MUST NOT be interleaved in a single
RTP stream.
The TTML document instance's root "tt" element in the
"http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml" namespace MUST include a "timeBase"
attribute in the "http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#parameter" namespace
containing the value "media".
This is equivalent to the TTML2 content profile definition document
in Figure 2.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<profile xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#parameter"
xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#metadata"
xmlns:tt="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml"
type="content"
designator="urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX#content"
combine="mostRestrictive">
<features xml:base="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/feature/">
<tt:metadata>
<ttm:desc>
This document is a minimal TTML2 content profile
definition document intended to express the
minimal requirements to apply when carrying TTML
over RTP.
</ttm:desc>
</tt:metadata>
<feature value="required">#timeBase-media</feature>
<feature value="prohibited">#timeBase-smpte</feature>
<feature value="prohibited">#timeBase-clock</feature>
</features>
</profile>
Figure 2: TTML2 Content Profile Definition for Documents Carried
Over RTP
6. Payload processing requirements
This section defines constraints on the processing of the TTML
documents carried over RTP.
If a TTML document is assessed to be invalid then it MUST be
discarded. This includes empty documents, i.e. those of zero length.
When processing a valid document, the following requirements apply.
Each TTML document becomes active at its epoch E. E MUST be set to
the RTP Timestamp in the header of the RTP packet carrying the TTML
document. Computed TTML media times are offset relative to E in
accordance with Section I.2 of [TTML2].
When processing a sequence of TTML documents each delivered in the
same RTP stream, exactly zero or one document SHALL be considered
active at each moment in the RTP time line. In the event that a
document D_(n-1) with E_(n-1) is active, and document D_(n) is
delivered with E_(n) where E_(n-1) < E_(n), processing of D_(n-1)
MUST be stopped at E_(n) and processing of D_(n) MUST begin.
When all defined content within a document has ended then processing
of the document MAY be stopped. This can be tested by constructing
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
the intermediate synchronic document sequence from the document, as
defined by [TTML2]. If the last intermediate synchronic document in
the sequence is both active and contains no region elements, then all
defined content within the document has ended.
As described above, the RTP Timestamp does not specify the exact
timing of the media in this payload format. Additionally, documents
may be fragmented across multiple packets. This renders the RTCP
jitter calculation unusable.
6.1. TTML Processor profile
6.1.1. Feature extension designation
This specification defines the following TTML feature extension
designation:
* urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX#rtp-relative-media-time
The namespace "urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX" is as defined by [RFC2648].
A TTML content processor supports the "#rtp-relative-media-time"
feature extension if it processes media times in accordance with the
payload processing requirements specified in this document, i.e. that
the epoch E is set to the time equivalent to the RTP Timestamp as
detailed above in Section 6.
6.1.2. Processor profile document
The required syntax and semantics declared in the minimal TTML2
processor profile in Figure 3 MUST be supported by the receiver, as
signified by those "feature" or "extension" elements whose "value"
attribute is set to "required".
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<profile xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#parameter"
xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#metadata"
xmlns:tt="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml"
type="processor"
designator="urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX#processor"
combine="mostRestrictive">
<features xml:base="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/feature/">
<tt:metadata>
<ttm:desc>
This document is a minimal TTML2 processor profile
definition document intended to express the
minimal requirements of a TTML processor able to
process TTML delivered over RTP according to
RFC XXXX.
</ttm:desc>
</tt:metadata>
<feature value="required">#timeBase-media</feature>
<feature value="optional">
#profile-full-version-2
</feature>
</features>
<extensions xml:base="urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX">
<extension restricts="#timeBase-media" value="required">
#rtp-relative-media-time
</extension>
</extensions>
</profile>
Figure 3: TTML2 Processor Profile Definition for Processing
Documents Carried Over RTP
Note that this requirement does not imply that the receiver needs to
support either TTML1 or TTML2 profile processing, i.e. the TTML2
"#profile-full-version-2" feature or any of its dependent features.
6.1.3. Processor profile signalling
The "codecs" media type parameter MUST specify at least one processor
profile. Short codes for TTML profiles are registered at
[TTML-MTPR]. The processor profiles specified in "codecs" MUST be
compatible with the processor profile specified in this document.
Where multiple options exist in "codecs" for possible processor
profile combinations (i.e. separated by "|" operator), every
permitted option MUST be compatible with the processor profile
specified in this document. Where processor profiles other than the
one specified in this document are advertised in the "codecs"
parameter, the requirements of the processor profile specified in
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
this document MAY be signalled additionally using the "+" operator
with its registered short code.
A processor profile (X) is compatible with the processor profile
specified here (P) if X includes all the features and extensions in
P, identified by their character content, and the "value" attribute
of each is at least as restrictive as the "value" attribute of the
feature or extension in P that has the same character content. The
term "restrictive" here is as defined in [TTML2] Section 6.
7. Payload Examples
Figure 4 is an example of a valid TTML document that may be carried
using the payload format described in this document.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<tt xml:lang="en"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml"
xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#metadata"
xmlns:ttp="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#parameter"
xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml#styling"
ttp:timeBase="media"
>
<head>
<metadata>
<ttm:title>Timed Text TTML Example</ttm:title>
<ttm:copyright>The Authors (c) 2006</ttm:copyright>
</metadata>
<styling>
<!--
s1 specifies default color, font, and text alignment
-->
<style xml:id="s1"
tts:color="white"
tts:fontFamily="proportionalSansSerif"
tts:fontSize="100%"
tts:textAlign="center"
/>
</styling>
<layout>
<region xml:id="subtitleArea"
style="s1"
tts:extent="78% 11%"
tts:padding="1% 5%"
tts:backgroundColor="black"
tts:displayAlign="after"
/>
</layout>
</head>
<body region="subtitleArea">
<div>
<p xml:id="subtitle1" dur="5.0s" style="s1">
How truly delightful!
</p>
</div>
</body>
</tt>
Figure 4: Example TTML Document
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
8. Fragmentation of TTML Documents
Many of the use cases for TTML are low bit-rate with RTP packets
expected to fit within the Path MTU. However, some documents may
exceed the Path MTU. In these cases, they may be split between
multiple packets. Where fragmentation is used, the following
guidelines MUST be followed:
* It is RECOMMENDED that documents be fragmented as seldom as
possible, i.e., the least possible number of fragments is created
out of a document.
* Text strings MUST split at character boundaries. This enables
decoding of partial documents. As a consequence, document
fragmentation requires knowledge of the UTF-8/UTF-16 encoding
formats to determine character boundaries.
* Document fragments SHOULD be protected against packet losses.
More information can be found in Section 9
When a document spans more than one RTP packet, the entire document
is obtained by concatenating User Data Words from each consecutive
contributing packet in ascending order of Sequence Number.
As described in Section 6, only zero or one TTML document may be
active at any point in time. As such, there MUST only be one
document transmitted for a given RTP Timestamp. Furthermore, as
stated in Section 4.1, the Marker Bit MUST be set for a packet
containing the last fragment of a document. A packet following one
where the Marker Bit is set contains the first fragment of a new
document. The first fragment might also be the last.
9. Protection Against Loss of Data
Consideration must be devoted to keeping loss of documents due to
packet loss within acceptable limits. What is deemed acceptable
limits is dependant on the TTML profile(s) used and use case among
other things. As such, specific limits are outside the scope of this
document.
Documents MAY be sent without additional protection if end-to-end
network conditions allow document loss to be within acceptable limits
in all anticipated load conditions. Where such guarantees cannot be
provided, implementations MUST use a mechanism to protect against
packet loss. Potential mechanisms include FEC [RFC5109],
retransmission [RFC4588], duplication [ST2022-7], or an equivalent
technique.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
10. Congestion Control Considerations
Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with
[RFC3550], and with any applicable RTP profile: e.g., [RFC3551].
Circuit Breakers [RFC8083] is an update to RTP [RFC3550] that defines
criteria for when one is required to stop sending RTP Packet Streams.
Applications implementing this standard MUST comply with [RFC8083]
with particular attention paid to Section 4.4 on Media Usability.
[RFC8085] provides additional information on the best practices for
applying congestion control to UDP streams.
11. Payload Format Parameters
This RTP payload format is identified using the existing application/
ttml+xml media type as registered with IANA [IANA] and defined in
[TTML-MTPR].
11.1. Clock Rate
The default clock rate for TTML over RTP is 1000Hz. The clock rate
SHOULD be included in any advertisements of the RTP stream where
possible. This parameter has not been added to the media type
definition as it is not applicable to TTML usage other than within
RTP streams. In other contexts, timing is defined within the TTML
document.
When choosing a clock rate, implementers should consider what other
media their TTML streams may be used in conjunction with (e.g. video
or audio). In these situations, it is RECOMMENDED that streams use
the same clock source and clock rate as the related media. As TTML
streams may be aperiodic, implementers should also consider the
frequency range over which they expect packets to be sent and the
temporal resolution required.
11.2. SDP Considerations
The mapping of the application/ttml+xml media type and its parameters
[TTML-MTPR] SHALL be done according to Section 3 of [RFC4855].
* The type name "application" goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
* The media subtype "ttml+xml" goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the
encoding name,
* The clock rate also goes in "a=rtpmap" as the clock rate.
Additional format specific parameters as described in the media type
specification SHALL be included in the SDP file in "a=fmtp" as a
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
semicolon separated list of "parameter=value" pairs as described in
[RFC4855]. The "codecs" parameter MUST be included in the "a=fmtp"
line of the SDP file. Specific requirements for the "codecs"
parameter are included in Section 6.1.3.
11.2.1. Examples
A sample SDP mapping is presented in Figure 5.
m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 112
a=rtpmap:112 ttml+xml/90000
a=fmtp:112 charset=utf-8;codecs=im1t
Figure 5: Example SDP mapping
In this example, a dynamic payload type 112 is used. The 90 kHz RTP
timestamp rate is specified in the "a=rtpmap" line after the subtype.
The codecs parameter defined in the "a=fmtp" line indicates that the
TTML data conforms to IMSC 1 Text profile.
12. IANA Considerations
No IANA action.
13. 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 lays on anyone using RTP in an
application. They can find guidance on available security mechanisms
and important considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions"
[RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong
security mechanisms. The rest of this Security Considerations
section discusses the security impacting properties of the payload
format itself.
To avoid potential buffer overflow attacks, receivers should take
care to validate that the User Data Words in the RTP payload are of
the appropriate length (using the Length field).
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
This payload format places no specific restrictions on the size of
TTML documents that may be transmitted. As such, malicious
implementations could be used to perform denial-of-service (DoS)
attacks. RFC 4732 [RFC4732] provides more information on DoS attacks
and describes some mitigation strategies. Implementers should take
into consideration that the size and frequency of documents
transmitted using this format may vary over time. As such, sender
implementations should avoid producing streams that exhibit DoS-like
behaviour and receivers should avoid false identification of a
legitimate stream as malicious.
As with other XML types and as noted in RFC 7303 [RFC7303], XML Media
Types, Section 10, repeated expansion of maliciously constructed XML
entities can be used to consume large amounts of memory, which may
cause XML processors in constrained environments to fail.
In addition, because of the extensibility features for TTML and of
XML in general, it is possible that "application/ttml+xml" may
describe content that has security implications beyond those
described here. However, TTML does not provide for any sort of
active or executable content, and if the processor follows only the
normative semantics of the published specification, this content will
be outside TTML namespaces and may be ignored. Only in the case
where the processor recognizes and processes the additional content,
or where further processing of that content is dispatched to other
processors, would security issues potentially arise. And in that
case, they would fall outside the domain of this RTP payload format
and the application/ttml+xml registration document.
Although not prohibited, there are no expectations that XML
signatures or encryption would normally be employed.
Further information related to privacy and security at a document
level can be found in TTML 2 Appendix P [TTML2].
14. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Nigel Megitt, James Gruessing, Robert Wadge, Andrew Bonney,
James Weaver, John Fletcher, Frans De jong, and Willem Vermost for
their valuable feedback throughout the development of this document.
Thanks to the W3C Timed Text Working Group and EBU Timed Text working
group for their substantial efforts in developing the timed text
formats this payload format is intended to carry.
15. Normative References
[IANA] IANA, "IANA - Media Types - Application", February 2019,
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-
types.xhtml#application>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4103] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
Conversation", RFC 4103, DOI 10.17487/RFC4103, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4103>.
[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>.
[RFC7303] Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7303, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7303>.
[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>.
[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>.
[TECH3370] European Broadcasting Union, "TECH 3370 - EBU-TT PART 3:
LIVE CONTRIBUTION", May 2017,
<https://tech.ebu.ch/publications/tech3370>.
[TTML-MTPR]
W3C - Timed Text Working Group, "TTML Media Type
Definition and Profile Registry", April 2019,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-profile-registry/>.
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
[TTML2] W3C - Timed Text Working Group, "Timed Text Markup
Language 2 (TTML2)", November 2018,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/>.
16. Informative References
[RFC2648] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2648, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2648>.
[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>.
[RFC4396] Rey, J. and Y. Matsui, "RTP Payload Format for 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Timed Text",
RFC 4396, DOI 10.17487/RFC4396, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4396>.
[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>.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.
[RFC4732] Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet
Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4732, December 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4732>.
[RFC4734] Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "Definition of Events for
Modem, Fax, and Text Telephony Signals", RFC 4734,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4734, December 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4734>.
[RFC5109] Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text November 2019
Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109, December
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.
[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>.
[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>.
[ST2022-7] SMPTE, "ST 2022-7:2019 - Seamless Protection Switching of
SMPTE ST 2022 IP Datagrams", November 2019,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8716822>.
Appendix A. RFC Editor Considerations
Note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed after carrying out
all the instructions of this section.
The namespace "urn:ietf:rfc:XXXX" is to be replaced with the
namespace for this document once it has received an RFC number.
"RFC XXXX" in Figure 3 is to be replaced with the RFC number for this
document.
Author's Address
James Sandford
British Broadcasting Corporation
Dock House, MediaCityUK
Salford
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 30304 09549
Email: james.sandford@bbc.co.uk
Sandford Expires 22 May 2020 [Page 17]
