Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec
Network Working Group J. Uberti
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track Jul 16, 2019
Expires: January 17, 2020
WebRTC Forward Error Correction Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-10
Abstract
This document provides information and requirements for how Forward
Error Correction (FEC) should be used by WebRTC implementations.
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 January 17, 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.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Types of FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Separate FEC Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Redundant Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Codec-Specific In-band FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. FEC for Audio Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Recommended Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Negotiating Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. FEC for Video Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Recommended Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Negotiating Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. FEC for Application Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Adaptive Use of FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
In situations where packet loss is high, or perfect media quality is
essential, Forward Error Correction (FEC) can be used to proactively
recover from packet losses. This specification provides guidance on
which FEC mechanisms to use, and how to use them, for WebRTC
implementations.
2. Terminology
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.
3. Types of FEC
FEC describes the sending of redundant information in an outgoing
packet stream so that information can still be recovered even in the
face of packet loss. There are multiple ways this can be
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
accomplished for RTP media streams [RFC3550]; this section enumerates
the various mechanisms available and describes their tradeoffs.
3.1. Separate FEC Stream
This approach, as described in [RFC5956], Section 4.3, sends FEC
packets as an independent RTP stream with its own synchronization
source (SSRC, [RFC3550]) and payload type, multiplexed with the
primary encoding. While this approach can protect multiple packets
of the primary encoding with a single FEC packet, each FEC packet
will have its own IP+UDP+RTP+FEC header, and this overhead can be
excessive in some cases, e.g., when protecting each primary packet
with a FEC packet.
This approach allows for recovery of entire RTP packets, including
the full RTP header.
3.2. Redundant Encoding
This approach, as described in [RFC2198], allows for redundant data
to be piggybacked on an existing primary encoding, all in a single
packet. This redundant data may be an exact copy of a previous
payload, or for codecs that support variable-bitrate encodings,
possibly a smaller, lower-quality representation. In certain cases,
the redundant data could include encodings of multiple prior audio
frames.
Since there is only a single set of packet headers, this approach
allows for a very efficient representation of primary + redundant
data. However, this savings is only realized when the data all fits
into a single packet (i.e. the size is less than a MTU). As a
result, this approach is generally not useful for video content.
As described in [RFC2198], Section 4, this approach cannot recover
certain parts of the RTP header, including the marker bit, CSRC
information, and header extensions.
3.3. Codec-Specific In-band FEC
Some audio codecs, notably Opus [RFC6716] and AMR [RFC4867], support
their own in-band FEC mechanism, where redundant data is included in
the codec payload. This is similar to the redundant encoding
mechanism described above, but as it adds no additional framing, it
can be slightly more efficient.
For Opus, audio frames deemed important are re-encoded at a lower
bitrate and appended to the next payload, allowing partial recovery
of a lost packet. This scheme is fairly efficient; experiments
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
performed indicate that when Opus FEC is used, the overhead imposed
is only about 20-30%, depending on the amount of protection needed.
Note that this mechanism can only carry redundancy information for
the immediately preceding audio frame; as such the decoder cannot
fully recover multiple consecutive lost packets, which can be a
problem on wireless networks. See [RFC6716], Section 2.1.7, and this
Opus mailing list post [OpusFEC] for more details.
For AMR/AMR-WB, packets can contain copies or lower-quality encodings
of multiple prior audio frames. See [RFC4867], Section 3.7.1 for
details on this mechanism.
In-band FEC mechanisms cannot recover any of the RTP header.
4. FEC for Audio Content
The following section provides guidance on how to best use FEC for
transmitting audio data. As indicated in Section 8 below, FEC should
only be activated if network conditions warrant it, or upon explicit
application request.
4.1. Recommended Mechanism
When using variable-bitrate codecs without an internal FEC, redundant
encoding (as described in Section 3.2) with lower-fidelity version(s)
of the previous packet(s) is RECOMMENDED. This provides reasonable
protection of the payload with only moderate bitrate increase, as the
redundant encodings can be significantly smaller than the primary
encoding.
When using the Opus codec, use of the built-in Opus FEC mechanism is
RECOMMENDED. This provides reasonable protection of the audio stream
against individual losses, with minimal overhead. Note that, as
indicated above, the built-in Opus FEC only provides single-frame
redundancy; if multi-packet protection is needed, the aforementioned
redundant encoding with reduced-bitrate Opus encodings SHOULD be used
instead.
When using the AMR/AMR-WB codecs, use of their built-in FEC mechanism
is RECOMMENDED. This provides slightly more efficient protection of
the audio stream than redundant encoding.
When using constant-bitrate codecs, e.g., PCMU [RFC5391], redundant
encoding MAY be used, but this will result in a potentially
significant bitrate increase, and suddenly increasing bitrate to deal
with losses from congestion may actually make things worse.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
Because of the lower packet rate of audio encodings, usually a single
packet per frame, use of a separate FEC stream comes with a higher
overhead than other mechanisms, and therefore is NOT RECOMMENDED.
As mentioned above, the recommended mechanisms do not allow recovery
of parts of the RTP header that may be important in certain audio
applications, e.g., CSRCs and RTP header extensions like those
specified in [RFC6464] and [RFC6465]. Implementations SHOULD account
for this and attempt to approximate this information, using an
approach similar to those described in [RFC2198], Section 4, and
[RFC6464], Section 5.
4.2. Negotiating Support
Support for redundant encoding of a given RTP stream SHOULD be
indicated by including audio/red [RFC2198] as an additional supported
media type for the associated m= section in the SDP offer [RFC3264].
Answerers can reject the use of redundant encoding by not including
the audio/red media type in the corresponding m= section in the SDP
answer.
Support for codec-specific FEC mechanisms are typically indicated via
"a=fmtp" parameters.
For Opus, a receiver MUST indicate that it is prepared to use
incoming FEC data with the "useinbandfec=1" parameter, as specified
in [RFC7587]. This parameter is declarative and can be negotiated
separately for either media direction.
For AMR/AMR-WB, support for redundant encoding, and the maximum
supported depth, are controlled by the 'max-red' parameter, as
specified in [RFC4867], Section 8.1. Receivers MUST include this
parameter, and set it to an appropriate value, as specified in
[TS.26114], Table 6.3.
5. FEC for Video Content
The following section provides guidance on how to best use FEC for
transmitting video data. As indicated in Section 8 below, FEC should
only be activated if network conditions warrant it, or upon explicit
application request.
5.1. Recommended Mechanism
Video frames, due to their size, often require multiple RTP packets.
As discussed above, a separate FEC stream can protect multiple
packets with a single FEC packet. In addition, the "flexfec" FEC
mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme] is also
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
capable of protecting multiple RTP streams via a single FEC stream,
including all the streams that are part of a BUNDLE
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] group. As a result, for
video content, use of a separate FEC stream with the flexfec RTP
payload format is RECOMMENDED.
To process the incoming FEC stream, the receiver can demultiplex it
by SSRC, and then correlate it with the appropriate primary stream(s)
via the CSRC(s) present in the RTP header of flexfec repair packets,
or the SSRC field present in the FEC header of flexfec retransmission
packets.
5.2. Negotiating Support
Support for a SSRC-multiplexed flexfec stream to protect a given RTP
stream SHOULD be indicated by including one of the formats described
in [I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme], Section 5.1.2, as an
additional supported media type for the associated m= section in the
SDP offer [RFC3264]. As mentioned above, when BUNDLE is used, only a
single flexfec repair stream will be created for each BUNDLE group,
even if flexfec is negotiated for each primary stream.
Answerers can reject the use of SSRC-multiplexed FEC, by not
including the offered FEC formats in the corresponding m= section in
the SDP answer.
Use of FEC-only m-lines, and grouping using the SDP group mechanism
as described in [RFC5956], Section 4.1 is not currently defined for
WebRTC, and SHOULD NOT be offered.
Answerers SHOULD reject any FEC-only m-lines, unless they
specifically know how to handle such a thing in a WebRTC context
(perhaps defined by a future version of the WebRTC specifications).
6. FEC for Application Content
WebRTC also supports the ability to send generic application data,
and provides transport-level retransmission mechanisms to support
full and partial (e.g. timed) reliability. See
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] for details.
Because the application can control exactly what data to send, it has
the ability to monitor packet statistics and perform its own
application-level FEC, if necessary.
As a result, this document makes no recommendations regarding FEC for
the underlying data transport.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
7. Implementation Requirements
To support the functionality recommended above, implementations MUST
be able to receive and make use of the relevant FEC formats for their
supported audio codecs, and MUST indicate this support, as described
in Section 4. Use of these formats when sending, as mentioned above,
is RECOMMENDED.
The general FEC mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme] SHOULD also be supported, as
mentioned in Section 5.
Implementations MAY support additional FEC mechanisms if desired,
e.g., [RFC5109].
8. Adaptive Use of FEC
Because use of FEC always causes redundant data to be transmitted,
and the total amount of data must remain within any bandwidth limits
indicated by congestion control and the receiver, this will lead to
less bandwidth available for the primary encoding, even when the
redundant data is not being used. This is in contrast to methods
like RTX [RFC4588] or flexfec's retransmission mode (
[I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme], Section 1.1.7), which only
transmit redundant data when necessary, at the cost of an extra
roundtrip and thereby increased media latency.
Given this, WebRTC implementations SHOULD prefer using RTX or flexfec
retransmissions instead of FEC when the connection RTT is within the
application's latency budget, and otherwise SHOULD only transmit the
amount of FEC needed to protect against the observed packet loss
(which can be determined, e.g., by monitoring transmit packet loss
data from RTCP Receiver Reports [RFC3550]), unless the application
indicates it is willing to pay a quality penalty to proactively avoid
losses.
Note that when probing bandwidth, i.e., speculatively sending extra
data to determine if additional link capacity exists, FEC data SHOULD
be used as the additional data. Given that extra data is going to be
sent regardless, it makes sense to have that data protect the primary
payload; in addition, FEC can typically be applied in a way that
increases bandwidth only modestly, which is necessary when probing.
When using FEC with layered codecs, e.g., [RFC6386], where only base
layer frames are critical to the decoding of future frames,
implementations SHOULD only apply FEC to these base layer frames.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
Finally, it should be noted that although applying redundancy is
often useful in protecting a stream against packet loss, if the loss
is caused by network congestion, the additional bandwidth used by the
redundant data may actually make the situation worse, and can lead to
significant degradation of the network.
9. Security Considerations
In the WebRTC context, FEC is specifically concerned with recovering
data from lost packets; any corrupted packets will be discarded by
the SRTP [RFC3711] decryption process. Therefore, as described in
[RFC3711], Section 10, the default processing when using FEC with
SRTP is to perform FEC followed by SRTP at the sender, and SRTP
followed by FEC at the receiver. This ordering is used for all the
SRTP Protection Profiles used in DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763], which are
enumerated in [RFC5764], Section 4.1.2.
Additional security considerations for each individual FEC mechanism
are enumerated in their respective documents.
10. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA.
11. Acknowledgements
Several people provided significant input into this document,
including Bernard Aboba, Jonathan Lennox, Giri Mandyam, Varun Singh,
Tim Terriberry, Magnus Westerlund, and Mo Zanaty.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme]
Zanaty, M., Singh, V., Begen, A., and G. Mandyam, "RTP
Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction
(FEC)", draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme-20 (work in
progress), May 2019.
[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>.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
[RFC2198] Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2198, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2198>.
[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>.
[RFC4867] Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie,
"RTP Payload Format and File Storage Format for the
Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband
(AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 4867, DOI 10.17487/RFC4867,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4867>.
[RFC5956] Begen, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
the Session Description Protocol", RFC 5956,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5956, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5956>.
[RFC7587] Spittka, J., Vos, K., and JM. Valin, "RTP Payload Format
for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec", RFC 7587,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7587, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7587>.
[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>.
[TS.26114]
3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia
telephony; Media handling and interaction", 3GPP TS 26.114
15.0.0, September 2017.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
negotiation-54 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
[OpusFEC] Terriberry, T., "Opus FEC", January 2013.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5391] Sollaud, A., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation
G.711.1", RFC 5391, DOI 10.17487/RFC5391, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5391>.
[RFC5763] Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework
for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, DOI 10.17487/RFC5763, May
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5763>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC6386] Bankoski, J., Koleszar, J., Quillio, L., Salonen, J.,
Wilkins, P., and Y. Xu, "VP8 Data Format and Decoding
Guide", RFC 6386, DOI 10.17487/RFC6386, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6386>.
[RFC6464] Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6464, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6464>.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
[RFC6465] Ivov, E., Ed., Marocco, E., Ed., and J. Lennox, "A Real-
time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-
to-Client Audio Level Indication", RFC 6465,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6465, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6465>.
[RFC6716] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, "Definition of the
Opus Audio Codec", RFC 6716, DOI 10.17487/RFC6716,
September 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6716>.
Appendix A. Change log
Changes in draft -10:
o Additional editorial changes from IETF LC.
Changes in draft -09:
o Editorial changes from IETF LC.
o Added new reference for Opus FEC.
Changes in draft -08:
o Switch to RFC 8174 boilerplate.
Changes in draft -07:
o Clarify how bandwidth management interacts with FEC.
o Make 3GPP reference normative.
Changes in draft -06:
o Discuss how multiple streams can be protected by a single FlexFEC
stream.
o Discuss FEC for bandwidth probing.
o Add note about recovery of RTP headers and header extensions.
o Add note about FEC/SRTP ordering.
o Clarify flexfec demux text, and mention retransmits.
o Clarify text regarding offers/answers.
o Make RFC2198 support SHOULD strength.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
o Clean up references.
Changes in draft -05:
o No changes.
Changes in draft -04:
o Discussion of layered codecs.
o Discussion of RTX.
o Clarified implementation requirements.
o FlexFEC MUST -> SHOULD.
o Clarified AMR max-red handling.
o Updated references.
Changes in draft -03:
o Added overhead stats for Opus.
o Expanded discussion of multi-packet FEC for Opus.
o Added discussion of AMR/AMR-WB.
o Removed discussion of ssrc-group.
o Referenced the data channel doc.
o Referenced the RTP/RTCP RFC.
o Several small edits based on feedback from Magnus.
Changes in draft -02:
o Expanded discussion of FEC-only m-lines, and how they should be
handled in offers and answers.
Changes in draft -01:
o Tweaked abstract/intro text that was ambiguously normative.
o Removed text on FEC for Opus in CELT mode.
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft WebRTC FEC Jul 2019
o Changed RFC 2198 recommendation for PCMU to be MAY instead of NOT
RECOMMENDED, based on list feedback.
o Explicitly called out application data as something not addressed
in this document.
o Updated flexible-fec reference.
Changes in draft -00:
o Initial version, from sidebar conversation at IETF 90.
Author's Address
Justin Uberti
Google
747 6th St S
Kirkland, WA 98033
USA
Email: justin@uberti.name
Uberti Expires January 17, 2020 [Page 13]
