Internet DRAFT - draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause
draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause
Network Working Group A. Akram
Internet-Draft B. Burman
Updates: 5104 (if approved) Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track R. Even
Expires: August 18, 2014 Huawei Technologies
M. Westerlund
Ericsson
February 14, 2014
RTP Media Stream Pause and Resume
draft-westerlund-avtext-rtp-stream-pause-05
Abstract
With the increased popularity of real-time multimedia applications,
it is desirable to provide good control of resource usage, and users
also demand more control over communication sessions. This document
describes how a receiver in a multimedia conversation can pause and
resume incoming data from a sender by sending real-time feedback
messages when using Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) for real time
data transport. This document extends the Codec Control Messages
(CCM) RTCP feedback package by explicitly allowing and describing
specific use of existing CCM messages and adding a group of new real-
time feedback messages used to pause and resume RTP data streams.
This document updates RFC 5104.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Point to Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. RTP Mixer to Media Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. RTP Mixer to Media Sender in Point-to-Multipoint . . . . 9
3.4. Media Receiver to RTP Mixer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Media Receiver to Media Sender Across RTP Mixer . . . . . 10
4. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Real-time Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Message Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Apply to Individual Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Retransmitting Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. Sequence Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Relation to Other Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Signaling Technology Performance Comparison . . . . . . . 12
5.2. CCM TMMBR / TMMBN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. SDP "inactive" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. Media Source Selection in SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1. Expressing Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Requesting to Pause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.3. Media Sender Pausing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.4. Requesting to Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.5. TMMBR/TMMBN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
7. Participant States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Playing State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Pausing State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.3. Paused State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3.1. RTCP BYE Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3.2. SSRC Time-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4. Local Paused State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Message Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. PAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. PAUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.3. RESUME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.4. REFUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.5. Transmission Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.1. Offer-Answer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.2. Declarative Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11.1. Offer-Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11.2. Point-to-Point Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11.3. Point-to-multipoint using Mixer . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.4. Point-to-multipoint using Translator . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
As real-time communication attracts more people, more applications
are created; multimedia conversation applications being one example.
Multimedia conversation further exists in many forms, for example,
peer-to-peer chat application and multiparty video conferencing
controlled by central media nodes, such as RTP Mixers.
Multimedia conferencing may involve many participants; each has its
own preferences for the communication session, not only at the start
but also during the session. This document describes several
scenarios in multimedia communication where a conferencing node or
participant chooses to temporarily pause an incoming RTP [RFC3550]
media stream from a specific source and later resume it when needed.
The receiver does not need to terminate or inactivate the RTP session
and start all over again by negotiating the session parameters, for
example using SIP [RFC3261] with SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264].
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
Centralized nodes, like RTP Mixers or MCUs, which either uses logic
based on voice activity, other measurements, or user input could
reduce the resources consumed in both the media sender and the
network by temporarily pausing the media streams that aren't required
by the RTP Mixer. If the number of conference participants are
greater than what the conference logic has chosen to present
simultaneously to receiving participants, some participant media
streams sent to the RTP Mixer may not need to be forwarded to any
other participant. Those media streams could then be temporarily
paused. This becomes especially useful when the media sources are
provided in multiple encoding versions (Simulcast)
[I-D.westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast] or with Multi-Session
Transmission (MST) of scalable encoding such as SVC [RFC6190]. There
may be some of the defined encodings or combination of scalable
layers that are not used all of the time.
As the media streams required at any given point in time is highly
dynamic in such scenarios, using the out-of-band signalling channel
for pausing, and even more importantly resuming, a media stream is
difficult due to the performance requirements. Instead, the pause
and resume signalling should be in the media plane and go directly
between the affected nodes. When using RTP [RFC3550] for media
transport, using Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) [RFC4585] appears
appropriate. No currently existing RTCP feedback message explicitly
supports pausing and resuming an incoming media stream. As this
affects the generation of packets and may even allow the encoding
process to be paused, the functionality appears to match Codec
Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)
[RFC5104] and it is proposed to define the solution as a Codec
Control Message (CCM) extension.
The Temporary Maximum Media Bitrate Request (TMMBR) message of CCM is
used by video conferencing systems for flow control. It is desirable
to be able to use that method with a bitrate value of zero for pause
and resume, whenever possible.
2. Definitions
2.1. Abbreviations
3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project
AVPF: Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (RFC 4585)
BGW: Border Gateway
CCM: Codec Control Messages (RFC 5104)
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
CNAME: Canonical Name (RTCP SDES)
CSRC: Contributing Source (RTP)
FB: Feedback (AVPF)
FCI: Feedback Control Information (AVPF)
FIR: Full Intra Refresh (CCM)
FMT: Feedback Message Type (AVPF)
LTE: Long-Term Evolution (3GPP)
MCU: Multipoint Control Unit
MTU: Maximum Transfer Unit
PT: Payload Type (RTP)
RTP: Real-time Transport Protocol (RFC 3550)
RTCP: Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RFC 3550)
RTCP RR: RTCP Receiver Report
SDP: Session Description Protocol (RFC 4566)
SGW: Signaling Gateway
SIP: Session Initiation Protocol (RFC 3261)
SSRC: Synchronization Source (RTP)
SVC: Scalable Video Coding
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793)
TMMBR: Temporary Maximum Media Bitrate Request (CCM)
TMMBN: Temporary Maximum Media Bitrate Notification (CCM)
UA: User Agent (SIP)
UDP: User Datagram Protocol (RFC 768)
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
2.2. Terminology
In addition to following, the definitions from RTP [RFC3550], AVPF
[RFC4585], CCM [RFC5104], and RTP Taxonomy
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy] also apply in this document.
Feedback Messages: CCM [RFC5104] categorized different RTCP feedback
messages into four types, Request, Command, Indication and
Notification. This document places the PAUSE and RESUME messages
into Request category, PAUSED as Indication and REFUSE as
Notification.
PAUSE Request from a media receiver to pause a stream
RESUME Request from a media receiver to resume a paused stream
PAUSED Indication from a media sender that a stream is paused
REFUSE Notification from a media sender that a PAUSE or RESUME
request will not be honored
Acknowledgement: The confirmation from receiver to sender that the
message has been received.
Sender: The RTP entity that sends an RTP Packet Stream.
Receiver: The RTP entity that receives an RTP Packet Stream.
Mixer: The intermediate RTP node which receives a Packet Stream from
different nodes, combines them to make one stream and forwards to
destinations, in the sense described in Topo-Mixer of RTP
Topologies [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update].
Participant: A member which is part of an RTP session, acting as
receiver, sender or both.
Paused Sender: An RTP sender that has stopped its transmission, i.e.
no other participant receives its RTP transmission, either based
on having received a PAUSE request, defined in this specification,
or based on a local decision.
Pausing Receiver: An RTP receiver which sends a PAUSE request,
defined in this specification, to other participant(s).
Stream: Used as a short term for Source Packet Stream, unless
otherwise noted.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
2.3. Requirements Language
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].
3. Use Cases
This section discusses the main use cases for media stream pause and
resume.
3.1. Point to Point
This is the most basic use case with an RTP session containing two
end-points. Each end-point sends one or more streams.
+---+ +---+
| A |<------->| B |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: Point to Point
The usage of media stream pause in this use case is to temporarily
halt media delivery of streams that the sender provides but the
receiver does not currently use. This can for example be due to
minimized applications where the video stream is not actually shown
on any display, and neither is it used in any other way, such as
being recorded.
In this case, since there is only a single receiver of the stream,
pausing or resuming a stream does not impact anyone else than the
sender and the single receiver of that stream.
RTCWEB WG's use case and requirements document
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements] defines the following
API requirements in Appendix A, used also by W3C WebRTC WG:
A8 The Web API must provide means for the web application to mute/
unmute a stream or stream component(s). When a stream is sent to
a peer mute status must be preserved in the stream received by the
peer.
A9 The Web API must provide means for the web application to cease
the sending of a stream to a peer.
This memo provides means to optimize transport usage by stop sending
muted streams and start sending again when unmuting.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
3.2. RTP Mixer to Media Sender
One of the most commonly used topologies in centralized conferencing
is based on the RTP Mixer [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update].
The main reason for this is that it provides a very consistent view
of the RTP session towards each participant. That is accomplished
through the Mixer originating its' own streams, identified by SSRC,
and any media sent to the participants will be sent using those
SSRCs. If the Mixer wants to identify the underlying Media Sources
for its' conceptual streams, it can identify them using CSRC. The
stream the Mixer provides can be an actual media mix of multiple
Media Sources, but it might also be switching received streams as
described in Sections 3.6-3.8 of
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update].
+---+ +-----------+ +---+
| A |<---->| |<---->| B |
+---+ | | +---+
| Mixer |
+---+ | | +---+
| C |<---->| |<---->| D |
+---+ +-----------+ +---+
Figure 2: RTP Mixer in Unicast-only
Which streams that are delivered to a given receiver, A, can depend
on several things. It can either be the RTP Mixer's own logic and
measurements such as voice activity on the incoming audio streams.
It can be that the number of sent Media Sources exceed what is
reasonable to present simultaneously at any given receiver. It can
also be a human controlling the conference that determines how the
media should be mixed; this would be more common in lecture or
similar applications where regular listeners may be prevented from
breaking into the session unless approved by the moderator. The
streams may also be part of a Simulcast
[I-D.westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast] or scalable encoded (for
Multi-Stream Transmission) [RFC6190], thus providing multiple
versions that can be delivered by the media sender. These examples
indicate that there are numerous reasons why a particular stream
would not currently be in use, but must be available for use at very
short notice if any dynamic event occurs that causes a different
stream selection to be done in the Mixer.
Because of this, it would be highly beneficial if the Mixer could
request to pause a particular stream from being delivered to it. It
also needs to be able to resume delivery with minimal delay.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
Just as for point-to-point (Section 3.1), there is only a single
receiver of the stream, the RTP Mixer, and pausing or resuming a
stream does not affect anyone else than the sender and single
receiver of that stream.
3.3. RTP Mixer to Media Sender in Point-to-Multipoint
This use case is similar to the previous section, however the RTP
Mixer is involved in three domains that need to be separated; the
Multicast Network (including participants A and C), participant B,
and participant D. The difference from above is that A and C share a
multicast domain, which is depicted below.
+-----+
+---+ / \ +-----------+ +---+
| A |<---/ \ | |<---->| B |
+---+ / Multi- \ | | +---+
+ Cast +->| Mixer |
+---+ \ Network / | | +---+
| C |<---\ / | |<---->| D |
+---+ \ / +-----------+ +---+
+-----+
Figure 3: RTP Mixer in Point-to-Multipoint
If the RTP Mixer pauses a stream from A, it will not only pause the
stream towards itself, but will also stop the stream from arriving to
C, which C is heavily impacted by, might not approve of, and should
thus have a say on.
If the Mixer resumes a paused stream from A, it will be resumed also
towards C. In this case, if C is not interested it can simply ignore
the stream and is not impacted as much as above.
In this use case there are several receivers of a stream and special
care must be taken as not to pause a stream that is still wanted by
some receivers.
3.4. Media Receiver to RTP Mixer
An end-point in Figure 2 could potentially request to pause the
delivery of a given media stream. Possible reasons include the ones
in the point to point case (Section 3.1) above.
When the RTP Mixer is only connected to individual unicast paths, the
use case and any considerations are identical to the point to point
use case.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
However, when the end-point requesting media stream pause is
connected to the RTP Mixer through a multicast network, such as A or
C in Figure 3, the use case instead becomes identical to the one in
Section 3.3, only with reverse direction of the streams and pause/
resume requests.
3.5. Media Receiver to Media Sender Across RTP Mixer
An end-point, like A in Figure 2, could potentially request to pause
the delivery of a given media stream, like one of B's, over any of
the SSRCs used by the Mixer by sending a pause request for the CSRC
identifying the media stream. However, the authors are of the
opinion that this is not a suitable solution, for several reasons:
1. The Mixer might not include CSRC in it's stream indications.
2. An end-point cannot rely on the CSRC to correctly identify the
media stream to be paused when the delivered media is some type
of mix. A more elaborate media stream identification solution is
needed to support this in the general case.
3. The end-point cannot determine if a given media stream is still
needed by the RTP Mixer to deliver to another session
participant.
Due to the above reasons, we exclude this use case from further
consideration.
4. Design Considerations
This section describes the requirements that this specification needs
to meet.
4.1. Real-time Nature
The first section (Section 1) of this specification describes some
possible reasons why a receiver may pause an RTP sender. Pausing and
resuming is time-dependent, i.e. a receiver may choose to pause an
RTP stream for a certain duration, after which the receiver may want
the sender to resume. This time dependency means that the messages
related to pause and resume must be transmitted to the sender in
real-time in order for them to be purposeful. The pause operation is
arguably not very time critical since it mainly provides a reduction
of resource usage. Timely handling of the resume operation is
however likely to directly impact the end-user's perceived quality
experience, since it affects the availability of media that the user
expects to receive more or less instantly.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
4.2. Message Direction
It is the responsibility of a media receiver, who wants to pause or
resume a media stream from the sender(s), to transmit PAUSE and
RESUME messages. A media sender who likes to pause itself, can
simply do it. Any indication that an RTP media stream is paused is
the responsibility of the RTP media stream sender and may in some
cases not even be needed by the media stream receiver.
4.3. Apply to Individual Sources
The PAUSE and RESUME messages apply to single RTP media streams
identified by their SSRC, which means the receiver targets the
sender's SSRC in the PAUSE and RESUME requests. If a paused sender
starts sending with a new SSRC, the receivers will need to send a new
PAUSE request in order to pause it. PAUSED indications refer to a
single one of the sender's own, paused SSRC.
4.4. Consensus
An RTP media stream sender should not pause an SSRC that some
receiver still wishes to receive. The reason is that in RTP
topologies where the media stream is shared between multiple
receivers, a single receiver on that shared network, independent of
it being multicast, a mesh with joint RTP session or a transport
Translator based, must not single-handedly cause the media stream to
be paused without letting all other receivers to voice their opinions
on whether or not the stream should be paused. A consequence of this
is that a newly joining receiver, for example indicated by an RTCP
Receiver Report containing both a new SSRC and a CNAME that does not
already occur in the session, firstly needs to learn the existence of
paused streams, and secondly should be able to resume any paused
stream. Any single receiver wanting to resume a stream should also
cause it to be resumed.
4.5. Acknowledgements
RTP and RTCP does not guarantee reliable data transmission. It uses
whatever assurance the lower layer transport protocol can provide.
However, this is commonly UDP that provides no reliability
guarantees. Thus it is possible that a PAUSE and/or RESUME message
transmitted from an RTP end-point does not reach its destination,
i.e. the targeted RTP media stream sender. When PAUSE or RESUME
reaches the RTP media stream sender and are effective, i.e., an
active media sender pauses, or a resuming have media data to
transmit, it is immediately seen from the arrival or non-arrival of
RTP packets for that RTP media stream. Thus, no explicit
acknowledgements are required in this case.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
In some cases when a PAUSE or RESUME message reaches the media
sender, it will not be able to pause or resume the stream due to some
local consideration, for example lack of data to transmit. This
error condition, a negative acknowledgement, may be needed to avoid
unnecessary retransmission of requests (Section 4.6).
4.6. Retransmitting Requests
When the media stream is not affected as expected by a PAUSE or
RESUME request, the request may have been lost and the sender of the
request will need to retransmit it. The retransmission should take
the round trip time into account, and will also need to take the
normal RTCP bandwidth and timing rules applicable to the RTP session
into account, when scheduling retransmission of feedback.
When it comes to resume requests that are more time critical, the
best resume performance may be achieved by repeating the request as
often as possible until a sufficient number have been sent to reach a
high probability of request delivery, or the media stream gets
delivered.
4.7. Sequence Numbering
A PAUSE request message will need to have a sequence number to
separate retransmissions from new requests. A retransmission keeps
the sequence number unchanged, while it is incremented every time a
new PAUSE request is transmitted that is not a retransmission of a
previous request.
Since RESUME always takes precedence over PAUSE and are even allowed
to avoid pausing a stream, there is a need to keep strict ordering of
PAUSE and RESUME. Thus, RESUME needs to share sequence number space
with PAUSE and implicitly references which PAUSE it refers to. For
the same reasons, the explicit PAUSED indication also needs to share
sequence number space with PAUSE and RESUME.
5. Relation to Other Solutions
This section compares other possible solutions to achieve a similar
functionality, along with motivations why the current solution is
chosen.
5.1. Signaling Technology Performance Comparison
Editor's note: This section is related to the motivation for
selecting RTCP as signaling technology rather than SIP/SDP and
should be considered to be removed or at least significantly
reduced if and when this draft is adopted as a working group
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
draft, since there now seems to be consensus that RTCP is the
preferred technology.
This section contains what is thought to be a realistic estimate of
one-way data transmission times for signaling implementing
functionalities of this specification.
Two signaling protocols are compared. SIP is chosen to represent
signaling in the control plane and RTCP is chosen to represent
signaling in the media plane. For the sake of the comparison, each
of these two protocols are listed with one favorable and one
unfavorable condition to give the reader a hint of what range of
delays that can be expected. The favorable condition is chosen as
good as possible, while still realistic. The unfavorable condition
is also chosen to be realistically occurring, and is not the worst
possible or imaginable. Actual delays can in most cases be expected
to lie somewhere between those two values.
It would also be possible to include a signaling protocol using a
some dedicated signaling channel, separate from SIP and RTCP, into
the comparison. Such signaling protocol can be expected to show
performance somewhere in the range covered by the SIP and RTCP
comparison below. The protocol can either use UDP as transport, like
RTCP, or it can use TCP, like SIP, when the messages becomes too
large for the MTU. The data sent on such channel can either be text
based, in which case the amount of data can be similar to SIP, or it
can be binary, in which case the amount of data can be similar to
RTCP. Therefore, the dedicated signaling channel case is not
described further in this specification.
Two different access technologies are compared:
o Wired, fixed access is chosen as a representative low-delay
alternative.
o Mobile wireless access according to 3GPP LTE [TS36.201], also
known as "4G", is chosen as a representative high-delay
alternative.
NOTE: LTE is at the time of writing the most recent and best
performing mobile wireless access. If an earlier mobile wireless
access was to be used instead, the estimated transmission times would
be considerably increased. For example, it is estimated that using
3GPP HSPA [TS25.308] (evolved 3G, just previous to LTE) would
increase RTCP signaling times somewhat and significantly increase
signaling times for SIP, although those estimates are too preliminary
to provide any values here.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
The target scenario includes two UA, residing in two different
provider's (operator's) network. Those networks are assumed to be
geographically close, that is no inter-continental transmission
delays are included in the estimates.
Three signaling alternatives are compared:
o Wireless UA to wireless UA, including two wireless links, uplink
and downlink.
o Wireless UA to media server (MCU), including a single wireless
uplink.
o Media server (MCU) to wireless UA, including a single wireless
downlink.
The reason to include separate results for wireless uplink and
downlink is that delay times can differ significantly.
The targeted topology is outlined in the following figure.
Provider A's network . Provider B's network
.
+-----+ SIP +------+ SIP +-------+ SIP +-------+ SIP +-----+
|Proxy|<--->| AS A |<--->| SGW A |<--.-->| SGW B |<--->|Proxy|
+-----+ +------+ +-------+ . +-------+ +-----+
^ ^ . ^
| | SIP/H.248 . |
| v . |
SIP | +-----+ RTCP +-------+ RTCP +-------+ SIP |
| | MCU |<---->| BGW A |<--.-->| BGW B | |
| +-----+ +-------+ . +-------+ |
v ^ . ^ v
+------+ / RTCP . \ RTCP +------+
| UA A |<---+ . +------>| UA B |
+------+ . +------+
Figure 4: Comparison Signaling Topology
In the figure above, UA is a SIP User Agent, Proxy is a SIP Proxy, AS
is an Application Server, MCU is a Multipoint Conference Unit, SGW a
Signaling GateWay, and BGW a media Border GateWay.
It can be noted that when either one or both UAs use call forwarding
or have roamed into yet another provider's network, several more
signaling path nodes and a few more media path nodes could be
included in the end-to-end signaling path.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
The MCU is assumed to be located in one of the provider's network.
Signaling delays between the MCU and a UA are presented as the
average of MCU and UA being located in the same and different
provider's networks.
These assumptions are used for SIP signaling:
o A SIP UPDATE is used within an established session to dynamically
impact individual streams to achieve the pause and resume
functionality. The offer and answer SDP contains one audio and
one video media, compliant with what is suggested in 3GPP MTSI
[TS26.114], with the addition of SDP feedback message indication
outlined in this specification (Section 10). A more complex media
session with more streams would significantly add to the SDP size.
o UDP is used as transport, except when risking to exceed MTU, in
which case TCP is used instead. This is evaluated on a per-
message basis.
o Only SIP forward direction is included in the delay estimate, that
is, delays needed to receive a response such as 200 OK are not
included.
o Favorable case:
* SIP SigComp [RFC5049] in dynamic mode is used for SIP and SDP
signaling on the mobile link, reducing the SIP message size to
approximately 1/3 of the original size.
o Unfavorable case:
* SIP message is not compressed on the mobile link.
* SIP signaling on the mobile link uses a dedicated mobile
wireless access radio channel that was idle for some time, has
entered low power state and thus has to be re-established by
radio layer signaling before any data can be sent.
These assumptions are used for RTCP signaling:
o A minimal compound RTCP feedback packet is used, including one SR
and one SDES with only the CNAME item present, with the addition
of the feedback message outlined in Section 8.
o RTCP bandwidth is chosen based on a 200 kbit/s session, which is
considered to be a low bandwidth for media that would be worth
pausing, and using the default 5% of this for RTCP traffic results
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
in 10 kbit/s. This low bandwidth makes RTCP scheduling delays be a
significant factor in the unfavorable case.
o Since there are random delay factors in RTCP transmission, the
expected, most probable value is used in the estimates.
o The mobile wireless access channel used for RTCP will always be
active, that is there will be sufficient data to send at any time
such that the radio channel will never have to be re-established.
This is considered reasonable since it is assumed that the same
channel is not only used for the messages defined in this
specification, but also for other RTP and RTCP data.
o Favorable case:
* It is assumed that AVPF Early or Immediate mode can always be
used for the signaling described in this specification, since
such signaling will be small in size and only occur
occasionally in RTCP time scale.
* Early mode does not use dithering of send times (T_dither_max
is set to 0), that is, sender and receiver of the message are
connected point-to-point. It can be noted that in case of a
multiparty session where multiple end-points can see each
others' messages, and unless the number of end-points is very
large, it is very unlikely that more than a single end-point
has the desire to send the same message (defined in this
specification) as another end-point, and at almost exactly the
same time. It is therefore arguably not very meaningful for
messages in this specification to try to do feedback
suppression by using a non-zero T_dither_max, even in
multiparty sessions, but AVPF does not allow for any exemption
from that rule.
* Reduced-size RTCP is used, which is considered appropriate for
the type of messages defined in this specification.
* RTP/RTCP header compression [RFC5225] is not used, not even on
the mobile link.
o Unfavorable case:
* The expected, regular AVPF RTCP interval is used, including an
expected value for timer re-consideration.
* A full, not reduced-size, minimal compound RTCP feedback packet
without header compression is always used. No reduction of
scheduling delays from the use of reduced-size RTCP is included
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
in the evaluation, since that would also require a reasonable
estimate of the mix of compound and non-compound RTCP, which
was considered too difficult for this study. The given
unfavorable delays are thus an over-estimate compared to a more
realistic case.
Common to both SIP and RTCP signaling estimates is that no UA
processing delays are included. The reason for that decision is that
processing delays are highly implementation and UA dependent. It is
expected that wireless UA will be more limited than fixed UA by
processing, but they are also constantly and quickly improving so any
estimate will very quickly be outdated. More realistic estimates
will however have to add such delays, which can be expected to be in
the order of a few to a few tens of milliseconds. It is expected
that SIP will be more penalized than RTCP by including processing
delays, since it has larger and more complex messages. The
processing may also include SigComp [RFC5049] compression and
decompression in the favorable cases.
As a partial result, the message sizes can be compared, based on the
messages defined in this specification (Section 8) and a SIP UPDATE
with contents (Section 10) as discussed above. Favorable and
unfavorable message sizes are presented as stacked bars in the figure
below. Message sizes include IPv4 headers but no lower layer data,
are rounded to the nearest 25 bytes, and the bars are to scale.
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 [byte]
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--> Size
|
+-+--+
| |50| 125 RTCP
+-+--+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
| SIP | 525 1650 |
+--------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|
Figure 5: Message Size Comparison
The signaling delay results of the study are summarized in the
following two figures. Favorable and unfavorable values are
presented as stacked bars. Since there are many factors that impact
the calculations, including some random processes, there are
uncertainty in the calculations and delay values are thus rounded to
nearest 5 ms. The bars are to scale.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
50 100 150 200 250 300 [ms]
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---> t
|
| Wireless UA to Wireless UA
+---------------------+--------------------------------------+
| SIP | 110 | 305
+-----+---------------+-----------------------------+--------+
|RTCP | 30 | 260
+-----+---------------------------------------------+
|
| Wireless UA to MCU
+-------------+--+
| SIP |70| 85
+----+--------+--+--------------------------+
|RTCP| 25 | 225
+----+--------------------------------------+
|
| MCU to Wireless UA
+--------------+-----------------------------------+
| SIP | 75 | 255
+---+----------+------------------------------+----+
| | 20 RTCP | 230
+---+-----------------------------------------+
|
Figure 6: Mobile Access Transmission Delay Comparison
As can be seen, RTCP has a smaller signaling delay than SIP in a
majority of cases for this mobile access. Non-favorable RTCP is
however always worse than favorable SIP.
The UA to MCU signaling corresponds to the use case in Section 3.4.
The reason that unfavorable SIP is more beneficial than unfavorable
RTCP in this case comes from the fact that latency is fairly short to
re-establish an uplink radio channel (as was assumed needed for
unfavorable SIP), while unfavorable RTCP does not benefit from this
since the delay is mainly due to RTCP Scheduling.
The MCU to UA signaling corresponds to the use case in Section 3.2.
It has an unfavorable SIP signaling case with much longer delay than
UA to MCU above, because the mixer cannot re-establish a downlink
radio channel as quickly as the UA can establish an uplink. This
case is applicable when an MCU wants to resume a paused stream, which
is likely the most delay sensitive functionality, as discussed in
Section 4.1.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
Below are the same cases for fixed access depicted. Although delays
are generally shorter, scales are kept the same for easy comparison
with the previous figure.
50 100 150 200 250 300 [ms]
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---> t
|
| Fixed UA to Fixed UA
+------------+
| SIP | 65
+----+-------+---------------------------+
|RTCP| 25 | 205
+----+-----------------------------------+
|
| Fixed UA to MCU
+---------+
| SIP | 50
+---+-----+-----------------------+
| | 15 RTCP | 200
+---+-----------------------------+
|
| MCU to Fixed UA
+---------+
| SIP | 50
+---+-----+-----------------------+
| | 15 RTCP | 200
+---+-----------------------------+
|
Figure 7: Fixed Access Transmission Delay Comparison
For fixed access, favorable RTCP is still significantly better than
SIP, but unfavorable RTCP is significantly worse than SIP. There is
no difference between favorable and unfavorable SIP, since in fixed
access there is no channel that needs to be re-established.
Regarding the unfavorable values above, it should be possible with
reasonable effort to design UA and network nodes that show favorable
delays in a majority of cases.
For SIP, the major delays in the unfavorable cases above comes from
re-establishing a radio bearer that has entered low power state due
to inactivity, and large size SIP messages. The inactivity problem
can be removed by using for example SIP keep-alive [RFC5626], at the
cost of reduced battery life to keep the signaling radio bearer
active, and some very minimal amount of extra data transmission. The
large SIP messages can to some extent be reduced by SIP SigComp
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
[RFC5049]. It may however prove harder to reduce delays that comes
from forwarding the SDP many times between different signaling nodes.
For RTCP, the major delays comes from low RTCP bandwidth and not
being able to use Immediate or Early mode, including use of timer re-
consideration. UAs and network nodes can explicitly allocate an
appropriate amount of RTCP bandwidth through use of the b=RS and b=RR
RTCP bandwidth SDP attributes [RFC3556]. For RTP media streams of
higher bandwidth than the 200 kbit/s used in this comparison, which
will be even more interesting to pause, RTCP bandwidth will per
default also be higher, significantly reducing the signaling delays.
For example, using a 1000 kbit/s media stream instead of a 200 kbit/s
stream will reduce the unfavorable RTCP delays from 260 ms to 115 ms
for Wireless-Wireless, from 225 ms to 80 ms for Wireless-MCU, and
from 230 ms to 80 ms for MCU-Wireless.
5.2. CCM TMMBR / TMMBN
The Codec Control Messages specification [RFC5104] contains two
messages, Temporary Maximum Media Bitrate Request (TMMBR) and
Temporary Maximum Media Bitrate Notification (TMMBN), which could
provide some of the necessary functionality. TMMBR with a bitrate
value of 0 could effectively constitute a PAUSE request and TMMBN 0
could effectively be a PAUSED indication, and there are already
implementations making use of TMMBR 0 in this way. It is possible to
signal per SSRC (Section 4.3) and using the media path for signaling
(AVPF) [RFC4585] will in most cases provide the shortest achievable
signaling delay (Section 4.1). However, in some cases the defined
semantics for TMMBR differ from what is required for PAUSE.
When there is only a single receiver of a media stream, TMMBR 0 and
PAUSE are effectively identical.
When there are several receivers of the same media stream, the stream
must not be paused until there are no receiver that desires to
receive it (Section 4.4), for example there is no disapproving RESUME
for a PAUSE. In the presence of several simultaneous receivers, the
TMMBR semantics is the opposite; the first media receiver that sends
TMMBR 0 will pause the stream for all receivers.
When there is only a single receiver of a media stream that is
paused, TMMBR with a bitrate greater than 0 can effectively function
as a RESUME, resuming the media stream immediately as needed
(Section 4.4).
For the case of multiple simultaneous receivers, TMMBR specifies to
use a guard period when increasing the bandwidth. In this case,
TMMBR/TMMBN semantics (Section 4.2.1.2 of [RFC5104]) requires a media
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
sender to wait 2*RTT+T_dither_max after having sent a TMMBN,
indicating the intention to increase the bandwidth, before it
actually increases its bandwidth usage. The RTT is specified to be
the longest the media sender knows in the RTP session. So, there is
both the delay between the media sender receiving the TMMBR until it
can send a TMMBN, and the above delay for the guard period before the
media sender are allowed to resume transmission. This delay before
resuming transmission is the most time critical operation in this
solution, making use of TMMBR as RESUME according to the defined
semantics infeasible in practice when there are multiple simultaneous
media stream receivers.
5.3. SDP "inactive" Attribute
In SDP [RFC4566], an "inactive" attribute is defined on media level
and session level. The attribute is intended to be used to put media
"on hold", either at the beginning of a session or as a result of
session re-negotiation [RFC3264], for example using SIP re-INVITE
[RFC3261], possibly in combination with ITU-T H.248 media gateway
control.
This attribute is only possible to specify with media level
resolution, is not possible to signal per individual media stream
(SSRC) (Section 4.3), and is thus not usable for RTP sessions
containing more than a single SSRC.
There is a per-ssrc attribute defined in [RFC5576], but that does
currently not allow to set an individual stream (SSRC) inactive.
Using "inactive" does thus not provide sufficient functionality for
the purpose of this specification.
5.4. Media Source Selection in SDP
There is a draft that selects sources based on SDP
[I-D.lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection] information. It builds on
the per-ssrc attribute [RFC5576] discussed above (Section 5.3).
The semantics differ between selecting a Media Source and pause /
resume for a stream in topologies other than point-to-point. For
example, in RTP Receiver to Mixer (Section 3.4), pausing a stream
(SSRC) from the mixer should stop it being received altogether, while
excluding a stream (CSRC) from the mix would just avoid that specific
Media Source being included in the stream from the mixer. There is a
similar difference between resuming a stream (SSRC) from the mixer
and allowing a Media Source (CSRC) to be included in the mix again.
This suffers from a lack of functionality for consensus (Section 4.4)
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
and would likely also suffer from lower real-time performance
(Section 4.1).
5.5. Conclusion
As can be seen from Section 5.1, using SIP and SDP to carry pause and
resume information means that it will need to traverse the entire
signaling path to reach the signaling destination (either the remote
end-point or the entity controlling the RTP Mixer), across any
signaling proxies that potentially also has to process the SDP
content to determine if they are expected to act on it. The amount
of bandwidth required for a SIP/SDP-based signaling solution is in
the order of at least 10 times more than an RTCP-based solution.
Especially for UA sitting on mobile wireless access, this will risk
introducing delays that are too long (Section 4.1) to provide a good
user experience, and the bandwidth cost may also be considered
infeasible compared to an RTCP-based solution.
As seen in the same section, the RTCP data is sent through the media
path, which is likely shorter (contains fewer intermediate nodes)
than the signaling path but may anyway have to traverse a few
intermediate nodes. The amount of processing and buffering required
in intermediate nodes to forward those RTCP messages is however
believed to be significantly less than for intermediate nodes in the
signaling path.
Based on those reasons, RTCP is proposed as signaling protocol for
the pause and resume functionality. Much of the wanted functionality
can in a point-to-point case be achieved with the existing TMMBR/
TMMBN CCM messages [RFC5104], but they cannot be used when the media
stream is sent to multiple simultaneous receivers.
6. Solution Overview
The proposed solution implements PAUSE and RESUME functionality based
on sending AVPF RTCP feedback messages from any RTP session
participant that wants to pause or resume a media stream targeted at
the media stream sender, as identified by the sender SSRC.
It is proposed to re-use CCM TMMBR and TMMBN [RFC5104] to the extent
possible, and to define a small set of new RTCP feedback messages
where new semantics is needed. Considerations that that apply when
using TMMBR/TMMBN for pause and resume purposes are also described.
A single Feedback message specification is used to implement the new
messages. The message consists of a number of Feedback Control
Information (FCI) blocks, where each block can be a PAUSE request, a
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
RESUME request, PAUSED indication, a REFUSE response, or an extension
to this specification. This structure allows a single feedback
message to handle pause functionality on a number of media streams.
The PAUSED functionality is also defined in such a way that it can be
used standalone by the media sender to indicate a local decision to
pause, and inform any receiver of the fact that halting media
delivery is deliberate and which RTP packet was the last transmitted.
This section is intended to be explanatory and therefore
intentionally contains no mandatory statements. Such statements can
instead be found in other parts of this specification.
6.1. Expressing Capability
An end-point can use an extension to CCM SDP signaling to declare
capability to understand the messages defined in this specification.
Capability to understand PAUSED indication is defined separately from
the others to support partial implementation, which is specifically
believed to be feasible for the RTP Mixer to Media Sender use case
(Section 3.2).
For the case when TMMBR/TMMBN are used for pause and resume purposes,
it is possible to explicitly express joint support for TMMBR and
TMMBN, but not for TMMBN only.
6.2. Requesting to Pause
An RTP media stream receiver can choose to request PAUSE at any time,
subject to AVPF timing rules. This also applies when using TMMBR 0
in the point-to-point case.
The PAUSE request contains a PauseID, which is incremented by one (in
modulo arithmetic) with each PAUSE request that is not a re-
transmission. The PauseID is scoped by and thus a property of the
targeted RTP media stream (SSRC).
When a non-paused RTP media stream sender receives the PAUSE request,
it continues to send media while waiting for some time to allow other
RTP media stream receivers in the same RTP session that saw this
PAUSE request to disapprove by sending a RESUME (Section 6.4) for the
same stream and with the same PauseID as in the disapproved PAUSE.
If such disapproving RESUME arrives at the RTP media stream sender
during the wait period before the stream is paused, the pause is not
performed. In point-to-point configurations, the wait period may be
set to zero. Using a wait period of zero is also appropriate when
using TMMBR 0 and in line with the semantics for that message.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
If the RTP media stream sender receives further PAUSE requests with
the available PauseID while waiting as described above, those
additional requests are ignored.
If the PAUSE request or TMMBR 0 is lost before it reaches the RTP
media stream sender, it will be discovered by the RTP media stream
receiver because it continues to receive the RTP media stream. It
will also not see any PAUSED indication (Section 6.3) or TMMBN 0 for
the stream. The same condition can be caused by the RTP media stream
sender having received a disapproving RESUME from a media stream
receiver A for a PAUSE request sent by a media stream sender B, but
that the PAUSE sender (B) did not receive the RESUME (from A) and may
instead think that the PAUSE was lost. In both cases, a PAUSE
request can be re-transmitted using the same PauseID. If using TMMBR
0 the request MAY be re-transmitted when the requestor fails to
receive a TMMBN 0 confirmation.
If the pending stream pause is aborted due to a disapproving RESUME,
the PauseID from the disapproved PAUSE is invalidated by the RESUME
and any new PAUSE must use an incremented PauseID (in modulo
arithmetic) to be effective.
An RTP media stream sender receiving a PAUSE not using the available
PauseID informs the RTP media stream receiver sending the ineffective
PAUSE of this condition by sending a REFUSE response that contains
the next available PauseID value. This REFUSE also informs the RTP
media stream receiver that it is probably not feasible to send
another PAUSE for some time, not even with the available PauseID,
since there are other RTP media stream receivers that wish to receive
the stream.
A similar situation where an ineffective PauseID is chosen can appear
when a new RTP media stream receiver joins a session and wants to
PAUSE a stream, but does not yet know the available PauseID to use.
The REFUSE response will then provide sufficient information to
create a valid PAUSE. The required extra signaling round-trip is not
considered harmful, since it is assumed that pausing a stream is not
time-critical (Section 4.1).
There may be local considerations making it impossible or infeasible
to pause the stream, and the RTP media stream sender can then respond
with a REFUSE. In this case, if the used PauseID would otherwise
have been effective, the REFUSE contains the same PauseID as in the
PAUSE request, and the PauseID is kept as available.
If the RTP media stream sender receives several identical PAUSE for
an RTP media stream that was already at least once responded with
REFUSE and the condition causing REFUSE remains, those additional
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
REFUSE should be sent with regular RTCP timing. A single REFUSE can
respond to several identical PAUSE requests.
6.3. Media Sender Pausing
An RTP media stream sender can choose to pause the stream at any
time. This can either be as a result of receiving a PAUSE, or be
based on some local sender consideration. When it does, it sends a
PAUSED indication, containing the available PauseID. If the stream
was paused by a TMMBR 0, TMMBN 0 is used as PAUSED indication. What
is said on PAUSED in the rest of this paragraph apply also to the use
of TMMBN 0, except for PAUSED message parameters. Note that PauseID
is incremented when pausing locally (without having received a
PAUSE). It also sends the PAUSED indication in the next two regular
RTCP reports, given that the pause condition is then still effective.
The RTP media stream sender may want to apply some local
consideration to exactly when the stream is paused, for example
completing some media unit or a forward error correction block,
before pausing the stream.
The PAUSED indication also contains information about the RTP
extended highest sequence number when the pause became effective.
This provides RTP media stream receivers with first hand information
allowing them to know whether they lost any packets just before the
stream paused or when the stream is resumed again. This allows RTP
media stream receivers to quickly and safely take into account that
the stream is paused, in for example retransmission or congestion
control algorithms.
If the RTP media stream sender receives PAUSE requests with the
available PauseID while the stream is already paused, those requests
are ignored.
As long as the stream is being paused, the PAUSED indication MAY be
sent together with any regular RTCP SR or RR. Including PAUSED in
this way allows RTP media stream receivers joining while the stream
is paused to quickly know that there is a paused stream, what the
last sent extended RTP sequence number was, and what the next
available PauseID is to be able to construct valid PAUSE and RESUME
requests at a later stage.
When the RTP media stream sender learns that a new end-point has
joined the RTP session, for example by a new SSRC and a CNAME that
was not previously seen in the RTP session, it should send PAUSED
indications for all its paused streams at its earliest opportunity.
It should in addition continue to include PAUSED indications in at
least two regular RTCP reports.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
6.4. Requesting to Resume
An RTP media stream receiver can request to resume a stream with a
RESUME request at any time, subject to AVPF timing rules. If the
stream was paused with TMMBR 0, resuming the stream is made with
TMMBR containing a bitrate value larger than 0. The bitrate value
used when resuming after a PAUSE with TMMBR 0 is either according to
known limitations, or the configured maximum for the stream or
session. What is said on RESUME in the rest of this paragraph apply
also to the use of TMMBR with a bitrate value larger than 0, except
for RESUME message parameters.
The RTP media stream receiver must include the available PauseID in
the RESUME request for it to be effective.
A pausing RTP media stream sender that receives a RESUME including
the correct available PauseID resumes the stream at the earliest
opportunity. Receiving RESUME requests for a stream that is not
paused does not require any action and can be ignored.
There may be local considerations, for example that the media device
is not ready, making it temporarily impossible to resume the stream
at that point in time, and the RTP media stream sender MAY then
respond with a REFUSE containing the same PauseID as in the RESUME.
When receiving such REFUSE with a PauseID identical to the one in the
sent RESUME, RTP media stream receivers SHOULD then avoid sending
further RESUME requests for some reasonable amount of time, to allow
the condition to clear.
If the RTP media stream sender receives several identical RESUME for
an RTP media stream that was already at least once responded with
REFUSE and the condition causing REFUSE remains, those additional
REFUSE should be sent with regular RTCP timing. A single REFUSE can
respond to several identical RESUME requests.
When resuming a paused media stream, especially for media that makes
use of temporal redundancy between samples such as video, the
temporal dependency between samples taken before the pause and at the
time instant the stream is resumed may not be appropriate to use in
the encoding. Should such temporal dependency between before and
after the media was paused be used by the media sender, it requires
the media receiver to have saved the sample from before the pause for
successful continued decoding when resuming. The use of this
temporal dependency is left up to the media sender. If temporal
dependency is not used when media is resumed, the first encoded
sample after the pause will not contain any temporal dependency to
samples before the pause (for video it may be a so-called intra
picture). If temporal dependency to before the pause is used by the
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
media sender when resuming, and if the media receiver did not save
any sample from before the pause, the media receiver can use a FIR
request [RFC5104] to explicitly ask for a sample without temporal
dependency (for video a so-called intra picture), even at the same
time as sending the RESUME.
6.5. TMMBR/TMMBN Considerations
As stated, TMMBR/TMMBN may be used to provide pause and resume
functionality for the point-to-point case. If the topology is not
point-to-point, TMMBR/TMMBN cannot safely be used for pause or
resume.
This is a brief summary of what functionality is provided when using
TMMBR/TMMBN:
TMMBR 0: Corresponds to PAUSE, without the requirement for any hold-
off period to wait for RESUME before pausing the media stream.
TMMBR >0: Corresponds to RESUME when the media stream was previously
paused with TMMBR 0. Since there is only a single media receiver,
there is no need for the media sender to delay resuming the media
stream until after sending TMMBN >0, or to apply the hold-off
period specified in [RFC5104] before increasing the bitrate from
zero.
TMMBN 0: Corresponds to PAUSED. Also corresponds to a REFUSE
indication when a media stream is requested to be resumed with
TMMBR >0.
TMMBN >0: Corresponds to a REFUSE indication when a media stream is
requested to be paused with TMMBR 0.
7. Participant States
This document introduces three new states for a media stream in an
RTP sender, according to the figure and sub-sections below. Any
references to PAUSE, PAUSED, RESUME and REFUSE in this section SHALL
be taken to apply to the extent possible also when TMMBR/TMMBN are
used (Section 6.5) for this functionality.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Received RESUME |
v |
+---------+ Received PAUSE +---------+ Hold-off period +--------+
| Playing |---------------->| Pausing |---------------->| Paused |
| |<----------------| | | |
+---------+ Received RESUME +---------+ +--------+
^ | | PAUSE decision |
| | v |
| | PAUSE decision +---------+ PAUSE decision |
| +------------------>| Local |<--------------------+
+-------------------------| Paused |
RESUME decision +---------+
Figure 8: RTP Pause States
7.1. Playing State
This state is not new, but is the normal media sending state from
[RFC3550]. When entering the state, the PauseID MUST be incremented
by one in modulo arithmetic. The RTP sequence number for the first
packet sent after a pause SHALL be incremented by one compared to the
highest RTP sequence number sent before the pause. The first RTP
Time Stamp for the first packet sent after a pause SHOULD be set
according to capture times at the source.
7.2. Pausing State
In this state, the media sender has received at least one PAUSE
message for the stream in question. The media sender SHALL wait
during a hold-off period for the possible reception of RESUME
messages for the RTP media stream being paused before actually
pausing media transmission. The period to wait SHALL be long enough
to allow another media receiver to respond to the PAUSE with a
RESUME, if it determines that it would not like to see the stream
paused. This delay period (denoted by 'Hold-off period' in the
figure) is determined by the formula:
2 * RTT + T_dither_max,
where RTT is the longest round trip known to the media sender and
T_dither_max is defined in section 3.4 of [RFC4585]. The hold-off
period MAY be set to 0 by some signaling (Section 10) means when it
can be determined that there is only a single receiver, for example
in point-to-point or some unicast situations.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
If the RTP media stream sender has set the hold-off period to 0 and
receives information that it was an incorrect decision and that there
are in fact several receivers of the stream, for example by RTCP RR,
it MUST change the hold-off to instead be based on the above formula.
7.3. Paused State
An RTP media stream is in paused state when the sender pauses its
transmission after receiving at least one PAUSE message and the hold-
off period has passed without receiving any RESUME message for that
stream.
When entering the state, the media sender SHALL send a PAUSED
indication to all known media receivers, and SHALL also repeat PAUSED
in the next two regular RTCP reports.
Following sub-sections discusses some potential issues when an RTP
sender goes into paused state. These conditions are also valid if an
RTP Translator is used in the communication. When an RTP Mixer
implementing this specification is involved between the participants
(which forwards the stream by marking the RTP data with its own
SSRC), it SHALL be a responsibility of the Mixer to control sending
PAUSE and RESUME requests to the sender. The below conditions also
apply to the sender and receiver parts of the RTP Mixer,
respectively.
7.3.1. RTCP BYE Message
When a participant leaves the RTP session, it sends an RTCP BYE
message. In addition to the semantics described in section 6.3.4 and
6.3.7 of RTP [RFC3550], following two conditions MUST also be
considered when an RTP participant sends an RTCP BYE message,
o If a paused sender sends an RTCP BYE message, receivers observing
this SHALL NOT send further PAUSE or RESUME requests to it.
o Since a sender pauses its transmission on receiving the PAUSE
requests from any receiver in a session, the sender MUST keep
record of which receiver that caused the RTP media stream to
pause. If that receiver sends an RTCP BYE message observed by the
sender, the sender SHALL resume the RTP media stream.
7.3.2. SSRC Time-out
Section 6.3.5 in RTP [RFC3550] describes the SSRC time-out of an RTP
participant. Every RTP participant maintains a sender and receiver
list in a session. If a participant does not get any RTP or RTCP
packets from some other participant for the last five RTCP reporting
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
intervals it removes that participant from the receiver list. Any
streams that were paused by that removed participant SHALL be
resumed.
7.4. Local Paused State
This state can be entered at any time, based on local decision from
the media sender. As for Paused State (Section 7.3), the media
sender SHALL send a PAUSED indication to all known media receivers,
when entering the state, and repeat it in the next two regular RTCP
reports.
When leaving the state, the stream state SHALL become Playing,
regardless whether or not there were any media receivers that sent
PAUSE for that stream, effectively clearing the media sender's memory
for that media stream.
8. Message Format
Section 6 of AVPF [RFC4585] defines three types of low-delay RTCP
feedback messages, i.e. Transport layer, Payload-specific, and
Application layer feedback messages. This document defines a new
Transport layer feedback message, this message is either a PAUSE
request, a RESUME request, or one of four different types of
acknowledgements in response to either PAUSE or RESUME requests.
The Transport layer feedback messages are identified by having the
RTCP payload type be RTPFB (205) as defined by AVPF [RFC4585]. The
PAUSE and RESUME messages are identified by Feedback Message Type
(FMT) value in common packet header for feedback message defined in
section 6.1 of AVPF [RFC4585]. The PAUSE and RESUME transport
feedback message is identified by the FMT value = TBA1.
The Common Packet Format for Feedback Messages is defined by AVPF
[RFC4585] is:
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| FMT | PT | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of packet sender |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Feedback Control Information (FCI) :
: :
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
For the PAUSE and RESUME messages, the following interpretation of
the packet fields will be:
FMT: The FMT value identifying the PAUSE and RESUME message: TBA1
PT: Payload Type = 205 (RTPFB)
Length: As defined by AVPF, i.e. the length of this packet in 32-bit
words minus one, including the header and any padding.
SSRC of packet sender: The SSRC of the RTP session participant
sending the messages in the FCI. Note, for end-points that have
multiple SSRCs in an RTP session, any of its SSRCs MAY be used to
send any of the pause message types.
SSRC of media source: Not used, SHALL be set to 0. The FCI
identifies the SSRC the message is targeted for.
The Feedback Control Information (FCI) field consist of one or more
PAUSE, RESUME, PAUSED, REFUSE, or any future extension. These
messages have the following FCI format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Target SSRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Res | Parameter Len | PauseID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Type Specific :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Syntax of FCI Entry in the PAUSE and RESUME message
The FCI fields have the following definitions:
Target SSRC (32 bits): For a PAUSE and RESUME messages, this value
is the SSRC that the request is intended for. For PAUSED, it MUST
be the SSRC being paused. If pausing is the result of a PAUSE
request, the value in PAUSED is effectively the same as Target
SSRC in a related PAUSE request. For REFUSE, it MUST be the
Target SSRC of the PAUSE or RESUME request that cannot change
state. A CSRC MUST NOT be used as a target as the interpretation
of such a request is unclear.
Type (4 bits): The pause feedback type. The values defined in this
specification are as follows,
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
0: PAUSE request message
1: RESUME request message
2: PAUSED indication message
3: REFUSE indication message
4-15: Reserved for future use
Res: (4 bits): Type specific reserved. SHALL be ignored by
receivers implementing this specification and MUST be set to 0 by
senders implementing this specification.
Parameter Len: (8 bits): Length of the Type Specific field in 32-bit
words. MAY be 0.
PauseID (16 bits): Message sequence identification. SHALL be
incremented by one modulo 2^16 for each new PAUSE message, unless
the message is re-transmitted. The initial value SHOULD be 0.
The PauseID is scoped by the Target SSRC, meaning that PAUSE,
RESUME, and PAUSED messages therefore share the same PauseID space
for a specific Target SSRC.
Type Specific: (variable): Defined per pause feedback Type. MAY be
empty.
9. Message Details
This section contains detailed explanations of each message defined
in this specification. All transmissions of request and indications
are governed by the transmission rules as defined by Section 9.5.
Any references to PAUSE, PAUSED, RESUME and REFUSE in this section
SHALL be taken to apply to the extent possible also when TMMBR/TMMBN
are used (Section 6.5) for this functionality. TMMBR/TMMBN MAY be
used instead of the messages defined in this specification when the
effective topology is point-to-point. If either sender or receiver
learns that the topology is not point-to-point, TMMBR/TMMBN MUST NOT
be used for pause/resume functionality. If the messages defined in
this specification are supported in addition to TMMBR/TMMBN, pause/
resume signaling MUST revert to use those instead. If the topology
is not point-to-point and the messages defined in this specification
are not supported, pause/resume functionality with TMMBR/TMMBN MUST
NOT be used.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
9.1. PAUSE
An RTP media stream receiver MAY schedule PAUSE for transmission at
any time.
PAUSE has no defined Type Specific parameters and Parameter Len MUST
be set to 0.
PauseID SHOULD be the available PauseID, as indicated by PAUSED
(Section 9.2) or implicitly determined by previously received PAUSE
or RESUME (Section 9.3) requests. A randomly chosen PauseID MAY be
used if it was not possible to retrieve PauseID information, in which
case the PAUSE will either succeed, or the correct PauseID can be
learnt from the returned REFUSE (Section 9.4). A PauseID that is
matching the available PauseID is henceforth also called a valid
PauseID.
PauseID needs to be incremented by one, in modulo arithmetic, for
each PAUSE request that is not a retransmission, compared to what was
used in the last PAUSED indication sent by the media sender. This is
to ensure that the PauseID matches what is the current available
PauseID at the media sender. The media sender increments what it
considers to be the available PauseID when entering Playing State
(Section 7.1).
For the scope of this specification, a PauseID larger than the
current one is defined as having a value between and including
(PauseID + 1) MOD 2^16 and (PauseID + 2^14) MOD 2^16, where "MOD" is
the modulo operator. Similarly, a PauseID smaller than the current
one is defined as having a value between and including (PauseID -
2^15) MOD 2^16 and (PauseID - 1) MOD 2^16.
If an RTP media stream receiver that sent a PAUSE with a certain
PauseID receives a RESUME with the same PauseID, it is RECOMMENDED
that it refrains from sending further PAUSE requests for some
appropriate time since the RESUME indicates that there are other
receivers that still wishes to receive the stream.
If the targeted RTP media stream does not pause, if no PAUSED
indication with a larger PauseID than the one used in PAUSE, and if
no REFUSE is received within 2 * RTT + T_dither_max, the PAUSE MAY be
scheduled for retransmission, using the same PauseID. RTT is the
observed round-trip to the RTP media stream sender and T_dither_max
is defined in section 3.4 of [RFC4585].
When an RTP media stream sender in Playing State (Section 7.1)
receives a valid PAUSE, and unless local considerations currently
makes it impossible to pause the stream, it SHALL enter Pausing State
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
(Section 7.2) when reaching an appropriate place to pause in the
media stream, and act accordingly.
If an RTP media stream sender receives a valid PAUSE while in
Pausing, Paused (Section 7.3) or Local Paused (Section 7.4) States,
the received PAUSE SHALL be ignored.
9.2. PAUSED
The PAUSED indication MAY be sent either as a result of a valid PAUSE
(Section 9.1) request, when entering Paused State (Section 7.3), or
based on a RTP media stream sender local decision, when entering
Local Paused State (Section 7.4).
PauseID MUST contain the available, valid value to be included in a
subsequent RESUME (Section 9.3).
PAUSED SHALL contain a 32 bit parameter with the RTP extended highest
sequence number valid when the RTP media stream was paused.
Parameter Len MUST be set to 1.
After having entered Paused or Local Paused State and thus having
sent PAUSED once, PAUSED MUST also be included in the next two
regular RTCP reports, given that the pause condition is then still
effective.
While remaining in Paused or Local Paused States, PAUSED MAY be
included in all regular RTCP reports.
When in Paused or Local Paused States, It is RECOMMENDED to send
PAUSED at the earliest opportunity and also to include it in the next
two regular RTCP reports, whenever the RTP media sender learns that
there are end-points that did not previously receive the stream, for
example by RTCP reports with an SSRC and a CNAME that was not
previously seen in the RTP session.
9.3. RESUME
An RTP media stream receiver MAY schedule RESUME for transmission
whenever it wishes to resume a paused stream, or to disapprove a
stream from being paused.
PauseID SHOULD be the valid PauseID, as indicated by PAUSED
(Section 9.2) or implicitly determined by previously received PAUSE
(Section 9.1) or RESUME requests. A randomly chosen PauseID MAY be
used if it was not possible to retrieve PauseID information, in which
case the RESUME will either succeed, or the correct PauseID can be
learnt from a returned REFUSE (Section 9.4).
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
RESUME has no defined Type Specific parameters and Parameter Len MUST
be set to 0.
When an RTP media stream sender in Pausing (Section 7.2), Paused
(Section 7.3) or Local Paused State (Section 7.4) receives a valid
RESUME, and unless local considerations currently makes it impossible
to resume the stream, it SHALL enter Playing State (Section 7.1) and
act accordingly. If the RTP media stream sender is incapable of
honoring the RESUME request with a valid PauseID, or receives a
RESUME request with an invalid PauseID while in Paused or Pausing
state, the RTP media stream sender sends a REFUSE message as
specified below.
If an RTP media stream sender in Playing State receives a RESUME
containing either a valid PauseID or a PauseID that is less than the
valid PauseID, the received RESUME SHALL be ignored.
9.4. REFUSE
REFUSE has no defined Type Specific parameters and Parameter Len MUST
be set to 0.
If an RTP media sender receives a valid PAUSE (Section 9.1) or RESUME
(Section 9.3) request that cannot be fulfilled by the sender due to
some local consideration, it SHALL schedule transmission of a REFUSE
indication containing the valid PauseID from the rejected request.
If an RTP media stream sender receives PAUSE or RESUME requests with
a non-valid PauseID it SHALL schedule a REFUSE response containing
the available, valid PauseID, except if the RTP media stream sender
is in Playing State and receives a RESUME with a PauseID less than
the valid one, in which case the RESUME SHALL be ignored.
If several PAUSE or RESUME that would render identical REFUSE
responses are received before the scheduled REFUSE is sent, duplicate
REFUSE MUST NOT be scheduled for transmission. This effectively lets
a single REFUSE respond to several invalid PAUSE or RESUME requests.
If REFUSE containing a certain PauseID was already sent and yet more
PAUSE or RESUME messages are received that require additional REFUSE
with that specific PauseID to be scheduled, and unless the PauseID
number space has wrapped since REFUSE was last sent with that
PauseID, further REFUSE messages with that PauseID SHOULD be sent in
regular RTCP reports.
An RTP media stream receiver that sent a PAUSE or RESUME request and
receives a REFUSE containing the same PauseID as in the request
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
SHOULD refrain from sending an identical request for some appropriate
time to allow the condition that caused REFUSE to clear.
An RTP media stream receiver that sent a PAUSE or RESUME request and
receives a REFUSE containing a PauseID different from the request MAY
schedule another request using the PauseID from the REFUSE
indication.
9.5. Transmission Rules
The transmission of any RTCP feedback messages defined in this
specification MUST follow the normal AVPF defined timing rules and
depends on the session's mode of operation.
All messages defined in this specification MAY use either Regular,
Early or Immediate timings, taking the following into consideration:
o PAUSE SHOULD use Early or Immediate timing, except for
retransmissions that SHOULD use Regular timing.
o The first transmission of PAUSED for each (non-wrapped) PauseID
SHOULD be sent with Immediate or Early timing, while subsequent
PAUSED for that PauseID SHOULD use Regular timing.
o RESUME SHOULD always use Immediate or Early timing.
o The first transmission of REFUSE for each (non-wrapped) PauseID
SHOULD be sent with Immediate or Early timing, while subsequent
REFUSE for that PauseID SHOULD use Regular timing.
10. Signalling
The capability of handling messages defined in this specification MAY
be exchanged at a higher layer such as SDP. This document extends
the rtcp-fb attribute defined in section 4 of AVPF [RFC4585] to
include the request for pause and resume. Like AVPF [RFC4585] and
CCM [RFC5104], it is RECOMMENDED to use the rtcp-fb attribute at
media level and it MUST NOT be used at session level. This
specification follows all the rules defined in AVPF for rtcp-fb
attribute relating to payload type in a session description.
Note: When TMMBR 0 / TMMBN 0 are used to implement pause and
resume functionality (with the restrictions described in this
memo), signaling rtcp-fb attribute with ccm tmmbr parameter is
sufficient and no further signaling is necessary.
This specification defines two new parameters to the "ccm" feedback
value defined in CCM [RFC5104], "pause" and "paused".
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
o "pause" represents the capability to understand the RTCP feedback
message and all of the defined FCIs of PAUSE, RESUME, PAUSED and
REFUSE. A direction sub-parameter is used to determine if a given
node desires to issue PAUSE or RESUME requests, can respond to
PAUSE or RESUME requests, or both.
o "paused" represents the functionality of supporting the playing
and local paused states and generate PAUSED FCI when a media
stream delivery is paused. A direction sub-parameter is used to
determine if a given node desires to receive these indications,
intends to send them, or both.
The reason for this separation is to make it possible for partial
implementation of this specification, according to the different
roles in the use cases section (Section 3).
A sub-parameter named "nowait", indicating that the hold-off time
defined in Section 7.2 can be set to 0, reducing the latency before
the media stream can paused after receiving a PAUSE request. This
condition occurs when there will be only a single receiver per
direction in the RTP session, for example in point-to-point sessions.
It is also possible to use in scenarios using unidirectional media.
The conditions that allow "nowait" to be set also indicate that it
would be possible to use CCM TMMBR/TMMBN as pause/resume signaling.
A sub-parameter named "dir" is used to indicate in which directions a
given node will use the pause or paused functionality. The node
being configured or issuing an offer or an answer uses the
directionality in the following way. Note that pause and paused have
separate and different definitions.
Direction ("dir") values for "pause" is defined as follows:
sendonly: The node intends to send PAUSE and RESUME requests for
other nodes' media streams and is thus also capable of receiving
PAUSED and REFUSE. It will not support receiving PAUSE and RESUME
requests.
recvonly: The node supports receiving PAUSE and RESUME requests
targeted for media streams sent by the node. It will send PAUSED
and REFUSE as needed. The node will not send any PAUSE and RESUME
requests.
sendrecv: The node supports receiving PAUSE and RESUME requests
targeted for media streams sent by the node. The node intends to
send PAUSE and RESUME requests for other nodes' media streams.
Thus the node is capable of sending and receiving all types of
pause messages. This is the default value. If the "dir"
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
parameter is omitted, it MUST be interpreted to represent this
value.
Direction values for "paused" is defined as follows:
sendonly: The node intends to send PAUSED indications whenever it
pauses media delivery in any of its media streams. It has no need
to receive PAUSED indications itself.
recvonly: The node desires to receive PAUSED indications whenever
any media stream sent by another node is paused. It does not
intend to send any PAUSED indications.
sendrecv: The nodes desires to receive PAUSED indications and
intends to send PAUSED indications whenever any media stream is
paused. This is the default value. If the "dir" parameter is
omitted, it MUST be interpreted to represent this value.
This is the resulting ABNF [RFC5234], extending existing ABNF in
section 7.1 of CCM [RFC5104]:
rtcp-fb-ccm-param =/ SP "pause" *(SP pause-attr)
/ SP "paused" *(SP paused-attr)
pause-attr = direction
/ "nowait"
/ token ; for future extensions
paused-attr = direction
/ token ; for future extensions
direction = "dir=" direction-alts
direction-alts = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv"
Figure 10: ABNF
An endpoint implementing this specification and using SDP to signal
capability SHOULD indicate both of the new "pause" and "paused"
parameters with ccm signaling. When negotiating usage, it is
possible select either of them, noting that "pause" contain the full
"paused" functionality. A sender or receiver SHOULD NOT use the
messages from this specification towards receivers that did not
declare capability for it.
There MUST NOT be more than one "a=rtcp-fb" line with "pause" and one
with "paused" applicable to a single payload type in the SDP, unless
the additional line uses "*" as payload type, in which case "*" SHALL
be interpreted as applicable to all listed payload types that does
not have an explicit "pause" or "paused" specification.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
There MUST NOT be more than a single direction sub-parameter per
"pause" and "paused" parameter. There MUST NOT be more than a single
"nowait" sub-parameter per "pause" parameter.
10.1. Offer-Answer Use
An offerer implementing this specification needs to include "pause"
and/or "paused" CCM parameters with suitable directionality parameter
("dir") in the SDP, according to what messages it intends to send and
desires or is capable to receive in the session. It is RECOMMENDED
to include both "pause" and "paused" if "pause" is supported, to
enable at least the "paused" functionality if the answer only
supports "paused" or different directionality for the two
functionalities. The "pause" and "paused" functionalities are
negotiated independently, although the "paused" functionality is part
of the "pause" functionality. As a result, an answerer MAY remove
"pause" or "paused" lines from the SDP depending on the agreed mode
of functionality.
In offer/answer, the "dir" parameter is interpreted based on the
agent providing the SDP. The node described in the offer is the
offerer, and the answerer is described in an answer. In other words,
an offer for "paused dir=sendonly" means that the offerer intends to
send PAUSED indications whenever it pauses media delivery in any of
its media streams.
An answerer receiving an offer with a "pause" parameter with
dir=sendrecv MAY remove the pause line in its answer, respond with
pause keeping sendrecv for full bi-directionality, or it may change
dir value to either sendonly or recvonly based on its capabilities
and desired functionality. An offer with a "pause" parameter with
dir=sendonly or dir=recvonly is either completely removed or accepted
with reverse directionality, i.e. sendonly becomes recvonly or
recvonly becomes sendonly.
An answer receiving an offer with "paused" has the same choices as
for "pause" above. It should be noted that the directionality of
pause is the inverse of media direction, while the directionality of
paused is the same as the media direction.
If the offerer believes that itself and the intended answerer are
likely the only end-points in the RTP session, it MAY include the
"nowait" sub-parameter on the "pause" line in the offer. If an
answerer receives the "nowait" sub-parameter on the "pause" line in
the SDP, and if it has information that the offerer and itself are
not the only end-points in the RTP session, it MUST NOT include any
"nowait" sub-parameter on its "pause" line in the SDP answer. The
answerer MUST NOT add "nowait" on the "pause" line in the answer
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
unless it is present on the "paused" line in the offer. If both
offer and answer contained a "nowait" parameter, then the hold-off
time is configured to 0 at both offerer and answerer.
10.2. Declarative Use
In declarative use, the SDP is used to configure the node receiving
the SDP. This has implications on the interpretation of the SDP
signalling extensions defined in this draft. First, it is normally
only necessary to include either "pause" or "paused" parameter to
indicate the level of functionality the node should use in this RTP
session. Including both is only necessary if some implementations
only understands "paused" and some other can understand both. Thus
indicating both means use pause if you understand it, and if you only
understand paused, use that.
The "dir" directionality parameter indicates how the configured node
should behave. For example "pause" with sendonly:
sendonly: The node intends to send PAUSE and RESUME requests for
other nodes' media streams and is thus also capable of receiving
PAUSED and REFUSE. It will not support receiving PAUSE and RESUME
requests.
In this example, the configured node should send PAUSE and RESUME
requests if has reason for it. It does not need to respond to any
PAUSE or RESUME requests as that is not supported.
The "nowait" parameter, if included, is followed as specified. It is
the responsibility of the declarative SDP sender to determine if a
configured node will participate in a session that will be point to
point, based on the usage. For example, a conference client being
configured for an any source multicast session using SAP [RFC2974]
will not be in a point to point session, thus "nowait" cannot be
included. An RTSP [RFC2326] client receiving a declarative SDP may
very well be in a point to point session, although it is highly
doubtful that an RTSP client would need to support this
specification, considering the inherent PAUSE support in RTSP.
11. Examples
The following examples shows use of PAUSE and RESUME messages,
including use of offer-answer:
1. Offer-Answer
2. Point-to-Point session
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
3. Point-to-multipoint using Mixer
4. Point-to-multipoint using Translator
11.1. Offer-Answer
The below figures contains an example how to show support for pausing
and resuming the streams, as well as indicating whether or not the
hold-off period can be set to 0.
v=0
o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4 alice.example.com
s=Pausing Media
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 alice.example.com
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVPF 98 99
a=rtpmap:98 G719/48000
a=rtpmap:99 PCMA/8000
a=rtcp-fb:* ccm pause nowait
a=rtcp-fb:* ccm paused
Figure 11: SDP Offer With Pause and Resume Capability
The offerer supports all of the messages defined in this
specification and offers a sendrecv stream. The offerer also
believes that it will be the sole receiver of the answerer's stream
as well as that the answerer will be the sole receiver of the
offerer's stream and thus includes the "nowait" sub-parameter for
both "pause" and "paused" parameters.
This is the SDP answer:
v=0
o=bob 293847192 293847192 IN IP4 bob.example.com
s=-
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 bob.example.com
m=audio 49202 RTP/AVPF 98
a=rtpmap:98 G719/48000
a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm pause dir=sendonly
a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm paused
Figure 12: SDP Answer With Pause and Resume Capability
The answerer will not allow its sent streams to be paused or resumed
and thus support pause only in sendonly mode. It does support paused
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
and intends to send it, and also desires to receive PAUSED
indications. Thus paused in sendrecv mode is included in the answer.
The answerer somehow knows that it will not be a point-to-point RTP
session and has therefore removed "nowait" from the "pause" line,
meaning that the offerer must use a non-zero hold-off time when being
requested to pause the stream.
When using TMMBR 0 / TMMBN 0 to achieve pause and resume
functionality, there are no differences in SDP compared to CCM
[RFC5104] and therefore no such examples are included here.
11.2. Point-to-Point Session
This is the most basic scenario, which involves two participants,
each acting as a sender and/or receiver. Any RTP data receiver sends
PAUSE or RESUME messages to the sender, which pauses or resumes
transmission accordingly. The hold-off time before pausing a stream
is 0.
+---------------+ +---------------+
| RTP Sender | | RTP Receiver |
+---------------+ +---------------+
: t1: RTP data :
| -------------------------------> |
| t2: PAUSE(3) |
| <------------------------------- |
| < RTP data paused > |
| t3: PAUSED(3) |
| -------------------------------> |
: < Some time passes > :
| t4: RESUME(3) |
| <------------------------------- |
| t5: RTP data |
| -------------------------------> |
: < Some time passes > :
| t6: PAUSE(4) |
| <------------------------------- |
| < RTP data paused > |
: :
Figure 13: Pause and Resume Operation in Point-to-Point
Figure 13 shows the basic pause and resume operation in Point-to-
Point scenario. At time t1, an RTP sender sends data to a receiver.
At time t2, the RTP receiver requests the sender to pause the stream,
using PauseID 3 (which it knew since before in this example). The
sender pauses the data and replies with a PAUSED containing the same
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
PauseID. Some time later (at time t4) the receiver requests the
sender to resume, which resumes its transmission. The next PAUSE,
sent at time t6, contains an updated PauseID (4).
+---------------+ +---------------+
| RTP Sender | | RTP Receiver |
+---------------+ +---------------+
: t1: RTP data :
| -------------------------------> |
| t2: TMMBR 0 |
| <------------------------------- |
| < RTP data paused > |
| t3: TMMBN 0 |
| -------------------------------> |
: < Some time passes > :
| t4: TMMBR 150000 |
| <------------------------------- |
| t5: RTP data |
| -------------------------------> |
: < Some time passes > :
| t6: TMMBR 0 |
| <------------------------------- |
| < RTP data paused > |
: :
Figure 14: TMMBR Pause and Resume in Point-to-Point
Figure 14 describes the same point-to-point scenario as above, but
using TMMBR/TMMBN signaling.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
+---------------+ +---------------+
| RTP Sender | | RTP Receiver |
+---------------+ +---------------+
: t1: RTP data :
| ------------------------------------> |
| t2: PAUSE(7), lost |
| <---X-------------- |
| |
| t3: RTP data |
| ------------------------------------> |
: :
| <Timeout, still receiving data> |
| t4: PAUSE(7) |
| <------------------------------------ |
| < RTP data paused > |
| t5: PAUSED(7) |
| ------------------------------------> |
: < Some time passes > :
| t6: RESUME(7), lost |
| <---X-------------- |
| t7: RESUME(7) |
| <------------------------------------ |
| t8: RTP data |
| ------------------------------------> |
| t9: RESUME(7) |
| <------------------------------------ |
: :
Figure 15: Pause and Resume Operation With Messages Lost
Figure 15 describes what happens if a PAUSE message from an RTP media
stream receiver does not reach the RTP media stream sender. After
sending a PAUSE message, the RTP media stream receiver waits for a
time-out to detect if the RTP media stream sender has paused the data
transmission or has sent PAUSED indication according to the rules
discussed in Section 7.3. As the PAUSE message is lost on the way
(at time t2), RTP data continues to reach to the RTP media stream
receiver. When the timer expires, the RTP media stream receiver
schedules a retransmission of the PAUSE message, which is sent at
time t4. If the PAUSE message now reaches the RTP media stream
sender, it pauses the RTP media stream and replies with PAUSED.
At time t6, the RTP media stream receiver wishes to resume the stream
again and sends a RESUME, which is lost. This does not cause any
severe effect, since there is no requirement to wait until further
RESUME are sent and another RESUME are sent already at time t7, which
now reaches the RTP media stream sender that consequently resumes the
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
stream at time t8. The time interval between t6 and t7 can vary, but
may for example be one RTCP feedback transmission interval as
determined by the AVPF rules.
The RTP media stream receiver did not realize that the RTP stream was
resumed in time to stop yet another scheduled RESUME from being sent
at time t9. This is however harmless since the RESUME PauseID is
less than the valid one and will be ignored by the RTP media stream
sender. It will also not cause any unwanted resume even if the
stream was paused based on a PAUSE from some other receiver before
receiving the RESUME, since the valid PauseID is now larger than the
one in the stray RESUME and will only cause a REFUSE containing the
new valid PauseID from the RTP media stream sender.
+---------------+ +---------------+
| RTP Sender | | RTP Receiver |
+---------------+ +---------------+
: t1: RTP data :
| ------------------------------> |
| t2: PAUSE(11) |
| <------------------------------ |
| |
| < Can not pause RTP data > |
| t3: REFUSE(11) |
| ------------------------------> |
| |
| t4: RTP data |
| ------------------------------> |
: :
Figure 16: Pause Request is Refused in Point-to-Point
In Figure 16, the receiver requests to pause the sender, which
refuses to pause due to some consideration local to the sender and
responds with a REFUSE message.
11.3. Point-to-multipoint using Mixer
An RTP Mixer is an intermediate node connecting different transport-
level clouds. The Mixer receives streams from different RTP sources,
selects or combines them based on the application's needs and
forwards the generated stream(s) to the destination. The Mixer
typically puts its' own SSRC(s) in RTP data packets instead of the
original source(s).
The Mixer keeps track of all the media streams delivered to the Mixer
and how they are currently used. In this example, it selects the
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
video stream to deliver to the receiver R based on the voice activity
of the media senders. The video stream will be delivered to R using
M's SSRC and with an CSRC indicating the original source.
Note that PauseID is not of any significance for the example and is
therefore omitted in the description.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| R | | M | | S1 | | S2 |
+-----+ +-----| +-----+ +-----+
: : t1:RTP(S1) : :
| t2:RTP(M:S1) |<-----------------| |
|<-----------------| | |
| | t3:RTP(S2) | |
| |<------------------------------------|
| | t4: PAUSE(S2) | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| | | t5: PAUSED(S2) |
| |<------------------------------------|
| | | <S2:No RTP to M> |
| | t6: RESUME(S2) | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| | | t7: RTP to M |
| |<------------------------------------|
| t8:RTP(M:S2) | | |
|<-----------------| | |
| | t9:PAUSE(S1) | |
| |----------------->| |
| | t10:PAUSED(S1) | |
| |<-----------------| |
| | <S1:No RTP to M> | |
: : : :
Figure 17: Pause and Resume Operation for a Voice Activated Mixer
The session starts at t1 with S1 being the most active speaker and
thus being selected as the single video stream to be delivered to R
(t2) using the Mixer SSRC but with S1 as CSRC (indicated after the
colon in the figure). Then S2 joins the session at t3 and starts
delivering media to the Mixer. As S2 has less voice activity then
S1, the Mixer decides to pause S2 at t4 by sending S2 a PAUSE
request. At t5, S2 acknowledges with a PAUSED and at the same
instant stops delivering RTP to the Mixer. At t6, the user at S2
starts speaking and becomes the most active speaker and the Mixer
decides to switch the video stream to S2, and therefore quickly sends
a RESUME request to S2. At t7, S2 has received the RESUME request
and acts on it by resuming RTP media delivery to M. When the media
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
from t7 arrives at the Mixer, it switches this media into its SSRC
(M) at t8 and changes the CSRC to S2. As S1 now becomes unused, the
Mixer issues a PAUSE request to S1 at t9, which is acknowledged at
t10 with a PAUSED and the RTP media stream from S1 stops being
delivered.
11.4. Point-to-multipoint using Translator
A transport Translator in an RTP session forwards the message from
one peer to all the others. Unlike Mixer, the Translator does not
mix the streams or change the SSRC of the messages or RTP media.
These examples are to show that the messages defined in this
specification can be safely used also in a transport Translator case.
The parentheses in the figures contains (Target SSRC, PauseID)
information for the messages defined in this specification.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +--------------+
| Sender(S) | | Translator | | Receiver(R) |
+-------------+ +-------------| +--------------+
: t1: RTP(S) : :
|------------------>| |
| | t2: RTP (S) |
| |------------------>|
| | t3: PAUSE(S,3) |
| |<------------------|
| t4:PAUSE(S,3) | |
|<------------------| |
: < Sender waiting for possible RESUME> :
| < RTP data paused > |
| t5: PAUSED(S,3) | |
|------------------>| |
| | t6: PAUSED(S,3) |
| |------------------>|
: : :
| | t7: RESUME(S,3) |
| |<------------------|
| t8: RESUME(S,3) | |
|<------------------| |
| t9: RTP (S) | |
|------------------>| |
| | t10: RTP (S) |
| |------------------>|
: : :
Figure 18: Pause and Resume Operation Between Two Participants Using
a Translator
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
Figure 18 describes how a Translator can help the receiver in pausing
and resuming the sender. The sender S sends RTP data to the receiver
R through Translator, which just forwards the data without modifying
the SSRCs. The receiver sends a PAUSE request to the sender, which
in this example knows that there may be more receivers of the stream
and waits a non-zero hold-off time to see if there is any other
receiver that wants to receive the data, does not receive any
disapproving RESUME, hence pauses itself and replies with PAUSED.
Similarly the receiver resumes the sender by sending RESUME request
through Translator. Since this describes only a single pause
operation for a single media sender, all messages uses a single
PauseID, in this example 3.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| S | | T | | R1 | | R2 |
+-----+ +-----| +-----+ +-----+
: t1:RTP(S) : : :
|----------------->| | |
| | t2:RTP(S) | |
| |----------------->------------------>|
| | t3:PAUSE(S,7) | |
| |<-----------------| |
| t4:PAUSE(S,7) | | |
|<-----------------|------------------------------------>|
| | | t5:RESUME(S,7) |
| |<------------------------------------|
| t6:RESUME(S,7) | | |
|<-----------------| | |
| |<RTP stream continues to R1 and R2> |
| | | t7: PAUSE(S,8) |
| |<------------------------------------|
| t8:PAUSE(S,8) | | |
|<-----------------| | |
: : : :
| < Pauses RTP Packet Stream > | |
| t9:PAUSED(S,8) | | |
|----------------->| | |
| | t10:PAUSED(S,8) | |
| |----------------->------------------>|
: : : :
| | t11:RESUME(S,8) | |
| |<-----------------| |
| t12:RESUME(S,8) | | |
|<-----------------| | |
| t13:RTP(S) | | |
|----------------->| | |
| | t14:RTP(S) | |
| |----------------->------------------>|
: : : :
Figure 19: Pause and Resume Operation Between One Sender and Two
Receivers Through Translator
Figure 19 explains the pause and resume operations when a transport
Translator is involved between a sender and two receivers in an RTP
session. Each message exchange is represented by the time it
happens. At time t1, Sender (S) starts sending media to the
Translator, which is forwarded to R1 and R2 through the Translator,
T. R1 and R2 receives RTP data from Translator at t2. At this point,
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
both R1 and R2 will send RTCP Receiver Reports to S informing that
they receive S's media stream.
After some time (at t3), R1 chooses to pause the stream. On
receiving the PAUSE request from R1 at t4, S knows that there are at
least one receiver that may still want to receive the data and uses a
non-zero hold-off period to wait for possible RESUME messages. R2
did also receive the PAUSE request at time t4 and since it still
wants to receive the stream, it sends a RESUME for it at time t5,
which is forwarded to the sender S by the translator T. The sender S
sees the RESUME at time t6 and continues to send data to T which
forwards to both R1 and R2. At t7, the receiver R2 chooses to pause
the stream by sending a PAUSE request with an updated PauseID. The
sender S still knows that there are more than one receiver (R1 and
R2) that may want the stream and again waits a non-zero hold-off
time, after which and not having received any disapproving RESUME, it
concludes that the stream must be paused. S now stops sending the
stream and replies with PAUSED to R1 and R2. When any of the
receivers (R1 or R2) chooses to resume the stream from S, in this
example R1, it sends a RESUME request to the sender. The RTP sender
immediately resumes the stream.
Consider also an RTP session which includes one or more receivers,
paused sender(s), and a Translator. Further assume that a new
participant joins the session, which is not aware of the paused
sender(s). On receiving knowledge about the newly joined
participant, e.g. any RTP traffic or RTCP report (i.e. either SR or
RR) from the newly joined participant, the paused sender(s)
immediately sends PAUSED indications for the paused streams since
there is now a receiver in the session that did not pause the
sender(s) and may want to receive the streams. Having this
information, the newly joined participant has the same possibility as
any other participant to resume the paused streams.
12. IANA Considerations
As outlined in Section 8, this specification requests IANA to
allocate
1. The FMT number TBA1 to be allocated to the PAUSE and RESUME
functionality from this specification.
2. The 'pause' and 'paused' tags to be used with ccm under rtcp-fb
AVPF attribute in SDP.
3. The 'nowait' parameter to be used with the 'pause' and 'paused'
tags in SDP.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
4. A registry listing registered values for 'pause' Types.
5. PAUSE, RESUME, PAUSED, and REFUSE with the listed numbers in the
pause Type registry.
13. Security Considerations
This document extends the CCM [RFC5104] and defines new messages,
i.e. PAUSE and RESUME. The exchange of these new messages MAY have
some security implications, which need to be addressed by the user.
Following are some important implications,
1. Identity spoofing - An attacker can spoof him/herself as an
authenticated user and can falsely pause or resume any source
transmission. In order to prevent this type of attack, a strong
authentication and integrity protection mechanism is needed.
2. Denial of Service (DoS) - An attacker can falsely pause all
source streams which MAY result in Denial of Service (DoS). An
Authentication protocol may prevent this attack.
3. Man-in-Middle Attack (MiMT) - The pausing and resuming of an RTP
source is prone to a Man-in-Middle attack. Public key
authentication may be used to prevent MiMT.
14. Contributors
Daniel Groendal contributed in the creation and writing of earlier
versions of this specification.
15. Acknowledgements
Daniel Grondal made valuable contributions during the initial
versions of this draft.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
[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, July
2006.
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
16.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]
Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", draft-
ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-01 (work in progress),
October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy]
Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., and G. Salgueiro,
"A Taxonomy of Grouping Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-
Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", draft-ietf-avtext-
rtp-grouping-taxonomy-00 (work in progress), November
2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]
Holmberg, C., Hakansson, S., and G. Eriksson, "Web Real-
Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-14 (work in
progress), February 2014.
[I-D.lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection]
Lennox, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Mechanisms for Media
Source Selection in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection-05 (work
in progress), October 2012.
[I-D.westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast]
Westerlund, M. and S. Nandakumar, "Using Simulcast in RTP
Sessions", draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast-03 (work
in progress), October 2013.
[RFC2326] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.
[RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
2002.
[RFC3556] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth", RFC
3556, July 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5049] Bormann, C., Liu, Z., Price, R., and G. Camarillo,
"Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5049, December 2007.
[RFC5225] Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression
Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and
UDP-Lite", RFC 5225, April 2008.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.
[RFC5626] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and F. Audet, "Managing Client-
Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5626, October 2009.
[RFC6190] Wenger, S., Wang, Y., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis,
"RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190,
May 2011.
[TS25.308]
3GPP, "High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA); Overall
description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 25.308 10.6.0, December
2011, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/25308.htm>.
[TS26.114]
3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia
telephony; Media handling and interaction", 3GPP TS 26.114
10.7.0, June 2013,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/26114.htm>.
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Media Stream Pause February 2014
[TS36.201]
3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA); LTE physical layer; General description", 3GPP
TS 36.201 10.0.0, December 2010,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36201.htm>.
Authors' Addresses
Azam Akram
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
SE - 164 80 Kista
Sweden
Phone: +46107142658
Fax: +46107175550
Email: muhammad.azam.akram@ericsson.com
URI: www.ericsson.com
Bo Burman
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
SE - 164 80 Kista
Sweden
Phone: +46107141311
Fax: +46107175550
Email: bo.burman@ericsson.com
URI: www.ericsson.com
Roni Even
Huawei Technologies
Tel Aviv
Israel
Email: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
SE- Kista 164 80
Sweden
Phone: +46107148287
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Akram, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 54]
