Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis
draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis
AVT R. Even
Internet-Draft Polycom
Expires: July 27, 2006 January 23, 2006
RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-13.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This memo describes a scheme to packetize an H.261 video stream for
transport using the Real-time Transport Protocol, RTP, with any of
the underlying protocols that carry RTP.
The memo also describes the syntax and semantics of the SDP
parameters needed to support the H.261 video codec. A media type
registration is included for this payload format.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Structure of the packet stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Overview of the ITU-T recommendation H.261 . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Considerations for packetization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Specification of the packetization scheme . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Usage of RTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Recommendations for operation with hardware codecs . . . . 10
5. Packet loss issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Media Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1. Registration of MIME media type video/H261 . . . . . . 13
6.2. SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1. Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model . . . . . . . . 15
7. Backward Compatibility to RFC2032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Optional H.261-specific control packets . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. New SDP optional parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. changes from RFC 2032> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
1. Introduction
The ITU-T recommendation H.261 [H261] specifies the encoding used by
ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs. Although these encoding
were originally specified for fixed data rate ISDN circuits,
experiments [INRIA], [MICE] have shown that they can also be used
over packet-switched networks such as the Internet.
The purpose of this memo is to specify the RTP payload format for
encapsulating H.261 video streams in RTP [RFC3550].
This document obsolete RFC 2032 and updates the "video/h261" media
type that was registered in RFC 3555.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
3. Structure of the packet stream
3.1. Overview of the ITU-T recommendation H.261
The H.261 coding is organized as a hierarchy of groupings. The video
stream is composed of a sequence of images, or frames, which are
themselves organized as a set of Groups of Blocks (GOB). Note that
H.261 "pictures" are referred as "frames" in this document. Each GOB
holds a set of 3 lines of 11 macro blocks (MB). Each MB carries
information on a group of 16x16 pixels: luminance information is
specified for 4 blocks of 8x8 pixels, while chrominance information
is given by two "red" and "blue" color difference components at a
resolution of only 8x8 pixels. These components and the codes
representing their sampled values are as defined in the ITU-R
Recommendation 601 [BT601].
This grouping is used to specify information at each level of the
hierarchy:
- At the frame level, one specifies information such as the delay
from the previous frame, the image format, and various indicators.
- At the GOB level, one specifies the GOB number and the default
quantifier that will be used for the MBs.
- At the MB level, one specifies which blocks are present and which
did not change, and optionally a quantifier and motion vectors.
Blocks which have changed are encoded by computing the discrete
cosine transform (DCT) of their coefficients, which are then
quantized and Huffman encoded (Variable Length Codes).
The H.261 Huffman encoding includes a special "GOB start" pattern,
which is a word of 16 bits, 0000 0000 0000 0001. This pattern is
included at the beginning of each GOB header (and also at the
beginning of each frame header) to mark the separation between two
GOBs, and is in fact used as an indicator that the current GOB is
terminated. The encoding also includes a stuffing pattern, composed
of seven zero bits followed by four bits with a value of one; that
stuffing pattern can only be entered between the encoding of MBs, or
just before the GOB separator.
3.2. Considerations for packetization
H.261 codecs designed for operation over ISDN circuits produce a bit
stream composed of several levels of encoding specified by H.261 and
companion recommendations. The bits resulting from the Huffman
encoding are arranged in 512-bit frames, containing 2 bits of
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
synchronization, 492 bits of data and 18 bits of error correcting
code. The 512-bit frames are then interlaced with an audio stream
and transmitted over px64 kbps circuits according to specification
H.221 [H221].
When transmitting over the Internet, we will directly consider the
output of the Huffman encoding. All the bits produced by the Huffman
encoding stage will be included in the packet. We will not carry the
512-bit frames, as protection against bit errors can be obtained by
other means. Similarly, we will not attempt to multiplex audio and
video signals in the same packets, as UDP and RTP provide a much more
suitable way to achieve multiplexing.
Directly transmitting the result of the Huffman encoding over an
unreliable stream of UDP datagrams would, however, have poor error
resistance characteristics. The result of the hierarchical structure
of H.261 bit stream is that one needs to receive the information
present in the frame header to decode the GOBs, as well as the
information present in the GOB header to decode the MBs. Without
precautions, this would mean that one has to receive all the packets
that carry an image in order to properly decode its components.
If each image could be carried in a single packet, this requirement
would not create a problem. However, a video image or even one GOB
by itself can sometimes be too large to fit in a single packet.
Therefore, the MB is taken as the unit of fragmentation. Packets
must start and end on a MB boundary, i.e. a MB cannot be split across
multiple packets. Multiple MBs may be carried in a single packet
when they will fit within the maximal packet size allowed. This
practice is recommended to reduce the packet send rate and packet
overhead.
To allow each packet to be processed independently for efficient
resynchronization in the presence of packet losses, some state
information from the frame header and GOB header is carried with each
packet to allow the MBs in that packet to be decoded. This state
information includes the GOB number in effect at the start of the
packet, the macroblock address predictor (i.e. the last MBA encoded
in the previous packet), the quantizer value in effect prior to the
start of this packet (GQUANT, MQUANT or zero in case of a beginning
of GOB) and the reference motion vector data (MVD) for computing the
true MVDs contained within this packet. The bit stream cannot be
fragmented between a GOB header and MB 1 of that GOB.
Moreover, since the compressed MB may not fill an integer number of
octets, the data header contains two three-bit integers, SBIT and
EBIT, to indicate the number of unused bits in the first and last
octets of the H.261 data, respectively.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
4. Specification of the packetization scheme
4.1. Usage of RTP
Each RTP packet starts with a fixed RTP header as explained in
RFC3550 [RFC3550]. The following fields of the RTP fixed header used
for H.261 video streams are further emphasized here:
- Payload type: The assignment of an RTP payload type for this packet
format is outside the scope of this document, and will not be
specified here. It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular
class of applications will assign a payload type for this encoding,
or if that is not done then a payload type in the dynamic range shall
be chosen.
- The RTP timestamp encodes the sampling instant of the first video
image contained in the RTP data packet. If a video image occupies
more than one packet, the timestamp SHALL be the same on all of those
packets. Packets from different video images MUST have different
timestamp so that frames may be distinguished by the timestamp. For
H.261 video streams, the RTP timestamp is based on a 90kHz clock.
This clock rate is a multiple of the natural H.261 frame rate (i.e.
30000/1001 or approx. 29.97 Hz). That way, for each frame time, the
clock is just incremented by the multiple and this removes inaccuracy
in calculating the timestamp. Furthermore, the initial value of the
timestamp MUST be random (unpredictable) to make known-plaintext
attacks on encryption more difficult, see RTP [RFC3550]. Note that
if multiple frames are encoded in a packet (e.g. when there are very
little changes between two images), it is necessary to calculate
display times for the frames after the first, using the timing
information in the H.261 frame header. This is required because the
RTP timestamp only gives the display time of the first frame in the
packet.
- The marker bit of the RTP header MUST be set to one in the last
packet of a video frame, and otherwise, MUST be zero. Thus, it is
not necessary to wait for a following packet (which contains the
start code that terminates the current frame) to detect that a new
frame should be displayed.
The H.261 data SHALL follow the RTP header, as in:
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. RTP header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| H.261 header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| H.261 stream ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The H.261 header is defined as following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|SBIT |EBIT |I|V| GOBN | MBAP | QUANT | HMVD | VMVD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields in the H.261 header have the following meanings:
Start bit position (SBIT): 3 bits
Number of most significant bits that should be ignored in the
first data octet.
End bit position (EBIT): 3 bits
Number of least significant bits that should be ignored in the
last data octet.
INTRA-frame encoded data (I): 1 bit
Set to 1 if this stream contains only INTRA-frame coded blocks.
Set to 0 if this stream may or may not contain INTRA-frame coded
blocks. The meaning of this bit should not be changed during the
course of the RTP session.
Motion Vector flag (V): 1 bit
Set to 0 if motion vectors are not used in this stream. Set to 1
if motion vectors may or may not be used in this stream. The
meaning of this bit should not be changed during the course of the
session.
GOB number (GOBN): 4 bits
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
Encodes the GOB number in effect at the start of the packet. Set
to 0 if the packet begins with a GOB header.
Macroblock address predictor (MBAP): 5 bits
Encodes the macroblock address predictor (i.e. the last MBA
encoded in the previous packet). This predictor ranges from 0-32
(to predict the valid MBAs 1-33), but because the bit stream
cannot be fragmented between a GOB header and MB 1, the predictor
at the start of the packet shall not be 0. Therefore, the range
is 1-32, which is biased by -1 to fit in 5 bits. For example, if
MBAP is 0, the value of the MBA predictor is 1. Set to 0 if the
packet begins with a GOB header.
Quantizer (QUANT): 5 bits
Quantizer value (MQUANT or GQUANT) in effect prior to the start of
this packet. Set to 0 if the packet begins with a GOB header.
Horizontal motion vector data (HMVD): 5 bits
Reference horizontal motion vector data (MVD). Set to 0 if V flag
is 0 or if the packet begins with a GOB header, or when the MTYPE
of the last MB encoded in the previous packet was not MC. HMVD is
encoded as a 2's complement number, and `10000' corresponding to
the value -16 is forbidden (motion vector fields range from
+/-15).
Vertical motion vector data (VMVD): 5 bits
Reference vertical motion vector data (MVD). Set to 0 if V flag
is 0 or if the packet begins with a GOB header, or when the MTYPE
of the last MB encoded in the previous packet was not MC. VMVD is
encoded as a 2's complement number, and `10000' corresponding to
the value -16 SHALL not be used (motion vector fields range from
+/-15).
Note that the I and V flags are hint flags, i.e. they can be inferred
from the bit stream. They are included to allow decoders to make
optimizations that would not be possible if these hints were not
provided before bit stream was decoded. Therefore, these bits cannot
change for the duration of the stream. A conformant implementation
can always set V=1 and I=0.
The H.261 stream SHALL be used without BCH error correction and
without error correction framing.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
4.2. Recommendations for operation with hardware codecs
Packetizers for hardware codecs can trivially figure out GOB
boundaries using the GOB-start pattern included in the H.261 data.
(Note that software encoders already know the boundaries.) The
cheapest packetization implementation is to packetize at the GOB
level all the GOBs that fit in a packet. But when a GOB is too
large, the packetizer has to parse it to do MB fragmentation. (Note
that only the Huffman encoding must be parsed and that it is not
necessary to fully decompress the stream, so this requires relatively
little processing; example implementations can be found in some
public H.261 codecs such as IVS [IVS] and VIC [VIC].) It is
recommended that MB level fragmentation be used when feasible in
order to obtain more efficient packetization. Using this
fragmentation scheme reduces the output packet rate and therefore
reduces the overhead.
At the receiver, the data stream can be depacketized and directed to
a hardware codec's input. If the hardware decoder operates at a
fixed bit rate, synchronization may be maintained by inserting the
stuffing pattern between MBs (i.e., between packets) when the packet
arrival rate is slower than the bit rate.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
5. Packet loss issues
On the Internet, most packet losses are due to network congestion
rather than transmission errors. Using UDP, no mechanism is
available at the sender to know if a packet has been successfully
received. It is up to the application, i.e. coder and decoder, to
handle the packet loss. Each RTP packet includes a sequence number
field which can be used to detect packet loss.
H.261 uses the temporal redundancy of video to perform compression.
This differential coding (or INTER-frame coding) is sensitive to
packet loss. After a packet loss, parts of the image may remain
corrupt until all corresponding MBs have been encoded in INTRA-frame
mode (i.e. encoded independently of past frames). There are several
ways to mitigate packet loss:
(1) One way is to use only INTRA-frame encoding and MB level
conditional replenishment. That is, only MBs that change (beyond
some threshold) are transmitted.
(2) Another way is to adjust the INTRA-frame encoding refreshment
rate according to the packet loss observed by the receivers. The
H.261 recommendation specifies that a MB is INTRA-frame encoded
at least every 132 times it is transmitted. However, the INTRA-
frame refreshment rate can be raised in order to speed the
recovery when the measured loss rate is significant.
(3) The fastest way to repair a corrupted image is to request an
INTRA-frame coded image refreshment after a packet loss is
detected. One means to accomplish this is for the decoder to
send to the coder a list of packets lost. The coder can decide
to encode every MB of every GOB of the following video frame in
INTRA-frame mode (i.e. Full INTRA-frame encoded), or if the
coder can deduce from the packet sequence numbers which MBs were
affected by the loss, it can save bandwidth by sending only those
MBs in INTRA-frame mode. This mode is particularly efficient in
point-to-point connection or when the number of decoders is low.
The H.261 specific control packets FIR and NACK as described in
RFC2032 SHALL NOT be used to request image refreshment. Old
implementations are encourage to use the methods described in this
section. Image refreshment may be needed due to packet loss or due
to application requirements. An example of application requirement
may be the change of the speaker in a voice-activated multipoint
video switching conference. There are two methods that can be used
for requesting image refreshment. The first method is by using the
Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback and sending RTCP generic
control packets as described in RFC YYYY [rtcp-feedback]. The second
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
method is by using the application protocol specific commands like
H.245 [ITU.H245] FastUpdateRequest.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
6. IANA Considerations
This section updates the H.261 media type described in RFC3555
[RFC3555].
This section specifies optional parameters that MAY be used to select
optional features of the payload format. The parameters are
specified here as part of the MIME subtype registration for the ITU-T
H.261 codec. A mapping of the parameters into the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-new] is also provided
for those applications that use SDP. Multiple parameters SHOULD be
expressed as a media type string, in the form of a semi-colon
separated list of parameters.
6.1. Media Type Registrations
This section describes the media types and names associated with this
payload format. The section updates the previous registered version
in RFC 3555 [RFC3555]. This registration uses the template defined
in RFC 4288 [RFC4288]
6.1.1. Registration of MIME media type video/H261
MIME media type name: video
MIME subtype name: H261
Required parameters: None
Optional parameters:
CIF: This parameter has the format of parameter=value. It
describes the maximum supported frame rate for CIF resolution.
permissible value are integer values 1 to 4 and it means that the
maximum rate is 29.97/ specified value
QCIF: This parameter has the format of parameter=value. It
describes the maximum supported frame rate for QCIF resolution.
permissible value are integer values 1 to 4 and it means that the
maximum rate is 29.97/ specified value
D: specifies support for still image graphics according to H.261
annex D. If supported the parameter value SHALL be "1". If not
supported the parameter SHOULD NOT be used or SHALL have the value
"0".
Encoding considerations:
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
This media type is framed and binary, see section 4.8 in [RFC4288]
Security considerations: See Section 8
Interoperability considerations:
These are receiver options, current implementations will not send
any optional parameters in their SDP. They will ignore the
optional parameters and will encode the H.261 stream without annex
D. Most decoders support at least QCIF resolutions and they are
expected to be available almost in every H.261 based video
application.
Published specification: RFC yyy
Applications which use this media type:
Audio and video streaming and conferencing applications.
Additional information: none
Person and email address to contact for further information :
Roni Even: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage:
This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined
for transfer via RTP [RFC3550]. Transport within other framing
protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Roni Even
Change controller:
IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the IESG.
6.2. SDP Parameters
The MIME media type video/H261 string is mapped to fields in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP) as follows:
o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.
o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be H261 (the
MIME subtype).
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.
o The optional parameters "CIF", "QCIF" and "D" if any, SHALL be
included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP. These parameters are
expressed as a MIME media type string, in the form of as a semi-
colon separated list of parameters
6.2.1. Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model
When offering H.261 over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model
[RFC3264] the following considerations are necessary.
Codec options: (D) This option MUST NOT appear unless the sender of
this SDP message is able to decode this option. This option SHALL be
considered as a receiver's capability even when send in a "sendonly"
offer.
Picture sizes and MPI:
Supported picture sizes and their corresponding minimum picture
interval (MPI) information for H.261 can be combined. All picture
sizes may be advertised to the other party, or only a subset of it.
Using the recvonly or sendrev direction attribute a terminal SHOULD
announce those picture sizes (with their MPIs) which it is willing to
receive. For example, CIF=2 means that receiver can receive a CIF
picture and the frame rate SHALL be less then 15 frames per second.
When the direction attribute is sendonly the parameters describe the
capabilities of the stream that the sender can produce.
Implementations following this specification SHALL specify at least
one supported picture size.
If the receiver does not specify the picture size /MPI parameter then
it is safe to assume that it is an implementation that follows RFC
2032. In that case it is RECOMMENDED to assume that such a receiver
supports reception of QCIF resolution with MPI=1.
Parameters offered first are the most preferred picture mode to be
received.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
An example of media representation in SDP is as follows: (CIF at 15
frames per second, QCIF at 30 frames per second and annex D
m=video 49170/2 RTP/AVP 3
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=fmtp:31 CIF=2;QCIF=1;D=1
This means that the sender of this message can decode H.261 bit
stream with following options and parameters: Preferred resolution is
CIF (its MPI is 2), but if that is not possible then QCIF size is
also supported. Still image using annex D MAY be used.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
7. Backward Compatibility to RFC2032
The current draft updates RFC2032. This section will address the
major backward compatibility issues.
7.1. Optional H.261-specific control packets
RFC 2032 defined two H.261-specific RTCP control packets, "Full
INTRA-frame Request" and "Negative Acknowledgement". Support of
these control packets was optional. The H.261-specific control
packets differ from normal RTCP packets in that they are not
transmitted to the normal RTCP destination transport address for the
RTP session (which is often a multicast address). Instead, these
control packets are sent directly via unicast from the decoder to the
encoder. The destination port for these control packets is the same
port that the encoder uses as a source port for transmitting RTP
(data) packets. Therefore, these packets may be considered "reverse"
control packets. This memo suggests generic methods to address the
same requirement. The authors of the drafts are not aware of
products that supports these control packets. Since these are
optional features new implementations SHALL ignore them and they
SHALL NOT be used by new implementations.
7.2. New SDP optional parameters
The draft adds new optional parameters to the H261 payload type.
Since these are optional parameters we expect old implementation to
ignore these parameters while new implementations that will receive
the H261 payload type capabilities with no parameters will assume
that it is an old implementation and will send H.261 at QCIF
resolution and 30 frames per second.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
8. Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC3550], and any appropriate RTP profile (for example
[RFC3551]). This implies that confidentiality of the media streams
is achieved by encryption. SRTP [RFC3711] may be used to provide
both encryption and integrity protection of RTP flow. Because the
data compression used with this payload format is applied end-to-end,
encryption will be performed after compression so there is no
conflict between the two operations.
A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encoding using
compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
into the stream which are complex to decode and cause the receiver to
be overloaded. The usage of authentication of at least the RTP
packet is RECOMMENDED. H.261 is vulnerable to such attacks, because
it is possible for an attacker to generate RTP packets containing
frames that affect the decoding process of future frames. Therefore,
the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection
of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED; for example, with SRTP.
Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and
integrity of RTP packets and their payloads is very dependent on the
application and on the transport and signaling protocols employed.
Thus, although SRTP is given as an example above, other possible
choices exist.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
9. Acknowledgements
This is to acknowledge the authors of RFC2032 Thierry Turletti and
Christian Huitema. Special thanks for the work done by Petri
Koskelainen from Nokia and Nermeen Ismail from Cisco who helped with
drafting the text for the new MIME types.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
10. changes from RFC 2032>
The changes from the RFC 2032 are:
1. The H.261 MIME type is now in the payload specification.
2. Added optional parameters to the H.261 MIME type
3. Deprecated the H.261 specific control packets
4. Editorial changes to be in line with RFC editing procedures
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[H261] International Telecommunications Union, "Video codec for
audiovisual services at p x 64 kbit/s", ITU Recommendation
H.261, March 1993.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-new]
Handley, M., "SDP: Session Description Protocol",
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-25 (work in progress),
July 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
July 2003.
[RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP
Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[BT601] International Telecommunications Union, "Studio encoding
parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and
wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios", ITU-R Recommendation
BT.601-5, October 1995.
[H221] International Telecommunications Union, "Frame structure
for a 64 to 1920 kbit/s channel in audiovisual
teleservices", ITU Recommendation H.221, May 1999.
[INRIA] Turletti, T., "H.261 software codec for videoconferencing
over the Internet", INRIA Research Report 1834,
January 1993.
[ITU.H245]
International Telecommunications Union, "CONTROL PROTOCOL
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
FOR MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION", ITU Recommendation H.245,
2003.
[IVS] Turletti, T., "INRIA Videoconferencing tool (IVS),
available by anonymous ftp from zenon.inria.fr in the
"rodeo/ivs/last_version" directory. See also URL
http://www.inria.fr/rodeo/ivs.html".
[MICE] Sasse, MA., Bilting, U., Schultz, CD., and T. Turletti,
"Remote Seminars through MultiMedia Conferencing:
Experiences from the MICE project", Proc. INET'94/JENC5,
Prague pp. 251/1-251/8, June !994.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[VIC] MacCanne, S., "VIC Videoconferencing tool, available by
anonymous ftp from ee.lbl.gov in the "conferencing/vic"
directory".
[rtcp-feedback]
Ott, J. and S. Wenger, "Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-
based Feedback(RTP/AVPF)", draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-08
(work in progress), January 2004.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
Author's Address
Roni Even
Polycom
94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
Petach Tikva 49130
Israel
Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format January 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Even Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 24]
