Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis
Internet Engineering Task Force Audio/Video Transport Working Group
Internet-Draft S. Casner
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt Packet Design
Obsoletes: RFC 3555 (if approved) October 15, 2006
Expires: April 15, 2007
Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats
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 April 15, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document specifies the procedure to register RTP payload
formats as audio, video or other media subtype names. This is
useful in a text-based format description or control protocol to
identify the type of an RTP transmission.
Expires April 2007 [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3
1.2. Terminology .............................................. 3
2. Procedure For Registering Media Types for RTP Payload Types ... 3
2.1. Example Media Type Registration ........................... 5
2.2. Restrictions on Sharing a Subtype Name ................... 6
3. Mapping to SDP Parameters ..................................... 7
4. Changes from RFC 3555 ......................................... 8
5. Security Considerations ....................................... 8
6. IANA Considerations ........................................... 10
7. References .................................................... 10
8. Author's Address .............................................. 11
9. Intellectual Property Statement ............................... 11
10. Disclaimer of Validity ........................................ 12
11. Copyright Statement ........................................... 12
Expires April 2007 [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
1. Introduction
RFC 4288 [1] defines media type specification and registration
procedures that use the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a
central registry. That document covers general requirements independent
of particular application environments and transport modes. This
document defines the specific requirements for registration of media
types for use with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RFC 3550 [2],
to identify RTP payload formats.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [3] and indicate
requirement levels for implementations compliant with this
specification.
2. Procedure For Registering Media Types for RTP Payload Types
Registering an RTP payload type as a media type follows the same
procedures as described in RFC 4288 [1] and uses the registration
template shown in Section 10 of that RFC. To specify how the particular
payload format is transported over RTP, some additional information is
required in the following sections of that template:
Required parameters
If the payload format does not have a fixed RTP timestamp
clock rate, then a "rate" parameter is required to specify the
RTP timestamp clock rate. A particular payload format may
have additional required parameters.
Optional parameters
Most audio payload formats can have an optional "channels"
parameter to specify the number of audio channels included in
the transmission. The default channel order is as specified
in RFC 3551 [4]. Any payload format, but most likely audio
formats, may also include the optional parameters "ptime", to
specify the recommended length of time in milliseconds
represented by the media in a packet, and/or "maxptime" to
specify the maximum amount of media that can be encapsulated
in each packet, expressed as time in milliseconds. The
"ptime" and "maxptime" parameters are defined in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [5].
A particular payload format may have additional optional
parameters. As allowed in Section 4.3 of [1], new parameters
MAY be added to RTP media types that have been previously
Expires April 2007 [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
defined, but the new parameters MUST NOT change existing
functionality and it MUST be possible for existing
implementations to ignore the additional parameters without
impairing operation.
Encoding considerations
Most RTP payload formats include binary or framed data as
described in Section 4.8 of [1]. The appropriate encoding
considerations MUST be noted.
Published specification
A description of the media encoding and a specification of the
payload format must be provided, usually by reference to an
RTP payload format specification RFC. That RFC may be
separate, or the media type registration may be incorporated
into the payload format specification RFC. The payload format
specification MUST include the RTP timestamp clock rate (or
multiple rates for audio encodings with multiple sampling
rates).
A reference to a further description of the data compression
format itself should be provided, if available.
Restrictions on usage:
The fact that the media type is defined for transfer via RTP
MUST be noted, in particular if the transfer depends on RTP
framing and hence the media type is only defined for transfer
via RTP.
Depending on whether the type has already been registered for transfer
with a non-RTP protocol (e.g. MIME mail or http) or not, several
different cases can occur:
a) Not yet registered as a media type
A new registration should be constructed using the media type
registration template. The registration may specify transfer
via other means in addition to RTP if that is feasible and
desired. The appropriate encoding considerations must be
specified, and the restrictions on usage must specify whether
the type is only defined for transfer via RTP or via other modes
as well.
Optional parameters may be defined as needed, and it must be
clearly stated to which mode(s) of transfer the parameters
apply.
Expires April 2007 [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
b) Media type exists for a non-RTP protocol
The restrictions on usage of the existing type should be
changed, if present, or added, if not, to indicate that the type
can also be transferred via RTP.
RTP-specific parameters may be added, and it must be clearly
stated that these are only to be used when the media type is
transmitted via RTP transport.
c) Update an existing media type for RTP to be used for a non-RTP
protocol
The restrictions on usage of the existing type should be changed
to indicate that the type can also be transferred via a non-RTP
protocol (e.g. SMTP, HTTP).
Non-RTP-specific parameters can be added, and it must be clearly
stated that these are only to be used when the media type is
transmitted via a non-RTP transport.
2.1. Example Media Type Registration
The following sample registration of a fake media type audio/example
provides examples for some of the required text. References to RFC nnnn
would be replaced by references to the RFC that contains the payload
format specification and the media type registration.
Type name: audio
Subtype name: example
Required parameters:
rate: RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the sampling
rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates may be specified.
Optional parameters:
channels: number of interleaved audio streams, either 1 for
mono or 2 for stereo, and defaults to 1 if omitted.
Interleaving takes place between on a frame-by-frame basis,
with the left channel followed by the right channel.
ptime: recommended length of time in milliseconds represented
by the media in a packet (see RFC YYYY).
maxptime: maximum amount of media that can be encapsulated in
each packet, expressed as time in milliseconds (see RFC YYYY).
Expires April 2007 [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
Encoding considerations:
This media type is framed binary data (see RFC 4288, Section
4.8).
Security considerations: See Section n of RFC nnnn
Interoperability considerations:
Some receivers may only be capable of receiving single-channel
audio.
Published specification: RFC nnnn
Applications that use this media type:
Audio and video streaming and conferencing tools.
Additional information: none
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Fred Audio <fred@example.com>
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage:
This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only
defined for transfer via RTP (RFC 3550). Transfer within
other framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author:
Fred Audio
Change controller:
IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the
IESG.
2.2. Restrictions on Sharing a Subtype Name
The same media subtype name MUST NOT be shared for RTP and non-RTP
(file-based) transfer methods unless the data format is the same for
both methods. The data format is considered to be same if the file
format is equivalent to a concatenated sequence of payloads from RTP
packets not including the RTP header or any RTP payload-format header.
The file format MAY include a magic number or other header at the start
of the file that is not included when the data is transferred via RTP.
A second requirement for sharing a media subtype name is that the sets
of required parameters must be the same for both methods.
Expires April 2007 [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
For cases where the data format or required parameters cannot be the
same for RTP and non-RTP transfer methods, then the data formats MUST be
registered as separate types. It is RECOMMENDED that the subtype names
be related, such as by using a common root plus a suffix. For those
cases where a suffix is applied in the subtype name for the RTP transfer
method, the suffix "+rtp" is suggested.
3. Mapping to SDP Parameters
The representation of a media type is specified in the syntax of the
Content-Type header field in RFC 2045 [6] as follows:
type "/" subtype *(";" parameter)
Parameters may be required for a particular type or subtype or they may
be optional. For media types which represent RTP payload formats, the
parameters "rate", "channels", "ptime", and "maxptime" have general
definitions (given above) that may apply across types and subtypes. The
format for a parameter is specified in RFC 2045 as
attribute "=" value
where attribute is the parameter name and the permissible values are
specified for each parameter. RFC 2045 specifies that a value MUST be
present and that the value MUST be a quoted string if it contains any of
the special characters listed in that RFC.
The information carried in the media type string has a specific mapping
to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [5], which is
commonly used to describe RTP sessions. The mapping is as follows:
o The media type (e.g., audio) goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
o The media subtype (payload format) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the
encoding name.
o The general (possibly optional) parameters "rate" and "channels"
also go in "a=rtpmap" as clock rate and encoding parameters,
respectively.
o The general (and optional) parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go
in the SDP "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.
o Any payload-format-specific parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp"
attribute. The set of allowed parameters is defined by the RFC
that specifies the payload format and MUST NOT be extended by the
media type registration without a corresponding revision of the
payload format specification. The format and syntax of these
Expires April 2007 [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
parameters may also be defined by the payload format
specification, but it is suggested that the parameters be copied
directly from the media type string as a semicolon separated list
of parameter=value pairs. For payload formats that specify some
other syntax for the fmtp parameters, the registration of that
payload format as a media type must specify what the parameters
are in MIME format and how to map them to the "a=fmtp" attribute.
An example mapping is as follows:
audio/L16; rate=48000; channels=2; ptime=5; emphasis=50-15
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 L16/48000/2
a=fmtp:97 emphasis=50-15
a=ptime:5
Note that the payload format (encoding) names defined in the RTP Profile
[4] are commonly shown in upper case. Media subtype names are commonly
shown in lower case. These names are case-insensitive in both places.
Similarly, parameter names are case-insensitive both in media type
strings and in the default mapping to the SDP a=fmtp attribute.
4. Changes from RFC 3555
This document updates RFC 3555 to conform to the revised media type
registration procedures in RFC 4288 [1]. Whereas RFC 3555 required the
encoding considerations to specify transfer via RTP, that is now
specified under restrictions on usage. This document also specifies the
conditions under which new optional parameters may be added to a
previously defined RTP media type and adds a new Section 2.2 to clarify
the requirements for sharing a media type among RTP and non-RTP transfer
methods.
RFC 3555 included media type registrations for the RTP payload formats
defined in the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences, RFC 3551
[4]. Those media type registrations have been removed from this
document. Some of them have been assembled into a separate companion
RFC XXXX [8], leaving out those that have been, or are intended to be,
registered in revisions of their own payload format specification RFCs.
Philipp Hoschka is a co-author of RFC 3555; his contributions to the
foundation of this document are appreciated.
5. Security Considerations
The media type registration procedure specified in this memo does not
impose any security considerations on its own. Registrations conforming
Expires April 2007 [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
to this procedure also do not themselves impose security risks.
However, use of the media type being registered could very well impose
security risks:
o Any media type that contains "active content" imposes the risk of
malicious side-effects unless execution of that content is
adequately constrained.
o Several audio and video encodings are perfect for hiding data
using steganography.
o The RTP specification, RFC 3550, provides security considerations
for the transport of audio and video data over RTP, including the
use of encryption where confidentiality is required.
Therefore, each media type registration is required to state any
security considerations that apply to the use of that type. The
remainder of this section is copied from RFC 4288 [1], which specifies
media type registration procedures in general.
An analysis of security issues MUST be done for all types registered in
the standards tree. A similar analysis for media types registered in
the vendor or personal trees is encouraged but not required. However,
regardless of what security analysis has or has not been done, all
descriptions of security issues MUST be as accurate as possible
regardless of registration tree. In particular, a statement that there
are "no security issues associated with this type" MUST NOT be confused
with "the security issues associates with this type have not been
assessed".
There is absolutely no requirement that media types registered in any
tree be secure or completely free from risks. Nevertheless, all known
security risks MUST be identified in the registration of a media type,
again regardless of registration tree.
The security considerations section of all registrations is subject to
continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular MAY be
extended by use of the "comments on media types" mechanism described in
RFC 4288 Section 6.
Some of the issues that should be looked at in a security analysis of a
media type are:
o Complex media types may include provisions for directives that
institute actions on a recipient's files or other resources. In
many cases provision is made for originators to specify arbitrary
actions in an unrestricted fashion that may then have devastating
effects. See the registration of the application/postscript
Expires April 2007 [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
media type in RFC 2046 [7] for an example of such directives and
how they should be described in a media type registration.
o All registrations MUST state whether or not they employ such
"active content", and if they do, they MUST state what steps have
been taken to protect users of the media type from harm.
o Complex media types may include provisions for directives that
institute actions that, while not directly harmful to the
recipient, may result in disclosure of information that either
facilitates a subsequent attack or else violates a recipient's
privacy in some way. Again, the registration of the
application/postscript media type illustrates how such directives
can be handled.
o A media type that employs compression may provide an opportunity
for sending a small amount of data that, when received and
evaluated, expands enormously to consume all of the recipient's
resources. All media types SHOULD state whether or not they
employ compression, and if they do they should discuss what steps
need to be taken to avoid such attacks.
o A media type might be targeted for applications that require some
sort of security assurance but not provide the necessary security
mechanisms themselves. For example, a media type could be
defined for storage of confidential medical information that in
turn requires an external confidentiality service, or which is
designed for use only within a secure environment.
6. IANA Considerations
The purpose of this document is to specify the requirements and
procedures for registering RTP payload formats in the IANA media type
registry. No registrations are defined here, so no IANA actions are
required for this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December, 2005.
[2] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP:
A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July
2003.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Expires April 2007 [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 3551, July 2003.
[5] Handley, M., V. Jacobson and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-26.txt, January 2006.
(Approved for publication as Proposed Standard to obsolete
RFC 2327, so this reference should be to the RFC when published
and that number inserted where RFC YYYY appears in this document)
[6] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045,
November 1996.
[7] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.
7.2. Informative References
[8] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of Payload Formats in the
RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences",
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-part2-00.txt, February, 2006.
(Companion to this document, referenced herein as RFC XXXX).
8. Author's Address
Stephen L. Casner
Packet Design
3400 Hillview Avenue, Building 3
Palo Alto, CA 94304
United States
Phone: +1 650 739-1843
EMail: casner@acm.org
9. 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.
Expires April 2007 [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-05.txt October 15, 2006
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Expires April 2007 [Page 12]
