Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound
Network Working Group I. Johansson
Internet-Draft M. Westerlund
Updates: 3550,3711,4585 Ericsson AB
(if approved) Feb 20, 2009
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: August 24, 2009
Support for Reduced-Size RTCP, Opportunities and Consequences
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-09
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 August 24, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
Abstract
This memo discusses benefits and issues that arise when allowing RTCP
packets to be transmitted with reduced size. The size can be reduced
if the rules on how to create compound packets outlined in RFC3550
are removed or changed. Based on that analysis this memo defines
certain changes to the rules to allow feedback messages to be sent as
reduced-size RTCP packets under certain conditions when using the RTP
AVPF profile (RFC 4585). This document updates [RFC3550], [RFC3711]
and [RFC4585].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases and Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RTCP Compound Packets (Background) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Use Cases for Reduced-Size RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Benefits of Reduced-Size RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Issues with Reduced-Size RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.1. Middle Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. Packet Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Encryption/authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.4. RTP and RTCP Multiplex on the Same Port . . . . . . . 10
3.4.5. Header Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Use of Reduced-size RTCP with AVPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Definition of Reduced-Size RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Algorithm Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Verification of Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2. Single vs Multiple RTCP in a Reduced-Size RTCP . . . . 13
4.2.3. Enforcing Compound RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.4. Immediate Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
1. Introduction
In RTP [RFC3550] it is currently mandatory to send RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) packets as compound packets containing at least a
Sender Report (SR) or Receiver Report (RR), followed by a Source
Description (SDES) packet containing at least the CNAME item. There
are good reasons for this, as discussed below (see Section 3.1),
however it does result in the minimal RTCP packets being quite large.
The RTP profile AVPF [RFC4585] specifies new RTCP packet types for
feedback messages. Some of these feedback messages would benefit
from being transmitted with minimal delay. AVPF does provide some
mechanisms to support this, however for environments with low-
bitrate links these messages can still consume a large amount of
resources, and can introduce extra delay in the time it takes to
completely send the compound packet in the network. It is therefore
desirable to send just the feedback, without the other parts of a
compound RTCP packet. This memo proposes such a mechanism, for this,
and other use cases, as discussed in Section 3.2.
There are a number of benefits with reduced-size RTCP; these are
discussed in Section 3.3.
The use of reduced-size RTCP is not without issues. This is
discussed in Section 3.4. These issues need to be considered and are
part of the motivation for this document.
Finally this document defines how AVPF is updated to allow for the
transmission of reduced-size RTCP in a way that would not
substantially affect the mechanisms that compound packets provide,
see Section 4 for more details. The connection to AVPF (or SAVPF) is
motivated by the fact that reduced-size RTCP is mainly beneficial for
event driven feedback purposes and that the AVPF early and immediate
modes make this possible.
This document updates [RFC3550], [RFC3711] and [RFC4585].
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].
The naming convention for RTCP is often confusing. Below a list of
RTCP terms and what they mean. See also section 6.1 in [RFC3550] and
section 3.1 in [RFC4585] for details.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
RTCP packet: Can be of different types, contains a fixed header part
followed by structured elements depending on RTCP packet type.
Lower layer datagram: Can be interpreted as the UDP payload. It may
however, depending on the transport, be TCP or DCCP payload or
something else. Synonymous to "underlying protocol" defined in
section 3 in [RFC3550].
Compound RTCP packet: A collection of two or more RTCP packets. A
compound RTCP packet is transmitted in a lower layer datagram. It
must contain at least an RTCP RR or SR packet and a SDES packet
with the CNAME item. Often "compound" is left out, the
interpretation of RTCP packet is therefore dependent on the
context.
Minimal compound RTCP packet: A compound RTCP packet that contains
the RTCP RR or SR packets and the SDES packet with the CNAME item
with a specified ordering.
(Full) compound RTCP packet: A compound RTCP packet that conforms to
the requirements on minimal compound RTCP packets and contains
more RTCP packets.
Reduced-size RTCP packet: May contain one or more RTCP packets but
does not follow the compound RTCP rules defined in section 6.1 in
[RFC3550] and is thus neither a minimal or a full compound RTCP.
See Section 4.1 for a full definition.
3. Use Cases and Design Rationale
3.1. RTCP Compound Packets (Background)
Section 6.1 in [RFC3550] specifies that an RTCP packet must be sent
as a compound RTCP packet consisting of at least two individual RTCP
packets, first an Sender Report (SR) or Receiver Report (RR),
followed by additional packets including a mandatory SDES packet
containing a CNAME item for the transmitting source identifier
(SSRC). Below is a short description what these RTCP packet types
are used for.
1. The sender and receiver reports (see Section 6.4 of [RFC3550])
provide the RTP session participant with the Synchronisation
Source (SSRC) Identifier of all RTP session participants. Having
all participants send these packets periodically allows everyone
to determine the current number of participants. This
information is used in the transmission scheduling algorithm.
Thus this is particularly important for new participants so that
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
they quickly can establish a good estimate of the group size.
Failure to do this would result in RTCP senders consuming too
much bandwidth.
2. Before a new session participant has sent any RTP or RTCP packet,
it can also avoid SSRC collisions with all the SSRCs it sees
prior to that transmission. So the possibility to see a
substantial proportion of the participating sources minimizes the
risk of any collision when selecting SSRC.
3. The sender and receiver reports contain some basic statistics
usable for monitoring of the transport and thus enable
adaptation. These reports become more useful if sent regularly
as the receiver of a report can perform analysis to find trends
between the individual reports. When used for media transmission
adaptation the information becomes more useful the more
frequently it is received, at least until one report per round-
trip time (RTT) is achieved. Therefore there is, in most cases,
no reason to not include the sender or receiver report in all
RTCP packets.
4. The CNAME SDES item (See Section 6.5.1 of [RFC3550]) exists to
allow receivers to determine which media flows should be
synchronized with each other, both within an RTP session and
between different RTP sessions carrying different media types.
Thus it is important to quickly receive this for each media
sender in the session when joining an RTP session.
5. Sender Reports (SR) are used in combination with the above SDES
CNAME mechanism to synchronize multiple RTP streams, such as
audio and video. After having determined which media streams
should be synchronized using the CNAME field, the receiver uses
the Sender Report's NTP and RTP timestamp fields to establish
synchronization.
6. The CNAME SDES item also allows a session participant to detect
SSRC collisions and separate them from routing loops. The 32-bit
randomly selected SSRC has some probability of collision. The
CNAME is used as longer canonical identifier of a particular end-
point instance that is bound to an SSRC. If that binding isn't
received and kept current the receiver may not detect a SSRC
collision, i.e. two different CNAMEs using the same SSRC. It
also can't detect a RTP level routing loop with the result that
the same SSRC and CNAME arrives from multiple lower-layer source
addresses.
Reviewing the above it is obvious that both SR/RR and the CNAME are
very important for new session participants to be able to utilize any
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
received media and to avoid flooding the network with RTCP reports.
In addition the dynamic nature of the information provided would make
it less useful if not sent regularly.
The following sections will describe the cases when reduced-size RTCP
is beneficial and also show the possible issues that must be
considered.
3.2. Use Cases for Reduced-Size RTCP
Below are listed a few use cases for reduced-size RTCP.
Control Plane Signaling: Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Push-to-talk
over Cellular (PoC) [OMA-PoC] makes use of reduced-size RTCP when
transmitting certain events. The OMA POC service is primarily
used over cellular links capable of IP transport, such as the GSM
GPRS.
Codec Control Signaling: An example that can be used with reduced-
size RTCP is e.g TMMBR messages as specified in [RFC5104] which
signal a request for a change in codec bitrate. The benefit of
its use for these messages is in bad channel conditions as
reduced-size RTCP are much more likely to be successfully
transmitted than larger compound RTCP. This is critical as these
messages are likely to occur when channel conditions are poor.
Other examples of codec control usage for reduced-size RTCP are
found in [MTSI-3GPP]
Feedback: An example of a feedback scenario that would benefit from
reduced-size RTCP is Video streams with generic NACK. In cases
where the RTT is shorter than the receiver buffer depth, generic
NACK can be used to request retransmission of missing packets,
thus improving playout quality considerably. If the generic NACK
packets are transmitted as reduced-size RTCP, the bandwidth
requirement for RTCP will be minimal, enabling more frequent
feedback. As in the codec control case it is important that these
packets can be transmitted with as little delay as possible.
Another interesting use for reduced-size RTCP is in cases when
regular feedback is needed, as described in Section 3.3.
Status Reports: One proposed idea is to transmit small measurement
or status reports in reduced-size RTCP, and to be able to split
the minimal compound RTCP and transmit the individual RTCP
separately. The status reports can be used either by the
endpoints or by other network monitoring boxes in the network.
The benefit is that with some radio access technologies small
packets are more robust to poor radio conditions than large
packets. Additionally, with small (report) packets there is a
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
smaller risk that the report packets will affect the channel that
they report upon. Another benefit is that it is possible, with
reduced-size RTCP, to allow e.g anonymous status reporting to be
transmitted unencrypted. This is something that may be beneficial
for e.g network monitoring purposes.
3.3. Benefits of Reduced-Size RTCP
As mentioned in the introduction, most advantages of using reduced-
size RTCP packets exists in cases when the available RTCP bitrate is
limited. This because they can become substantially smaller than
compound packets. A compound packet is forced to contain both an RR
or an SR and the CNAME SDES item. The RR containing a report block
for a single source is 32 bytes, an SR is 52 bytes. Both may be
larger if they contain report blocks for multiple sources. The SDES
packet containing a CNAME item will be 10 bytes plus the CNAME string
length. Here it is reasonable that the CNAME string is at least 10
bytes to get a decent collision resistance. If the recommended form
of user@host is used, then most strings will be longer than 20
characters. Thus a reduced-size RTCP can become at least 70-80 bytes
smaller than the compound packet.
For low bitrate links the benefits of this reduction in size are as
follows:
o For links where the packet loss rate grows with the packet size,
smaller packets are be less likely to be dropped. Radio links are
an example of such links. In the cellular world there exist links
that are optimized to handle RTP packets sized for carrying
compressed speech. This increases the capacity and coverage for
voice services in a given wireless network. Minimal compound RTCP
packets are commonly 2-3 times the size of a RTP packet carrying
compressed speech. If the speech packet over such a bearer has a
packet loss probability of p, then the RTCP packet will experience
a loss probability of 1-(1-p)^x where x is the number of fragments
the compound packet will be split on the link layer, i.e. commonly
into 2 or 3 fragments.
o Shorter serialization time, i.e the time it takes the link to
transmit the packet. For slower links this time can be
substantial. For example transmitting 120 bytes over an link
interface capable of 30 kbps takes 32 milliseconds (ms) assuming
uniform transmission rate.
In cases when reduced-size RTCP carries important and time sensitive
feedback, both shorter serialization time and the lower loss
probability are important to enable the best possible functionality.
Having a packet loss rate that is much higher for the feedback
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
packets compared to media packets hurts when trying to perform media
adaptation, to for example handle the changed performance present at
the cell border in a cellular system.
For high bitrate applications there is usually no problem to supply
RTCP with sufficient bitrates. When using AVPF one can use the "trr-
int" parameter to restrict the regular reporting interval to
approximately once per RTT or less often. As in most cases there is
little reason to provide with regular reports of higher density than
this, any additional bandwidth can then be used for feedback
messages. The benefit of reduced-size RTCP in this case is limited,
but exists. One typical example is video using generic NACK in cases
where the RTT is low. Using reduced-size RTCP would reduce the total
amount of bits used for RTCP. This is primarily applicable if the
number of reports is large. This would also result in lower
processing delay and less complexity for the feedback packets as they
do not need to query the RTCP database to construct the right
messages.
As message size is generally a smaller issue at higher bitrates, it
is also possible to transmit multiple RTCP in each lower layer
datagram in these cases. The motivation behind reduced-size RTCP in
this case is not size, rather it is to avoid the extra overhead
caused by inclusion of the SR/RR and SDES CNAME items in each
transmitted RTCP.
Independently of the link type there are additional benefits with
sending feedback in small reduced-size RTCP. Applications that use
RTCP AVPF in early or immediate mode need to send frequent event
driven feedback. Under these circumstances, the risk is reduced that
the RTCP bandwidth becomes too high during periods of heavy feedback
signaling.
In cases when regular feedback is needed, such as the profile under
development for TCP friendly rate control (TFRC) for RTP
[I-D.ietf-avt-tfrc-profile], the size of compound RTCP can result in
very high bandwidth requirements if the round trip time is short.
For this particular application reduced-size RTCP gives a very
substantial improvement.
3.4. Issues with Reduced-Size RTCP
This section describes the known issues with reduced-size RTCP and
also a brief analysis of their effects and mitigation.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
3.4.1. Middle Boxes
Middle boxes in the network may discard RTCP that do not follow the
rules outlined in section 6.1 of RFC3550. Newer report types may be
interpreted as unknown by the middle box. For instance if the
payload type number is 207 instead of 200 or 201 it may be treated as
unknown. The effect of this might for instance be that compound RTCP
would get through while the reduced-size RTCP would be lost.
Verification of the delivery of reduced-size RTCP is discussed in
Section 4.2.1.
3.4.2. Packet Validation
A reduced-size RTCP packet will be discarded by the packet validation
code in Appendix A of [RFC3550]. This has several impacts:
Weakened Packet Validation: The packet validation code needs to be
rewritten to accept reduced-size RTCP. This in particular affects
section 9.1 in [RFC3550] in the sense that the header verification
must take into account that the payload type numbers for the
(first) RTCP in the lower layer datagram may differ from 200 or
201 (SR or RR). One potential effect of this change is much
weaker validation that received packets actually are RTCP, and not
packets of some other type being wrongly delivered. Thus some
consideration should be done to ensure the best possible
validation is available. For example restricting reduced-size
RTCP to contain only some specific RTCP packet types, that are
preferably signalled on a per-session basis. However, the
application of a security mechanism for source authentication on
the packets will provide much stronger protection.
Old RTP Receivers: Any RTCP receiver without updated packet
validation code will discard the reduced-size RTCP which means
that the receiver will not see e.g the contained feedback
messages. The effect of this depends on the type of feedback
message and the role of the receiver. For example this may cause
complete function loss in the case of attempting to use a reduced
size NACK message (see Section 6.2.1 of [RFC4585]) to non updated
media sender in a session using the retransmission scheme defined
by [RFC4588]. This type of discarding would also affect the
feedback suppression defined in AVPF. The result would be a
partitioning of the receivers within the session between old ones
only seeing the compound RTCP feedback messages and the newer ones
seeing both, where the old ones may send feedback messages for
events already reported on in reduced-size RTCP.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
Bandwidth Considerations: The discarding of reduced-size RTCP would
affect the RTCP transmission calculation in the following way: the
avg_rtcp_size value would become larger than for RTP receivers
that exclude the reduced-size RTCP in this calculation (assuming
that reduced-size RTCP are smaller than compound ones). Therefore
these senders would under-utilize the available bitrate and send
with a longer interval than updated receivers. For most sessions
this should not be an issue. However for sessions with a large
portion of reduced-size RTCP the updated receivers may time out
non-updated senders prematurely. This is however not likely to
occur, as the time between compound RTCP transmissions needs to
become 5 times that used by the reduced-sized RTCP senders for it
to happen.
Computation of avg_rtcp_size: Long intervals between compound RTCP
with many reduced-size RTCP in between may lead to a computation
of a value for avg_rtcp_size that varies greatly over time.
Investigation shows that although it varies this is not enough of
a problem to warrant further changes or complexities to the RTCP
scheduling algorithm.
3.4.3. Encryption/authentication
SRTP presents a problem for reduced-size RTCP. Section 3.4 in
[RFC3711] states "SRTCP MUST be given packets according to that
requirement in the sense that the first part MUST be a sender report
or a receiver report".
Upon examination of how SRTP process packets it becomes obvious that
SRTP has no real dependency on whether the first packet is an SR or
an RR packet. What is needed is the common RTCP packet header, which
is present in all the packet types, with a source SSRC. The
conclusion is therefore that it is possible to use reduced-size RTCP
with SRTP. Nevertheless, as this implies a change to the rules in
[RFC3711] changes in SRTP implementations MAY become necessary.
3.4.4. RTP and RTCP Multiplex on the Same Port
In applications which multiplex RTP and RTCP on the same port, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux], care must be taken to
ensure that the de-multiplexing is done properly even though the RTCP
packets are reduced size. The downside of reduced size RTCP is that
more values representing RTCP packets exist, reducing the available
RTP payload type space. However, section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux] already requires the corresponding
RTP payload type range not be used when performing this multiplexing.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
3.4.5. Header Compression
Two issues are related to header compression. Possible changes are
left for future work:
o Payload type number identification: The RoHC header compression
algorithm [RFC3095] needs to create different compression contexts
for RTP and RTCP for optimum performance. If RTP and RTCP are
multiplexed on the same port the classification may be based on
payload type numbers. The classification algorithm must here
acknowledge the fact that the payload type number for (the first)
RTCP may differ from 200 or 201.
o Compression of RTCP: No IETF defined header compression method
compress RTCP, however if such methods are developed in the
future, these methods must take reduced-size RTCP in account.
4. Use of Reduced-size RTCP with AVPF
Based on the above analysis it seems feasible to allow transmission
of reduced-size RTCP under some restrictions:
o First of all it is important that compound RTCP are transmitted at
regular intervals to ensure that the mechanisms maintained by the
compound packets, like feedback reporting works. The tracking of
session size and number of participants warrants mentioning again
as this ensures that the RTCP bandwidth remain bounded independent
of the number of session participants.
o Second, as the compound RTCP are also used to establish and
maintain synchronization between media, any newly joining
participant in a session would need to receive compound RTCP from
the media sender(s).
This implies that the regular transmission of compound RTCP MUST be
maintained throughout an RTP session. Reduced-size RTCP SHOULD be
restricted to be used as extra RTCP (e.g feedback) sent in cases when
a regular compound RTCP packet would not otherwise have been sent.
The usage of reduced-size RTCP SHALL only be done in RTP sessions
operating in AVPF [RFC4585] or SAVPF [RFC5124] Early or Immediate
mode. Reduced-size RTCP SHALL NOT be sent until at least one
compound RTCP has been sent. In Immediate mode all feedback messages
MAY be sent as reduced-size RTCP. In early mode a feedback message
scheduled for transmission as an Early RTCP, i.e not a Regular RTCP,
MAY be sent as reduced-size RTCP. All RTCP that are scheduled for
transmission as Regular RTCP SHALL be sent as compound RTCP as
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
indicated by AVPF [RFC4585].
4.1. Definition of Reduced-Size RTCP
A reduced-size RTCP packet is an RTCP packet with the following
properties that makes it deviate from the compound RTCP packet
definition given in section 6.1 in [RFC3550]:
o Contains one or more RTCP packet(s)
o Any RTCP packet type allowed, however see section Section 4.2.1.
o MUST NOT be used for regular (scheduled) RTCP report purposes
o MUST NOT be used with the RTP/AVP profile [RFC3551] or the RTP/
SAVP profile [RFC3711].
4.2. Algorithm Considerations
4.2.1. Verification of Delivery
If an application is to use reduced-size RTCP it is important to
verify that the reduced-size RTCP packets actually reach the session
participants. As outlined above in Section 3.4.1 and Section 3.4.2
packets may be discarded along the path or in the end-point.
A few verification rules are RECOMMENDED to ensure robust RTCP
transmission and reception and to solve the identified issues when
reduced-size RTCP is used:
o The end-point issue can be solved by introducing signaling that
informs if all session participants are capable of reduced-size
RTCP. See Section 5.
o The middle box issue is more difficult and here one will be
required to use heuristics to determine if the reduced-size RTCP
are delivered or not. The method used to detect successful
delivery of reduced-size RTCP packets depends on the packet type.
The RTCP packet types for which successful delivery can be
detected are:
* Sender reports (SR): Successful transmission of a sender report
can be verified by inspection of the echoed timestamp in the
received receiver report (RR). This can also be used as a
method to verify if reduced-size RTCP can be used at all.
* Feedback RTCP packets: In many cases the feedback messages sent
using reduced-size RTCP will result in either explicit or
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
implicit indications that they have been received. An example
of is the RTP retransmission [RFC4588] that results from a NACK
message [RFC4585]. Another example is the Temporary Maximum
Media Bitrate Notification message resulting from a Temporary
Maximum Media Bitrate Request [RFC5104]. A third example is
the presence of a Decoder Refresh Point [RFC5104] in the video
media stream resulting from the Full Intra Request sent.
RTCP packet types for which it is not possible to detect
successful delivery SHOULD NOT be transmitted as reduced-size RTCP
packets unless they are transmitted in the same lower-layer
datagram as another RTCP packet type for which successful delivery
can be detected.
o An algorithm to detect consistent failure of delivery of reduced-
size RTCP MUST be used by any application using it. The details
of this algorithm are application dependent and therefore outside
the scope of this document.
If the verification fails it is strongly RECOMMENDED that only
compound RTCP according to the rules outlined in RFC3550 is
transmitted.
4.2.2. Single vs Multiple RTCP in a Reduced-Size RTCP
The result of the definition in Section 4.1 may be that the resulting
size of reduced-size RTCP can become larger than a regularly
scheduled compound RTCP packet. For applications that use access
types that are sensitive to packet size (see Paragraph 2 in
Section 3.3) it is strongly RECOMMENDED that the use of reduced-size
RTCP is limited to the transmission of a single RTCP packet in each
lower layer datagram. The method to determine the need for this is
outside the scope of this draft.
In general, as the benefit with large sized reduced-size RTCP packets
is very limited, it is strongly RECOMMENDED to transmit large
reduced-size RTCP packets as compound RTCP packets instead.
4.2.3. Enforcing Compound RTCP
As discussed earlier it is important that the transmission of
compound RTCP occurs at regular intervals. However, this will occur
as long as the RTCP senders follow the AVPF scheduling algorithm
defined in Section 3.5 in [RFC4585]. This follows as all regular
RTCP MUST be full compound RTCP. Note that there is also a
requirement on sending regular RTCP in immediate mode.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
4.2.4. Immediate Mode
Section 3.3 in RFC4585 gives the option to use AVPF Immediate mode as
long as the groupsize is below a certain limit. As transmission
using reduced-size RTCP may reduce the bandwidth demand it also opens
up the possibility of a more liberal use of immediate mode.
5. Signaling
This document defines the "a=rtcp-rsize" SDP [RFC4566] attribute to
indicate if the session participant is capable of supporting reduced-
size RTCP for applications that uses SDP for configuration of RTP
sessions. It is REQUIRED that a participant that proposes the use of
reduced-size RTCP shall itself support the reception of reduced-size
RTCP.
An offering client that wishes to use reduced-size RTCP MUST include
the attribute "a=rtcp-rsize" in the SDP offer. If "a=rtcp-rsize" is
present in the offer SDP, the answerer that supports reduced-size
RTCP and wishes to use it SHALL include the "a=rtcp-rsize" attribute
in the answer.
In declarative usage of SDP such as RTSP [RFC2326] and SAP [RFC2974]
the presence of the attribute indicates that the session participant
MAY use reduced size RTCP packets in its RTCP transmissions.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RTP [RFC3550] and AVPF [RFC4585] will
apply also to reduced-size RTCP. The reduction in validation
strength for received packets on the RTCP port may result in a higher
degree of acceptance of spurious data as real RTCP. This
vulnerability can mostly be addressed by usage of any security
mechanism that provide authentication; one such mechanism is SRTP
[RFC3711].
7. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines in [RFC4566], the IANA is requested to
register one new SDP attribute:
o Contact name, email address and telephone number: Authors of
RFCXXXX
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
o Attribute-name: rtcp-rsize
o Long-form attribute name: Reduced-size RTCP
o Type of attribute: media-level
o Subject to charset: no
This attribute defines the support for reduced-size RTCP, i.e the
possibility to transmit RTCP that does not conform to the rules for
compound RTCP defined in RFC3550. It is a property attribute, which
does not take a value.
Note to RFC Editor: please replace "RFC XXXX" above with the RFC
number of this memo, and remove this note.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the people who gave feedback on
this document. Special thanks go to Colin Perkins.
This document also contain some text copied from [RFC3550],
[RFC4585]and [RFC3711]. We take the opportunity to thank the authors
of said documents.
9. References
9.1. 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.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
July 2003.
[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.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux]
Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port",
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-07 (work in progress),
August 2007.
[I-D.ietf-avt-tfrc-profile]
Gharai, L., "RTP with TCP Friendly Rate Control",
draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-10 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[MTSI-3GPP]
3GPP, "Specification : 3GPP TS 26.114 (v7.4.0), http://
www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/26_series/26.114/
26114-740.zip", March 2007.
[OMA-PoC] Open Mobile Alliance, "Specification : Push to talk Over
Cellular User Plane, http://www.openmobilealliance.org/
release_program/docs/PoC/V1_0_1-20061128-A/
OMA-TS-PoC-UserPlane-V1_0_1-20061128-A.pdf",
November 2006.
[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.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Reduced size RTCP in RTP profile Feb 2009
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
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.
Authors' Addresses
Ingemar Johansson
Ericsson AB
Laboratoriegrand 11
SE-971 28 Lulea
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 73 0783289
Email: ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson AB
Faeroegatan 6
SE-164 80 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 10 7148287
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Johansson & Westerlund Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 17]
