Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext


AVT                                                            D. Singer
Internet-Draft                                       Apple Computer Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                             H. Desineni
Expires: September 12, 2008                                     Qualcomm
                                                          March 11, 2008

             A general mechanism for RTP Header Extensions

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008


   This document provides a general mechanism to use the header-
   extension feature of RTP (the Real Time Transport Protocol).  It
   provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each
   RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and
   registration is de-centralized.  The actual extensions in use in a
   session are signaled in the setup information for that session.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Packet Design  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  One-byte header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Two-byte header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  SDP Signaling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Offer/Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  BNF Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1.  Identifier space for IANA to manage  . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Registration of the SDP extmap attribute . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

1.  Introduction

   The RTP Specification [RFC3550] provides a capability to extend the
   RTP header.  It defines the header extension format and rules for its
   use in section 5.3.1.  The existing header extension method permits
   at most one extension per RTP packet, identified by a 16-bit
   identifier and a 16-bit length field specifying the length of the
   header extension in 32-bit words.

   This mechanism has two conspicuous drawbacks.  First, it permits only
   one header extension in a single RTP packet.  Second, the
   specification gives no guidance as to how the 16-bit header extension
   identifiers are allocated to avoid collisions.

   This specification removes the first drawback by defining a backward-
   compatible and extensible means to carry multiple header extension
   elements in a single RTP packet.  It removes the second drawback by
   defining that these extension elements are named by URIs, defines an
   IANA registry for extension elements defined in IETF specifications,
   and an SDP method for mapping between the naming URIs and the
   identifier values carried in the RTP packets.

   This header extension applies to the RTP/AVP profile and its

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

3.  Design Goals

   The goal of this design is to provide a simple mechanism whereby
   multiple identified extensions can be used in RTP packets, without
   the need for formal registration of those extensions but nonetheless
   avoiding collision.

   This mechanism provides an alternative to the practice of burying
   associated metadata into the media format bit stream.  This has often
   been done in media data sent over fixed-bandwidth channels.  Once
   this is done, a decoder for the specific media format is required to
   extract the metadata.  Also, depending on the media format, the
   metadata may need to be added at the time of encoding the media so
   that the bit-rate required for the metadata is taken into account.
   But the metadata may not be known at that time.  Inserting metadata
   at a later time can require a decode and re-encode to meet bit-rate

   In some cases a more appropriate, higher level mechanism may be
   available, and if so, it should be used.  For cases where a higher
   level mechanism is not available, it is better to provide a mechanism
   at the RTP level than have the meta-data be tied to a specific form
   of media data.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

4.  Packet Design

4.1.  General

   The following design is fit into the "header extension" of the RTP
   extension, as described above.

   The presence and format of this header extension and its contents is
   negotiated or defined out-of-band, such as through signaling (see
   below for SDP signaling).  The value defined for an RTP extension
   (defined below for the one-byte and two-byte header forms) are only
   architectural constants (e.g. for use by network analyzers); it is
   the negotiation/definition (e.g. in SDP) which is the definitive
   indication that this header extension is present.

   This specification inherits the requirement from the RTP
   specification that the header extension "is designed so that the
   header extension may be ignored".  To be specific, header extensions
   using this specification MUST only be used for data that can safely
   be ignored by the recipient without affecting interoperability, and
   MUST NOT be used when the presence of the extension has changed the
   form or nature of the rest of the packet in a way that is not
   compatible with the way the stream is signaled (e.g as defined by the
   payload type).  Valid examples might include meta-data that is
   additional to the usual RTP information.

   The RTP header extension is formed as a sequence of extension
   elements, with possible padding.  Each extension element has a local
   identifier and a length.  The local identifiers may be mapped to a
   larger namespace in the negotiation (e.g. session signaling).

   As is good network practice, data should only be transmitted when
   needed.  The RTP header extension should only be present in a packet
   if that packet also contains one or more extension elements, as
   defined here.  An extension element should only be present in a
   packet when needed; the signaling setup of extension elements
   indicates only that those elements may be present in some packets,
   not that they are in fact present in all (or indeed, any) packets.

   Each extension element in a packet has a local identifier (ID) and a
   length.  The local identifiers present in the stream MUST have been
   negotiated or defined out-of-band.  There are no static allocations
   of local identifiers.  Each distinct extension MUST have a unique ID.
   The value 0 is reserved for padding and MUST NOT be used as a local

   There are two variants of the extension: one-byte and two-byte
   headers.  Since it is expected that (a) the number of extensions in

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

   any given RTP session is small and (b) the extensions themselves are
   small, the one-byte header form is preferred and MUST be supported by
   all receivers.  A stream MUST contain only one-byte or two-byte
   headers: they MUST NOT be mixed within a stream.  Transmitters SHOULD
   NOT use the two byte form when all extensions are small enough for
   the one-byte header form.

   A sequence of extension elements, possibly with padding, forms the
   header extension defined in the RTP specification.  There are as many
   extension elements as fit into the length as indicated in the RTP
   header-extension length.  Since this length is signaled in full 32-
   bit words, padding bytes are used to pad to a 32-bit boundary.  The
   entire extension is parsed byte-by-byte to find each extension
   element (no alignment is required), and parsing stops at the earlier
   of the end of the entire header extension, or, in one-byte headers,
   on encountering an identifier with the reserved value of 15.

   In both forms, padding bytes have the value of 0 (zero).  They may be
   placed between extension elements, if desired for alignment, or after
   the last extension element, if needed for padding.  A padding byte
   does not supply the ID of an element, nor the length field.  When a
   padding byte is found it is ignored and the parser moves on to
   interpreting the next byte.

   Note carefully that the one-byte header form allows for data lengths
   between 1 and 16 bytes, by adding 1 to the signaled length value
   (thus, 0 in the length field indicates 1 byte of data follows); this
   allows for the important case of 16-byte payloads.  This addition is
   not performed for the two-byte headers, where the length field
   signals data lengths between 0 and 255 bytes.

   Use of RTP header extensions will reduce the efficiency of RTP header
   compression, since the header extension will be sent uncompressed
   unless the RTP header compression module is updated to recognise the
   extension header.  If header extensions are present in some packets,
   but not in others, this can also reduce compression efficiency by
   requiring an update to the fixed header to be conveyed when header
   extensions start or stop being sent.  The interactions of the RTP
   header extension and header compression is explored further in
   [RFC2508] and [RFC3095].

4.2.  One-byte header

   In the one-byte header form of extensions, the 16-bit value required
   by the RTP specification for a header extension, labelled in the RTP
   specification as "defined by profile", takes the fixed bit pattern
   0xBEDE (the first draft of this specification was written on the
   feast day of the Venerable Bede).

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

   Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      |  ID   |  len  |

   The 4-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
   1-14 inclusive.  In the signaling section this is referred to as the
   valid range.

   The local identifier value 15 is reserved for future extension and
   MUST NOT be used as an identifier.  If the ID value 15 is
   encountered, its length field should be ignored, processing of the
   entire extension should terminate at that point, and only the
   extension elements present prior to the element with ID 15

   The 4-bit length is the number minus one of data bytes of this header
   extension element following the one-byte header.  Therefore the value
   zero in this field indicates that one byte of data follows, and a
   value of 15 (the maximum) indicates element data of 16 bytes.  (This
   permits carriage of 16-byte values, which is a common length of
   labels and identifiers, while losing the possibility of zero-length
   values - which would often be padded anyway.)

   An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
   padding, and including the required RTP fields, follows:

       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
      |       0xBE    |    0xDE       |           length=3            |
      |  ID   | L=0   |     data      |  ID   |  L=1  |   data...
     |    0 (pad)    |    0 (pad)    |  ID   | L=3   |
      |                          data                                 |

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

4.3.  Two-byte header

   In the two-byte header form, the 16-bit value required by the RTP
   specification for a header extension, labelled in the RTP
   specification as "defined by profile" is defined as shown below.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      |         0x100         |appbits|

   The appbits field is 4 bits that are application-dependent and may be
   defined to be any value or meaning, and are outside the scope of this
   specification.  For the purposes of signaling, this field is treated
   as a special extension value assigned to the local identifier 256.
   If no extension has been specified through configuration or
   signalling for this local identifier value 256, the appbits field
   SHOULD be set to all 0s by the sender and MUST be ignored by the

   Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a byte
   containing a length:

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      |       ID      |     length    |

   The 8-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
   1-255 inclusive.  In the signaling section the range 1-256 is
   referred to as the valid range, with the values 1-255 referring to
   extension elements, and the value 256 referring to the 4-bit field
   'appbits' (above).

   The 8-bit length field is the length of extension data in bytes not
   including the ID and length fields.  The value zero indicates there
   is no data following.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

   An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
   padding, and including the required RTP fields, follows:

       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
      |       0x10    |    0x00       |           length=3            |
      |      ID       |     L=0       |     ID        |     L=1       |
      |       data    |    0 (pad)    |       ID      |      L=4      |
      |                          data                                 |

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

5.  SDP Signaling Design

   The indication of the presence of this extension, and the mapping of
   local identifiers used in the header extension to a larger namespace
   MUST be performed out of band, for example as part of a SIP offer/
   answer exchange using SDP.  This section defines such signaling in

   A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the valid range, and each ID in this
   range MUST be used only once for each media (or only once if the
   mappings are session level).  Mappings which do not conform to these
   rules MAY be presented, for instance during offer/answer negotiation
   as described in the next section, but remapping to conformant values
   is necessary before they can be applied.

   Each extension is named by a URI.  That URI MUST be absolute, and
   precisely identifies the format and meaning of the extension.  In
   general, the URI SHOULD also be de-referencable by any system that
   sees or receives the SDP containing it.  URIs that contain a domain
   name SHOULD also contain a month-date in the form mmyyyy.  The
   definition of the element and assignment of the URI MUST have been
   authorized by the owner of the domain name on or very close to that
   date.  (This avoids problems when domain names change ownership).  If
   the resource or document defines several extensions, then the URI
   MUST identify the actual extension in use, e.g. using a fragment or
   query identifier (characters after a '#' or '?' in the URI).

   Rationale: the use of URIs provides for a large, unallocated space,
   gives documentation on the extension.  The URIs are not required to
   be de-referencable, in order to permit confidential or experimental
   use, and to cover the case when extensions continue to be used after
   the organization that defined them ceases to exist.

   An extension URI with the same attributes MUST NOT appear more than
   once applying to the same stream, i.e. at session level or in the
   declarations for a single stream at media level.  (The same extension
   may, of course, be used for several streams, and may appear
   differently parameterized for the same stream.)

   For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI used SHOULD be a URN starting
   "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:" and followed by a registered,
   descriptive name.

   The registration requirements are detailed in the IANA
   Considerations, below.

   An example (this is only an example), where 'avt-example-metadata' is
   the hypothetical name of a header extension, might be:

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008


   An example name not from the IETF (this is only an example) might be:

   The mapping may be provided per media-stream (in the media level
   section(s) of SDP, i.e. after an "m=" line) or globally for all
   streams (i.e. before the first "m=" line, at session level).  The
   definitions MUST be either all session level or all media level; it
   is not permitted to mix the two styles.  In addition, as noted above,
   the IDs used MUST be unique for each stream type for a given media,
   or for the session for session level declarations.

   Each local identifier potentially used in the stream is mapped to a
   string using an attribute of the form:

   a=extmap:<value>["/"<direction>] <URI> <extensionattributes>

   where <URI> is a URI, as above, <value> is the local identifier (ID)
   of this extension, and is an integer in the valid range inclusive (0
   is reserved for padding in both forms, and 15 is reserved in the one-
   byte header form, as noted above), and <direction> is one of
   "sendonly", "recvonly", "sendrecv", "inactive" (without the quotes).

   The formal BNF syntax is presented in a later section of this



   a=extmap:2/sendrecv short

   When SDP signaling is used for the RTP session, it is the presence of
   the 'extmap' attribute(s) which is diagnostic that this style of
   header extensions is used, not the magic number indicated above.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

6.  Offer/Answer

   The simple signaling described above may be enhanced in an offer/
   answer context, to permit:

   o  asymmetric behavior (extensions sent in only one direction);

   o  the offer of mutually-exclusive alternatives;

   o  the offer of more extensions than can be sent in a single session.

   A direction attribute MAY be included in an extmap; without it, the
   direction implicitly inherits, of course, from the stream direction,
   or is "sendrecv" for session level attributes or extensions of
   "inactive" streams.  The direction MUST be one of "sendonly",
   "recvonly", "sendrecv", "inactive".  A "sendonly" direction indicates
   an ability to send; a "recvonly" direction indicates a desire to
   receive; a "sendrecv" direction indicates both.  An "inactive"
   direction indicates neither, but later re-negotiation may make an
   extension active.

   Extensions, with their directions, may be signaled for an "inactive"
   stream.  It is an error to use an extension direction incompatible
   with the stream direction (e.g. a "sendonly" attribute for a
   "recvonly" stream).

   If an offer or answer contains session level mappings (and hence no
   media level mappings), and different behavior is desired for each
   stream, then the entire set of extension map declarations may be
   moved into the media level section(s) of the SDP.  (Note that this
   specification does not permit mixing global and local declarations,
   to make identifier management easier).

   If an extension map is offered as "sendrecv", explicitly or
   implicitly, and asymmetric behavior is desired, the SDP may be
   modified to modify or add direction qualifiers for that extension.

   If an extension is marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to
   receive it, the extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP
   answer.  An answerer which has no desire to receive the extension or
   does not understand the extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP

   If an extension is marked as "recvonly" and the answerer desires to
   send it, the extension MUST be marked as "sendonly" in the SDP
   answer.  An answerer which has no desire to, or is unable to, send
   the extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP answer.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

   Local identifiers in the valid range inclusive in an offer or answer
   must not be used more than once per media section (including the
   session level section).  A session update MAY change the direction
   qualifiers of extensions under use.  A session update MAY add or
   remove extension(s).  Identifiers values in the valid range MUST NOT
   be altered (remapped).

   Note that, under this rule, the same local identifier cannot be used
   for two extensions for the same media, even when one is "sendonly"
   and the other "recvonly", as it would then be impossible to make
   either of them sendrecv (since re-numbering is not permitted either).

   If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then
   multiple extensions with the same identifier in the (unusable) range
   4096-4351 may be offered; the answerer should select at most one of
   the offered extensions with the same identifier, and remap it to a
   free identifier in the valid range, for that extension to be usable.

   Similarly, if more extensions are offered than can be fit in the
   valid range, identifiers in the range 4096-4351 may be offered; the
   answerer should choose those that are desired, and remap them to a
   free identifier in the valid range.

   It is always allowed to place the offered identifier value "as is" in
   the SDP answer (for example, due to lack of a free identifier value
   in the valid range).  Extensions with an identifier outside the valid
   range cannot, of course, be used.  If required, the offerer or
   answerer can update the session to make space for such an extension.

   Rationale: the range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is
   deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid
   identifiers in future.

   Either party MAY include extensions in the stream other than those
   negotiated, or those negotiated as "inactive", for example for the
   benefit of intermediate nodes.  Only extensions that appeared with an
   identifier in the valid range in SDP originated by the sender can be

   Example (port numbers, RTP profiles, payload IDs and rtpmaps etc. all
   omitted for brevity):

   The offer:

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

   a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
   a=extmap:14 URI-obscure
   a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-string
   a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-binary
   a=extmap:4097 URI-frametype

   The answerer is interested in receiving GPS in string format only on
   video, but cannot send GPS at all.  They are not interested in
   transmission offsets on audio, and do not understand the URI-obscure
   extension.  They therefore move the extensions from session level to
   media level, and adjust the declarations:

   a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
   a=extmap:2/recvonly URI-gps-string
   a=extmap:3 URI-frametype
   a=extmap:1/sendonly URI-toffset

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

7.  BNF Syntax

   The syntax definition below uses ABNF according to [RFC4234].  The
   syntax element 'URI' is defined in [RFC3986] (only absolute URIs are
   permitted here).  The syntax element 'extmap' is an attribute as
   defined in [RFC4566], i.e "a=" precedes the extmap definition.
   Specific extensionattributes are defined by the specification that
   defines a specific extension name; there may be several.

        extmap = mapentry SP extensionname [SP extensionattributes]

        extensionname = URI

        direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive"

        mapentry = "extmap:" 1*5DIGIT ["/" direction]

        extensionattributes = byte-string

        URI = <Defined in RFC 3986>

        byte-string = <Defined in RFC 4566>

        SP = <Defined in RFC 4234>

        DIGIT = <Defined in RFC 4234>

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

8.  Security Considerations

   This defines only a place to transmit information; the security
   implications of the extensions must be discussed with those

   Care should be taken when defining extensions.  Clearly, they should
   be solely informative, but even when the information is extracted,
   should not cause security concerns.

   Header extensions have the same security coverage as the RTP header
   itself.  When SRTP [RFC3711] is used to protect RTP sessions, the RTP
   payload may be both encrypted and integrity protected, while the RTP
   header is either unprotected or integrity protected.  Therefore, it
   is inappropriate to place information in header extensions which
   cause security problems if disclosed, unless the entire RTP packet is
   protected by a lower-layer security protocol providing both
   confidentiality and integrity capability.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Identifier space for IANA to manage

   The mapping from the naming URI form to a reference to a
   specification is managed by IANA.  Insertion into this registry is
   under the requirements of "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC2434].

   The IANA will also maintain a server that contains all of the
   registered elements in a publicly accessible space.

   Here is the formal declaration required by the IETF URN Sub-namespace
   specification [RFC3553].

   o  Registry name: RTP Compact Header Extensions

   o  Specification: RFCxxxx and RFCs updating RFCxxxx.

   o  Information required:

      A.  The desired extension naming URI

      B.  A formal reference to the publicly available specification

      C.  A short phrase describing the function of the extension

      D.  Contact information for the organization or person making the

      For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI is recommended to be of
      the form urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:, and the formal reference is
      the RFC number of the RFC documenting the extension.

   o  Review process: Expert Review is required.  The expert review
      should check the following requirements:

      1.  that the specification is publicly available;

      2.  that the extension complies with the requirements of RTP and
          this specification, for extensions (notably, that the stream
          is still decodable if the extension is ignored or not

      3.  that the extension specification is technically consistent (in
          itself and with RTP), complete, and comprehensible;

      4.  that the extension does not duplicate functionality in
          existing IETF specifications (including RTP itself), or other

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

          extensions already registered;

      5.  that the specification contains a security analysis regarding
          the content of the header extension;

      6.  that the extension is general applicable, for example point to
          multi-point safe and the specification correctly describes
          limitations if they exist;

      7.  that the suggested naming URI form is appropriately chosen and

   o  Size and format of entries: a mapping from a naming URI string to
      a formal reference to a publicly available specification, with a
      descriptive phrase and contact information.

   o  Initial assignments: none.

9.2.  Registration of the SDP extmap attribute

   This section contains the information required by [RFC4566] for an
   SDP attribute.

   o  contact name, email address and telephone number: D. Singer,, +1 408-974-3162

   o  attribute-name (as it will appear in SDP): extmap

   o  long-form attribute name in English: generic header extension map

   o  type of attribute (session level, media level, or both): both

   o  whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute:
      not subject to the charset attribute

   o  a one paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute: This
      attribute defines the mapping from the extension numbers used in
      packet headers into extension names as documented in
      specifications and appropriately registered.

   o  a specification of appropriate attribute values for this
      attribute: see RFCxxxx.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 19]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

10.  RFC Editor Considerations

   RFCxxxx in the IANA considerations needs to be replaced with the RFC

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 20]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

11.  Acknowledgments

   Both Brian Link and John Lazzaro provided helpful comments on an
   initial draft.  Colin Perkins was helpful in reviewing and dealing
   with the details.  The use of URNs for IETF-defined extensions was
   suggested by Jonathan Lennox, and Pete Cordell was instrumental in
   improving the padding wording.  Dave Oran provided feedback and text
   in the review.  Mike Dolan contributed the two-byte header form.
   Magnus Westerlund and Tom Taylor were instrumental in managing the
   registration text.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 21]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

12.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, BCP 26,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2508]  Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
              Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508,
              February 1999.

   [RFC3095]  Bormann, C., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework
              and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed",
              RFC 3095, July 2001.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", RFC 3550, STD 0064, July 2003.

   [RFC3553]  Mealling, T., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
              IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
              Parameters", RFC 3553, June 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, MT., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
              January 2005.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 22]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

Authors' Addresses

   David Singer
   Apple Computer Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014

   Phone: +1 408 996 1010

   Harikishan Desineni
   5775 Morehouse Drive
   San Diego, CA  92126

   Phone: +1 858 845 8996

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 23]
Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions               March 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Singer & Desineni      Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 24]