One document matched: draft-watson-fecframe-rtp-raptor-00.txt
FEC Framework Working Group M. Watson
Internet-Draft Digital Fountain
Intended status: Standards Track October 22, 2008
Expires: April 25, 2009
RTP Payload Format for Raptor FEC
draft-watson-fecframe-rtp-raptor-00
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 25, 2009.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
Abstract
This document specifies an RTP Payload Format for Forward Error
Correction repair data produced by the Raptor FEC Schemes. Raptor
FEC Schemes are specified for use with the IETF FEC Framework which
supports transport of repair data over both UDP and RTP. This
document specifies the Payload Format which is required for the use
of RTP to carry Raptor repair flows.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Media Format Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Payload Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Payload Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Registration of the application/raptorfec media type . . . 8
6.1.1. Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Registration of the video/raptorfec media type . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Registration of the audio/raptorfec media type . . . . . . 10
6.3.1. Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4. Registration of the text/raptorfec media type . . . . . . 11
6.4.1. Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Offer/Answer considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Declarative SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
1. Introduction
The FEC Framework [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework] defines a general
framework for the use of Forward Error Correction in association with
arbitrary packet flows, including flows over UDP and RTP. Forward
Error Corrections operates by generating redundant data packets
("repair data") which can be sent independently from the original
flow. At a receiver the original flow can be reconstructed provided
a sufficient set of redundant data packets and possibly original data
packets are received.
The FEC Framework provides for independence between application
protocols and FEC codes. The use of a particular FEC code within the
framework is defined by means of an FEC Scheme which may then be used
with any application protocol compliant to the framework.
Repair data flows may be sent directly over a transport protocol such
as UDP, or they may be encapsulated within RTP. In the latter case,
an RTP Payload Format must be defined for each FEC Scheme.
This document defines the RTP Payload Format for the Raptor FEC
Schemes defined in [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor].
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms
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].
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
3. Media Format Background
The Raptor code is an efficient XOR-based block-based fountain code,
meaning that from any group of source packets an arbitrary number of
repair packets may be generated. The Raptor code has the property
that the original group of source packets can be recovered with very
high probability from any set of packets (source and repair) only
slightly greater in number than the original number of source
packets.
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor] defines three FEC Schemes for the use of
the Raptor code with arbitary packet flows: the first scheme is fully
applicable to arbitary packet flows. The second scheme is a slightly
optimised version of the first scheme which is applicable in
applications with relatively small block sizes. The third scheme is
a variant of the second scheme which is applicable to a single source
flow which already has some kind of identifiable sequence number.
The presence of a sequence number in the source flow allows for
backwards compatible operation (the source flows do not need to be
modified in order to apply FEC). In this case in the language of the
FEC Framework, there is no explicit FEC Source Payload Id.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
4. Payload Format
The RTP Payload contains a FEC Repair Payload as defined in
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor].
4.1. RTP Header Usage
The rules SHALL be followed for the RTP header used with FEC repair
packets:
o Marker bit: The marker bit shall be set 1 for the last protection
RTP packet sent for each source block, and otherwise set to 0
o Timestamp: The timestamp SHALL be set to a time corresponding to
the packet's transmission time. The timestamp value has no use in
the actual FEC protection process. It may be used for packet
arrival timing and jitter calculations.
4.2. Payload Header
There is no Payload Header in this Payload Format
4.3. Payload Data
The RTP Payload contains a FEC Repair Payload as defined in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework] and [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor].
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
5. Congestion Control Considerations
See [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework].
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
6. Media Types
6.1. Registration of the application/raptorfec media type
This RTP payload format is identified using the application/raptorfec
media type which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and using
the template of [RFC4288].
6.1.1. Media Type Definition
Type name: application
Subtype name: raptorfec
Required parameters:
raptor-scheme-id: The value of this parameter is the FEC Scheme Id
for the specific Raptor FEC Scheme that will be used as defined in
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed and binary, see
section 4.8 in [RFC4288]
Security considerations: Please see security consideration in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Interoperability considerations:
Published specification: [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Applications that use this media type:
Additional information:
Magic number(s): <none defined>
File extension(s): <none defined>
Macintosh file type code(s): <none defined>
Person & email address to contact for further information: Mark
Watson, mark@digitalfountain.com
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [[RFC3550]]. Transport
within other framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Mark Watson, Digital Fountain
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated
from the IESG.
6.2. Registration of the video/raptorfec media type
This RTP payload format is identified using the video/raptorfec media
type which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and using the
template of [RFC4288].
6.2.1. Media Type Definition
Type name: video
Subtype name: raptorfec
Required parameters:
raptor-scheme-id: The value of this parameter is the FEC Scheme Id
for the specific Raptor FEC Scheme that will be used as defined in
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed and binary, see
section 4.8 in [RFC4288]
Security considerations: Please see security consideration in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Interoperability considerations:
Published specification: [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Applications that use this media type:
Additional information:
Magic number(s): <none defined>
File extension(s): <none defined>
Macintosh file type code(s): <none defined>
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
Person & email address to contact for further information: Mark
Watson, mark@digitalfountain.com
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [[RFC3550]]. Transport
within other framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Mark Watson, Digital Fountain
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated
from the IESG.
6.3. Registration of the audio/raptorfec media type
This RTP payload format is identified using the audio/raptorfec media
type which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and using the
template of [RFC4288].
6.3.1. Media Type Definition
Type name: audio
Subtype name: raptorfec
Required parameters:
raptor-scheme-id: The value of this parameter is the FEC Scheme Id
for the specific Raptor FEC Scheme that will be used as defined in
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed and binary, see
section 4.8 in [RFC4288]
Security considerations: Please see security consideration in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Interoperability considerations:
Published specification: [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Applications that use this media type:
Additional information:
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
Magic number(s): <none defined>
File extension(s): <none defined>
Macintosh file type code(s): <none defined>
Person & email address to contact for further information: Mark
Watson, mark@digitalfountain.com
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [[RFC3550]]. Transport
within other framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Mark Watson, Digital Fountain
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated
from the IESG.
6.4. Registration of the text/raptorfec media type
This RTP payload format is identified using the text/raptorfec media
type which is registered in accordance with [RFC4855] and using the
template of [RFC4288].
6.4.1. Media Type Definition
Type name: text
Subtype name: raptorfec
Required parameters:
raptor-scheme-id: The value of this parameter is the FEC Scheme Id
for the specific Raptor FEC Scheme that will be used as defined in
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed and binary, see
section 4.8 in [RFC4288]
Security considerations: Please see security consideration in
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Interoperability considerations:
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
Published specification: [I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Applications that use this media type:
Additional information:
Magic number(s): <none defined>
File extension(s): <none defined>
Macintosh file type code(s): <none defined>
Person & email address to contact for further information: Mark
Watson, mark@digitalfountain.com
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and
hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [[RFC3550]]. Transport
within other framing protocols is not defined at this time.
Author: Mark Watson, Digital Fountain
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated
from the IESG.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
7. Mapping to SDP
The mapping of the above defined payload format media type and its
parameters SHALL be done according to Section 3 of [RFC4855]
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
8. Offer/Answer considerations
None.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
9. Declarative SDP Considerations
None.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
10. IANA Considerations
This memo requests that IANA registers application/raptorfec as
specified in Section 6.1.1, video/raptorfec as specified in
Section 6.2.1, audio/raptorfec as specified in Section 6.3.1 and
text/raptorfec as specified in Section 6.4.1. The media type is also
requested to be added to the IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format
MIME types" (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters).
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
11. Security Considerations
See [I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
12. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, August 2007.
[RFC2736] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP
Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736,
December 1999.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007.
[I-D.ietf-fecframe-framework]
Watson, M., "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework",
draft-ietf-fecframe-framework-02 (work in progress),
July 2008.
[I-D.watson-fecframe-raptor]
Watson, M., "Raptor FEC Schemes for FECFRAME",
draft-watson-fecframe-raptor-00 (work in progress),
July 2008.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 2008
Author's Address
Mark Watson
Digital Fountain
39141 Civic Center Drive
Suite 300
Fremont, CA 94538
U.S.A.
Email: mark@digitalfountain.com
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Fromat for Raptor October 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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 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.
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
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.
Watson Expires April 25, 2009 [Page 20]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 06:21:02 |