draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07.txt | draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-08.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Colin Perkins | Colin Perkins | |||
USC/ISI | USC/ISI | |||
RTP Interoperability Statement | RTP Interoperability Statement | |||
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07.txt | draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-08.txt | |||
Status of this memo | Status of this memo | |||
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at | |||
is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite | any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
them other than as work in progress. | material or to cite them other than as work in progress. | |||
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
Distribution of this document is unlimited. | Distribution of this document is unlimited. | |||
Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the | Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶ | |||
of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or more options or | of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or more options or | |||
features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable | features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable | |||
implementations, the specification may advance to the draft standard | implementations, the specification may advance to the draft standard | |||
level only if those options or features are removed. The Real-time | level only if those options or features are removed. The Real-time | |||
Transport Protocol, RTP, was originally specified in RFC1889 as a | Transport Protocol, RTP, was originally specified in RFC1889 as a | |||
proposed standard [2]. The revision of this specification for draft | proposed standard [2]. The revision of this specification for draft | |||
standard status is now well underway, so it has become necessary | standard status is now well underway, so it has become necessary | |||
to conduct such an interoperability demonstration. | to conduct such an interoperability demonstration. | |||
This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP specification | This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP specification | |||
which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration. Due to the | which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration. Due to the nature | |||
nature of RTP there are necessarily two types of test described: those | of RTP there are necessarily two types of test described: those which directly | |||
which directly affect the interoperability of implementations at a ``bits | affect the interoperability of implementations at a ``bits on the wire | |||
on the wire level'' and those which affect scalability and safety of the | level'' and those which affect scalability and safety of the protocol but | |||
protocol but do not directly affect interoperability. A related memo [4] | do not directly affect interoperability. A related memo [4] describes a | |||
describes a testing framework which may aid with interoperability testing. | testing framework which may aid with interoperability testing. | |||
This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard | This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard | |||
of any kind. | of any kind. | |||
2 Features and options required to demonstrate interoperability | 2 Features and options required to demonstrate interoperability | |||
In order to demonstrate interoperability it is required to produce | In order to demonstrate interoperability it is required to produce | |||
a statement of interoperability for each feature noted below. Such | a statement of interoperability for each feature noted below. Such | |||
a statement should note the pair of implementations tested, including | a statement should note the pair of implementations tested, including | |||
version numbers, and a pass/fail statement for each feature. It | version numbers, and a pass/fail statement for each feature. It | |||
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | |||
19. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing | 19. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing | |||
a NOTE item. | a NOTE item. | |||
o PASS: rat vs vat | o PASS: rat vs vat | |||
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic | o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic | |||
20. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing | 20. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing | |||
a PRIV item. | a PRIV item. | |||
o FAIL: need to test rtplib against rtpdump? | o PASS: Magnus Westerlund has tested an implementation at Ericsson | |||
against rat. | ||||
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation, Magnus Westerlund | ||||
will test against rat. | ||||
21. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing a single SSRC. | 21. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing a single SSRC. | |||
o PASS: rat vs vat | o PASS: rat vs vat | |||
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic | o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic | |||
22. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing multiple SSRCs. | 22. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing multiple SSRCs. | |||
o FAIL: rat can send these, but vat only accepts the first | o PASS: IP/TV 3.0 server with rat 4.2.13 | |||
SSRC | ||||
o FAIL: IP/TV sends only one SSRC in BYE, but should accept | ||||
multiple | ||||
o FAIL: need to test rat-3.0.x against rtplib | ||||
23. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional | 23. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional | |||
reason for leaving text. | reason for leaving text. | |||
o PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates | o PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates | |||
and displays them. | and displays them. | |||
24. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As | 24. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As | |||
with the RTP header extension this test takes two forms: if | with the RTP header extension this test takes two forms: if | |||
both implementations implement the same application defined packet | both implementations implement the same application defined packet | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 18 ¶ | |||
o PASS: rat vs vat | o PASS: rat vs vat | |||
26. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption | 26. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption | |||
in CBC mode. | in CBC mode. | |||
o PASS (sort of): rat vs vat (vat gets the padding wrong | o PASS (sort of): rat vs vat (vat gets the padding wrong | |||
in some cases, but mostly it works). | in some cases, but mostly it works). | |||
3 Features and options relating to scalability | 3 Features and options relating to scalability | |||
In addition to the basic interoperability tests, RTP includes a number of | In addition to the basic interoperability tests, RTP includes a number | |||
features relating to scaling of the protocol to large groups. Since these | of features relating to scaling of the protocol to large groups. | |||
features are those which have undergone the greatest change in the update | Since these features are those which have undergone the greatest | |||
of the RTP specification, it is considered important to demonstrate their | change in the update of the RTP specification, it is considered important | |||
correct implementation. However, since these changes do not affect the | to demonstrate their correct implementation. However, since these | |||
bits-on-the-wire behaviour of the protocol, it is not possible to perform a | changes do not affect the bits-on-the-wire behaviour of the protocol, | |||
traditional interoperability test. As an alternative to such testing we | it is not possible to perform a traditional interoperability test. | |||
require that multiple independent implementations complete the following | As an alternative to such testing we require that multiple independent | |||
demonstrations. | implementations complete the following demonstrations. | |||
1. Demonstrate correct implementation of basic RTCP transmission | 1. Demonstrate correct implementation of basic RTCP transmission | |||
rules: periodic transmission of RTCP packets at the minimum | rules: periodic transmission of RTCP packets at the minimum | |||
(5 second) interval and randomisation of the transmission interval. | (5 second) interval and randomisation of the transmission interval. | |||
o PASS: rat, IP/TV | o PASS: rat, IP/TV | |||
2. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff | 2. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff | |||
algorithm as a receiver. | algorithm as a receiver. | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 14 ¶ | |||
5. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval | 5. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval | |||
acording to the group size with compensation for the number of | acording to the group size with compensation for the number of | |||
senders. | senders. | |||
o PASS: rat, IP/TV | o PASS: rat, IP/TV | |||
6. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP reverse reconsideration | 6. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP reverse reconsideration | |||
algorithm. | algorithm. | |||
o FAIL: rat is correct, | o PASS: rat is correct, | |||
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund | o PASS: Ericsson have a correct implementation (Magnus Westerlund) | |||
is testing... | ||||
7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration | 7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration | |||
algorithm. | algorithm. | |||
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund | o PASS: Demonstrated with rat (Colin Perkins) and an Ericsson | |||
is testing... | implementation (Magnus Westerlund) | |||
8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout | 8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout | |||
algorithm. | algorithm. | |||
o PASS: IP/TV, vat, rat | o PASS: IP/TV, vat, rat | |||
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund | o PASS: Ericsson have an implementation (Magnus Westerlund) | |||
is testing... | ||||
9. Demonstrate random choice of SSRC. | 9. Demonstrate random choice of SSRC. | |||
o PASS: rat, IP/TV, LiveCaster | o PASS: rat, IP/TV, LiveCaster | |||
10. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP sequence number. | 10. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP sequence number. | |||
o PASS: rat, LiveCaster | o PASS: rat, LiveCaster | |||
11. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP timestamp. | 11. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP timestamp. | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 21 ¶ | |||
Arlington, VA 22203 | Arlington, VA 22203 | |||
USA | USA | |||
Email: csp@isi.edu | Email: csp@isi.edu | |||
5 References | 5 References | |||
[1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'', | [1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'', | |||
RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996. | RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996. | |||
[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP: A | [2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP: | |||
Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet | A Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet | |||
Engineering Task Force, January 1996. | Engineering Task Force, January 1996. | |||
[3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with | [3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences | |||
Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January 2000. | with Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January | |||
2000. | ||||
[4] C. S. Perkins, J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Testing | [4] C. S. Perkins, J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Testing | |||
Strategies'', draft-ietf-avt-rtptest-04.txt, November 2000. | Strategies'', draft-ietf-avt-rtptest-04.txt, November 2000. | |||
End of changes. 14 change blocks. | ||||
47 lines changed or deleted | 38 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |