draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-03.txt   draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-04.txt 
Network Working Group C. Perkins Network Working Group C. Perkins
Internet-Draft University of Glasgow Internet-Draft University of Glasgow
Intended status: Standards Track November 22, 2006 Intended status: Standards Track March 4, 2007
Expires: May 26, 2007 Expires: September 5, 2007
RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-03.txt draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 26, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is a widely used transport for The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is a widely used transport for
real-time multimedia on IP networks. The Datagram Congestion Control real-time multimedia on IP networks. The Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP) is a newly defined transport protocol that provides Protocol (DCCP) is a newly defined transport protocol that provides
desirable services for real-time applications. This memo specifies a desirable services for real-time applications. This memo specifies a
mapping of RTP onto DCCP, along with associated signalling, such that mapping of RTP onto DCCP, along with associated signalling, such that
real-time applications can make use of the services provided by DCCP. real-time applications can make use of the services provided by DCCP.
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
4. RTP over DCCP: Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. RTP over DCCP: Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. RTP Data Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. RTP Data Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. RTP Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. RTP Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Multiplexing Data and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Multiplexing Data and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. RTP Sessions and DCCP Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. RTP Sessions and DCCP Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. RTP Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. RTP Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. RTP over DCCP: Signalling using SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. RTP over DCCP: Signalling using SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Protocol Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Protocol Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Service Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Service Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4. Multiplexing Data and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
RTP can run over a range of lower-layer transport protocols, and the RTP can run over a range of lower-layer transport protocols, and the
performance of an application using RTP is heavily influenced by the performance of an application using RTP is heavily influenced by the
choice of lower-layer transport. The Datagram Congestion Control choice of lower-layer transport. The Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP) [2] is a newly specified transport protocol that Protocol (DCCP) [2] is a newly specified transport protocol that
provides desirable properties for real-time applications running on provides desirable properties for real-time applications running on
unmanaged best-effort IP networks. This memo describes how RTP can unmanaged best-effort IP networks. This memo describes how RTP can
be framed for transport using DCCP, and discusses some of the be framed for transport using DCCP, and discusses some of the
implications of such a framing. It also describes how the Session implications of such a framing. It also describes how the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [3] can be used to signal such sessions. Description Protocol (SDP) [3] can be used to signal such sessions.
The remainder of this memo is structured as follows: we begin with a The remainder of this memo is structured as follows: it begins with a
rationale for the work in Section 2, describing why a mapping of RTP rationale for the work in Section 2, describing why a mapping of RTP
onto DCCP is needed. Following a description of the conventions used onto DCCP is needed. Following a description of the conventions used
in this memo in Section 3, the specification begins in Section 4 with in this memo in Section 3, the specification begins in Section 4 with
the definition of how RTP packets are framed within DCCP. Associated the definition of how RTP packets are framed within DCCP. Associated
signalling is described in Section 5. We conclude with a discussion signalling is described in Section 5. Security considerations are
of security considerations in Section 6, and IANA considerations in discussed in Section 6, and IANA considerations in Section 7.
Section 7.
2. Rationale 2. Rationale
With the widespread adoption of RTP have come concerns that many real With the widespread adoption of RTP have come concerns that many real
time applications do not implement congestion control, leading to the time applications do not implement congestion control, leading to the
potential for congestion collapse of the network [16]. The designers potential for congestion collapse of the network [15]. The designers
of RTP recognised this issue, stating that [4]: of RTP recognised this issue, stating that [4]:
If best-effort service is being used, RTP receivers SHOULD monitor If best-effort service is being used, RTP receivers SHOULD monitor
packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within
acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a
TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same
network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured
on a reasonable time-scale, that is not less than the RTP flow is on a reasonable time-scale, that is not less than the RTP flow is
achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing
congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or
the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session),
or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss
rate is unacceptably high. rate is unacceptably high.
While the goals are clear, the development of TCP friendly congestion While the goals are clear, the development of TCP friendly congestion
control that can be used with RTP and real-time media applications is control that can be used with RTP and real-time media applications is
an open research question with many proposals for new algorithms, but an open research question with many proposals for new algorithms, but
little deployment experience. little deployment experience.
Two approaches have been used to provide congestion control for RTP: Two approaches have been used to provide congestion control for RTP:
1) develop new RTP profiles that incorporate congestion control; and
2) provide mechanisms for running RTP over congestion controlled 1) develop RTP extensions that incorporate congestion control; and 2)
transport protocols. The RTP Profile for TCP Friendly Rate Control provide mechanisms for running RTP over congestion controlled
[17] is an example of the first approach, extending the RTP packet transport protocols. An example of the first approach can be found
formats to incorporate feedback information such that TFRC congestion in [16], extending RTP to incorporate feedback information such that
control [18] can be implemented at the application level. This will TFRC congestion control [17] can be implemented at the application
allow congestion control to be added to existing applications without level. This will allow congestion control to be added to existing
operating system or network support, and it offers the flexibility to applications without operating system or network support, and it
experiment with new congestion control algorithms as they are offers the flexibility to experiment with new congestion control
developed. Unfortunately, it also passes the complexity of algorithms as they are developed. Unfortunately, it also passes the
implementing congestion control onto application authors, a burden complexity of implementing congestion control onto application
which many would prefer to avoid. authors, a burden which many would prefer to avoid.
The other approach is to run RTP on a lower-layer transport protocol The other approach is to run RTP on a lower-layer transport protocol
that provides congestion control. One possibility is to run RTP over that provides congestion control. One possibility is to run RTP over
TCP, as defined in [5], but the reliable nature of TCP and the TCP, as defined in [5], but the reliable nature of TCP and the
dynamics of its congestion control algorithm make this inappropriate dynamics of its congestion control algorithm make this inappropriate
for most interactive real time applications (the Stream Control for most interactive real time applications (the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is inappropriate for similar reasons). Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is inappropriate for similar reasons).
A better fit for such applications may be to run RTP over DCCP, since A better fit for such applications may be to run RTP over DCCP, since
DCCP offers unreliable packet delivery and a choice of congestion DCCP offers unreliable packet delivery and a choice of congestion
control. This gives applications the ability to tailor the transport control. This gives applications the ability to tailor the transport
skipping to change at page 5, line 14 skipping to change at page 5, line 12
specification, and any applicable RTP Profile and Payload Format. specification, and any applicable RTP Profile and Payload Format.
Header processing is not affected by DCCP framing (in particular, Header processing is not affected by DCCP framing (in particular,
note that the semantics of the RTP sequence number and the DCCP note that the semantics of the RTP sequence number and the DCCP
sequence number are not compatible, and the value of one cannot be sequence number are not compatible, and the value of one cannot be
inferred from the other). inferred from the other).
A DCCP connection is opened when an end system joins an RTP session, A DCCP connection is opened when an end system joins an RTP session,
and it remains open for the duration of the session. To ensure NAT and it remains open for the duration of the session. To ensure NAT
bindings are kept open, an end system SHOULD send a zero length DCCP- bindings are kept open, an end system SHOULD send a zero length DCCP-
Data packet once every 15 seconds during periods when it has no other Data packet once every 15 seconds during periods when it has no other
data to send. This removes the need for RTP no-op packets [19], and data to send. This removes the need for RTP no-op packets [18], and
similar application level keep-alives, when using RTP over DCCP. similar application level keep-alives, when using RTP over DCCP.
RTP data packets MUST obey the dictates of DCCP congestion control. RTP data packets MUST obey the dictates of DCCP congestion control.
In some cases, the congestion control will require a sender to send In some cases, the congestion control will require a sender to send
at a rate below that which the payload format would otherwise use. at a rate below that which the payload format would otherwise use.
To support this, an application should use either a rate adaptive To support this, an application should use either a rate adaptive
payload format, or a range of payload formats (allowing it to switch payload format, or a range of payload formats (allowing it to switch
to a lower rate format if necessary). Details of the rate adaptation to a lower rate format if necessary). Details of the rate adaptation
policy for particular payload formats are outside the scope of this policy for particular payload formats are outside the scope of this
memo (but see [20] and [21] for guidance). memo (but see [19] and [20] for guidance).
RTP extensions that provide application-level congestion control
(e.g. [16]) will conflict with DCCP congestion control, and MUST
NOT be used.
DCCP allows an application to choose the checksum coverage, using a DCCP allows an application to choose the checksum coverage, using a
partial checksum to allow an application to receive packets with partial checksum to allow an application to receive packets with
corrupt payloads. Some RTP Payload Formats (e.g. [22]) can make use corrupt payloads. Some RTP Payload Formats (e.g. [21]) can make use
of this feature in conjunction with payload-specific mechanisms to of this feature in conjunction with payload-specific mechanisms to
improve performance when operating in environments with frequent non- improve performance when operating in environments with frequent non-
congestive packet corruption. If such a payload format is used, an congestive packet corruption. If such a payload format is used, an
RTP end system MAY enable partial checksums at the DCCP layer, in RTP end system MAY enable partial checksums at the DCCP layer, in
which case the checksum MUST cover at least the DCCP and RTP headers which case the checksum MUST cover at least the DCCP and RTP headers
to ensure packets are correctly delivered. Partial checksums MUST to ensure packets are correctly delivered. Partial checksums MUST
NOT be used unless supported by mechanisms in the RTP payload format. NOT be used unless supported by mechanisms in the RTP payload format.
4.2. RTP Control Packets 4.2. RTP Control Packets
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 18
RTCP packets comprise only a small fraction of the total traffic in RTCP packets comprise only a small fraction of the total traffic in
an RTP session. Accordingly, it is expected that delays in their an RTP session. Accordingly, it is expected that delays in their
transmission due to congestion control will not be common, provided transmission due to congestion control will not be common, provided
the configured nominal "session bandwidth" (see Section 6.2 of [1]) the configured nominal "session bandwidth" (see Section 6.2 of [1])
is in line with the bandwidth achievable on the DCCP connection. If, is in line with the bandwidth achievable on the DCCP connection. If,
however, the capacity of the DCCP connection is significantly below however, the capacity of the DCCP connection is significantly below
the nominal session bandwidth, RTCP packets may be delayed enough for the nominal session bandwidth, RTCP packets may be delayed enough for
participants to time out due to apparent inactivity. In such cases, participants to time out due to apparent inactivity. In such cases,
the session parameters SHOULD be re-negotiated to more closely match the session parameters SHOULD be re-negotiated to more closely match
the available capacity, for example by performing a re-invite with an the available capacity, for example by performing a re-invite with an
updated "b=" line when using the Session Initiation Protocol [23] for updated "b=" line when using the Session Initiation Protocol [22] for
signalling. signalling.
Since the nominal session bandwidth is chosen based on media codec Since the nominal session bandwidth is chosen based on media codec
capabilities, a session where the nominal bandwidth is much larger capabilities, a session where the nominal bandwidth is much larger
than the available bandwidth will likely become unusable due to than the available bandwidth will likely become unusable due to
constraints on the media channel, and so require negotiation of a constraints on the media channel, and so require negotiation of a
lower bandwidth codec, before it becomes unusable due to lower bandwidth codec, before it becomes unusable due to
constraints on the RTCP channel. constraints on the RTCP channel.
As noted in Section 17.1 of [2], there is the potential for overlap As noted in Section 17.1 of [2], there is the potential for overlap
between information conveyed in RTCP packets and that conveyed in between information conveyed in RTCP packets and that conveyed in
DCCP acknowledgement options. In general this is not an issue since DCCP acknowledgement options. In general this is not an issue since
RTCP packets contain media-specific data that is not present in DCCP RTCP packets contain media-specific data that is not present in DCCP
acknowledgement options, and DCCP options contain network-level data acknowledgement options, and DCCP options contain network-level data
that is not present in RTCP. Indeed, there is no overlap between the that is not present in RTCP. Indeed, there is no overlap between the
five RTCP packet types defined in the RTP specification [1] and the five RTCP packet types defined in the RTP specification [1] and the
standard DCCP options [2]. There are, however, cases where overlap standard DCCP options [2]. There are, however, cases where overlap
does occur: most clearly between the optional RTCP Extended Reports does occur: most clearly between the optional RTCP Extended Reports
Loss RLE Blocks [24] and the DCCP Ack Vector option. If there is Loss RLE Blocks [23] and the DCCP Ack Vector option. If there is
overlap between RTCP report packets and DCCP acknowledgements, an overlap between RTCP report packets and DCCP acknowledgements, an
application should use either RTCP feedback or DCCP acknowledgements, application should use either RTCP feedback or DCCP acknowledgements,
but not both (use of both types of feedback will waste available but not both (use of both types of feedback will waste available
network capacity, but is not otherwise harmful). network capacity, but is not otherwise harmful).
4.3. Multiplexing Data and Control 4.3. Multiplexing Data and Control
The obvious mapping of RTP onto DCCP creates two DCCP connections for The obvious mapping of RTP onto DCCP creates two DCCP connections for
each RTP flow: one for RTP data packets, one for RTP control packets. each RTP flow: one for RTP data packets, one for RTP control packets.
A frequent criticism of RTP relates to the number of ports it uses, A frequent criticism of RTP relates to the number of ports it uses,
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 48
algorithms on either side of the translator may not be compatible. algorithms on either side of the translator may not be compatible.
Implementation of effective translators for such an environment is Implementation of effective translators for such an environment is
non-trivial. non-trivial.
4.5. RTP Profiles 4.5. RTP Profiles
In general, there is no conflict between new RTP Profiles and DCCP In general, there is no conflict between new RTP Profiles and DCCP
framing, and most RTP profiles can be negotiated for use over DCCP framing, and most RTP profiles can be negotiated for use over DCCP
with the following exceptions: with the following exceptions:
o An RTP profile that changes the RTCP reporting interval or the RTP
transmission rules may conflict with DCCP congestion control. For
example, the RTP Profile for TFRC [17] conflicts with DCCP by
changing the RTP packet transmission rules to provide alternate
congestion control semantics.
o An RTP profile that is intolerant of packet corruption may o An RTP profile that is intolerant of packet corruption may
conflict with the DCCP partial checksum feature. An example of conflict with the DCCP partial checksum feature. An example of
this is the integrity protection provided by the RTP/SAVP profile, this is the integrity protection provided by the RTP/SAVP profile,
which cannot be used in conjunction with DCCP partial checksums. which cannot be used in conjunction with DCCP partial checksums.
o An RTP profile that mandates a particular non-DCCP lower layer o An RTP profile that mandates a particular non-DCCP lower layer
transport will conflict with DCCP. transport will conflict with DCCP.
RTP profiles which fall under these exceptions SHOULD NOT be used RTP profiles which fall under these exceptions SHOULD NOT be used
with DCCP unless the conflicting features can be disabled. with DCCP unless the conflicting features can be disabled.
Of the profiles currently defined, the RTP Profile for Audio and Of the profiles currently defined, the RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control [4], the Secure Real-time Video Conferences with Minimal Control [4], the Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol [8], the Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Transport Protocol [8], the Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based
Feedback [9], and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback [9], and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based
Feedback [10] MAY be used with DCCP (noting the potential conflict Feedback [10] MAY be used with DCCP (noting the potential conflict
between DCCP partial checksums and the integrity protection provided between DCCP partial checksums and the integrity protection provided
by the secure RTP variants -- see Section 6). The RTP Profile for by the secure RTP variants -- see Section 6).
TFRC [17] MUST NOT be used with DCCP, since it conflicts with DCCP by
providing alternative congestion control semantics (DCCP CCID 3 [11]
provides similar congestion control within the DCCP framework).
5. RTP over DCCP: Signalling using SDP 5. RTP over DCCP: Signalling using SDP
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [3] and the offer/answer model The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [3] and the offer/answer model
[12] are widely used to negotiate RTP sessions (for example, using [11] are widely used to negotiate RTP sessions (for example, using
the Session Initiation Protocol [23]). This section describes how the Session Initiation Protocol [22]). This section describes how
SDP is used to signal RTP sessions running over DCCP. SDP is used to signal RTP sessions running over DCCP.
5.1. Protocol Identification 5.1. Protocol Identification
SDP uses a media ("m=") line to convey details of the media format SDP uses a media ("m=") line to convey details of the media format
and transport protocol used. The ABNF syntax of a media line is as and transport protocol used. The ABNF syntax of a media line is as
follows (from [3]): follows (from [3]):
media-field = %x6d "=" media SP port ["/" integer] SP proto media-field = %x6d "=" media SP port ["/" integer] SP proto
1*(SP fmt) CRLF 1*(SP fmt) CRLF
The proto field denotes the transport protocol used for the media, The proto field denotes the transport protocol used for the media,
while the port indicates the transport port to which the media is while the port indicates the transport port to which the media is
sent. Following [5] and [13] this memo defines the following five sent. Following [5] and [12] this memo defines the following five
values of the proto field to indicate media transported using DCCP: values of the proto field to indicate media transported using DCCP:
DCCP DCCP
DCCP/RTP/AVP DCCP/RTP/AVP
DCCP/RTP/SAVP DCCP/RTP/SAVP
DCCP/RTP/AVPF DCCP/RTP/AVPF
DCCP/RTP/SAVPF DCCP/RTP/SAVPF
The "DCCP" protocol identifier is similar to the "UDP" and "TCP" The "DCCP" protocol identifier is similar to the "UDP" and "TCP"
protocol identifiers and describes the transport protocol, but not protocol identifiers and describes the transport protocol, but not
the upper-layer protocol. An SDP "m=" line that specifies the "DCCP" the upper-layer protocol. An SDP "m=" line that specifies the "DCCP"
protocol MUST further qualify the application layer protocol using a protocol MUST further qualify the application layer protocol using a
fmt identifier. A single DCCP port is used, as denoted by the port "fmt" identifier (the "fmt" namespace is managed in the same manner
field in the media line. The "DCCP" protocol identifier MUST NOT be as for the "UDP" protocol identifier). A single DCCP port is used,
used to signal RTP sessions running over DCCP; those sessions MUST as denoted by the port field in the media line. The "DCCP" protocol
use a protocol identifier of the form "DCCP/RTP/..." as described identifier MUST NOT be used to signal RTP sessions running over DCCP;
below. those sessions MUST use a protocol identifier of the form
"DCCP/RTP/..." as described below.
The "DCCP/RTP/AVP" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the RTP The "DCCP/RTP/AVP" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the RTP
Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control [4] Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control [4]
running over DCCP. running over DCCP.
The "DCCP/RTP/SAVP" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the The "DCCP/RTP/SAVP" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol [8] running over DCCP. Secure Real-time Transport Protocol [8] running over DCCP.
The "DCCP/RTP/AVPF" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the The "DCCP/RTP/AVPF" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the
Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback [9] running over DCCP. Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback [9] running over DCCP.
The "DCCP/RTP/SAVPF" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the The "DCCP/RTP/SAVPF" protocol identifier refers to RTP using the
Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback [10] running over Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback [10] running over
DCCP. DCCP.
A single DCCP connection can be used to transport multiplexed RTP and RTP payload formats used with the "DCCP/RTP/AVP", "DCCP/RTP/SAVP",
RTCP packets. Such multiplexing MUST be signalled using an "a=rtcp- "DCCP/RTP/AVPF" and "DCCP/RTP/SAVPF" protocol identifiers MUST use
mux" attribute according to [7]. If multiplexed RTP and RTCP is not the payload type number as their "fmt" value. If the payload type
to be used, then the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute MUST NOT be present in number is dynamically assigned, an additional "rtpmap" attribute MUST
the SDP offer, and a separate DCCP connection MUST be opened to be included to specify the format name and parameters as defined by
transport the RTCP data on a different DCCP port. the media type registration for the payload format.
Port 5004 is registered for use by RTP and SHOULD be the default port Port 5004 is registered for use by RTP and SHOULD be the default port
chosen by applications. If multiple RTP sessions are active from a chosen by applications. If multiple RTP sessions are active from a
host, even numbered ports in the dynamic range SHOULD be used for the host, even numbered ports in the dynamic range SHOULD be used for the
other sessions. If RTCP is to be sent on a separate DCCP connection other sessions. If RTCP is to be sent on a separate DCCP connection
to RTP, the RTCP connection SHOULD use the next higher destination to RTP, the RTCP connection SHOULD use the next higher destination
port number, unless an alternative DCCP port is signalled using the port number, unless an alternative DCCP port is signalled using the
"a=rtcp:" attribute [14]. "a=rtcp:" attribute [13].
5.2. Service Codes 5.2. Service Codes
In addition to the port number, specified on the SDP "m=" line, a In addition to the port number, specified on the SDP "m=" line, a
DCCP connection has an associated service code. A single new SDP DCCP connection has an associated service code. A single new SDP
attribute is defined to signal the service code: attribute ("dccp-service-code") is defined to signal the DCCP service
code:
dccp-service-attr = %x61 "=dccp-service-code:" service-code dccp-service-attr = %x61 "=dccp-service-code:" service-code
service-code = hex-sc / decimal-sc / ascii-sc service-code = hex-sc / decimal-sc / ascii-sc
hex-sc = %x53 %x43 "=" %x78 *HEXDIG hex-sc = %x53 %x43 "=" %x78 *HEXDIG
decimal-sc = %x53 %x43 "=" *DIGIT decimal-sc = %x53 %x43 "=" *DIGIT
ascii-sc = %x53 %x43 ":" *sc-char ascii-sc = %x53 %x43 ":" *sc-char
sc-char = %d42-43 / %d45-47 / %d63-90 / %d95 / %d97-122 sc-char = %d42-43 / %d45-47 / %d63-90 / %d95 / %d97-122
where DIGIT and HEXDIG are as defined in [15]. The service code where DIGIT and HEXDIG are as defined in [14]. The service code
should be interpreted as defined in Section 8.1.2 of [2]. The should be interpreted as defined in Section 8.1.2 of [2]. The
following DCCP service codes are registered for use with RTP: following DCCP service codes are registered for use with RTP:
o SC:RTPA an RTP session conveying audio data and associated RTCP o SC:RTPA an RTP session conveying audio data (and associated RTCP)
o SC:RTPV an RTP session conveying video data and associated RTCP o SC:RTPV an RTP session conveying video data (and associated RTCP)
o SC:RTPT an RTP session conveying text media and associated RTCP o SC:RTPT an RTP session conveying text media (and associated RTCP)
o SC:RTPO an RTP session conveying other media and associated RTCP o SC:RTPO an RTP session conveying other media (and associated RTCP)
o SC:RTCP an RTCP connection, separate from the corresponding RTP o SC:RTCP an RTCP connection, separate from the corresponding RTP
To ease the job of middleboxes, applications SHOULD use these service To ease the job of middleboxes, applications SHOULD use these service
codes to identify RTP sessions running within DCCP. codes to identify RTP sessions running within DCCP.
The "a=dccp-service-code:" attribute is a media level attribute which The "a=dccp-service-code:" attribute is a media level attribute which
is not subject to the charset attribute. is not subject to the charset attribute.
5.3. Connection Management 5.3. Connection Management
The "a=setup:" attribute indicates which of the end points should The "a=setup:" attribute indicates which of the end points should
initiate the DCCP connection establishment (i.e. send the initial initiate the DCCP connection establishment (i.e. send the initial
DCCP-Request packet). The "a=setup:" attribute MUST be used in a DCCP-Request packet). The "a=setup:" attribute MUST be used in a
manner comparable with [13], except that DCCP connections are being manner comparable with [12], except that DCCP connections are being
initiated rather than TCP connections. initiated rather than TCP connections.
After the initial offer/answer exchange, the end points may decide to After the initial offer/answer exchange, the end points may decide to
re-negotiate various parameters. The "a=connection:" attribute MUST re-negotiate various parameters. The "a=connection:" attribute MUST
be used in a manner compatible with [13] to decide whether a new DCCP be used in a manner compatible with [12] to decide whether a new DCCP
connection needs to be established as a result of subsequent offer/ connection needs to be established as a result of subsequent offer/
answer exchanges, or if the existing connection should still be used. answer exchanges, or if the existing connection should still be used.
5.4. Example 5.4. Multiplexing Data and Control
A single DCCP connection can be used to transport multiplexed RTP and
RTCP packets. Such multiplexing MUST be signalled using an "a=rtcp-
mux" attribute according to [7]. If multiplexed RTP and RTCP is not
to be used, then the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute MUST NOT be present in
the SDP offer, and a separate DCCP connection MUST be opened to
transport the RTCP data on a different DCCP port.
5.5. Example
An offerer at 192.0.2.47 signals its availability for an H.261 video An offerer at 192.0.2.47 signals its availability for an H.261 video
session, using RTP/AVP over DCCP with service code "RTPV" (using the session, using RTP/AVP over DCCP with service code "RTPV" (using the
hexadecimal encoding of the service code in the SDP). RTP and RTCP hexadecimal encoding of the service code in the SDP). RTP and RTCP
packets are multiplexed onto a single DCCP connection: packets are multiplexed onto a single DCCP connection:
v=0 v=0
o=alice 1129377363 1 IN IP4 192.0.2.47 o=alice 1129377363 1 IN IP4 192.0.2.47
s=- s=-
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.47 c=IN IP4 192.0.2.47
t=0 0 t=0 0
m=video 5004 DCCP/RTP/AVP 99 m=video 5004 DCCP/RTP/AVP 99
a=rtcp-mux a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:99 h261/90000 a=rtpmap:99 h261/90000
a=dccp-service-code:SC=x52545056 a=dccp-service-code:SC=x52545056
a=setup:passive a=setup:passive
a=connection:new a=connection:new
SDP offer showing use of RTP/SAVP over DCCP
An answerer at 192.0.2.128 receives this offer and responds with the An answerer at 192.0.2.128 receives this offer and responds with the
following answer: following answer:
v=0 v=0
o=bob 1129377364 1 IN IP4 192.0.2.128 o=bob 1129377364 1 IN IP4 192.0.2.128
s=- s=-
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.128 c=IN IP4 192.0.2.128
t=0 0 t=0 0
m=video 9 DCCP/RTP/AVP 99 m=video 9 DCCP/RTP/AVP 99
a=rtcp-mux a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:99 h261/90000 a=rtpmap:99 h261/90000
a=dccp-service-code:SC:RTPV a=dccp-service-code:SC:RTPV
a=setup:active a=setup:active
a=connection:new a=connection:new
SDP answer showing use of RTP/SAVP over DCCP
The end point at 192.0.2.128 then initiates a DCCP connection to port The end point at 192.0.2.128 then initiates a DCCP connection to port
5004 at 192.0.2.47. DCCP port 5004 is used for both the RTP and RTCP 5004 at 192.0.2.47. DCCP port 5004 is used for both the RTP and RTCP
data, and port 5005 is unused. The decimal encoding of the service data, and port 5005 is unused. The textual encoding of the service
code is used in the answer, and represents the same service code as code is used in the answer, and represents the same service code as
in the offer. in the offer.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations in the RTP specification [1] and any The security considerations in the RTP specification [1] and any
applicable RTP profile (e.g. [4], [8], [9], or [10]) or payload applicable RTP profile (e.g. [4], [8], [9], or [10]) or payload
format apply when transporting RTP over DCCP. format apply when transporting RTP over DCCP.
The security considerations in the DCCP specification [2] apply. The security considerations in the DCCP specification [2] apply.
The SDP signalling described in Section 5 is subject to the security The SDP signalling described in Section 5 is subject to the security
considerations of [3], [12], [13], [5], and [7]. considerations of [3], [11], [12], [5], and [7].
The provision of effective congestion control for RTP through use of The provision of effective congestion control for RTP through use of
DCCP is expected to help reduce the potential for denial-of-service DCCP is expected to help reduce the potential for denial-of-service
present when RTP flows ignore the advice in [1] to monitor packet present when RTP flows ignore the advice in [1] to monitor packet
loss and reduce their sending rate in the face of persistent loss and reduce their sending rate in the face of persistent
congestion. congestion.
There is a potential conflict between the Secure RTP Profiles [8], There is a potential conflict between the Secure RTP Profiles [8],
[10] and the DCCP partial checksum option, since these profiles [10] and the DCCP partial checksum option, since these profiles
introduce, and recommend the use of, message authentication for RTP introduce, and recommend the use of, message authentication for RTP
skipping to change at page 12, line 39 skipping to change at page 12, line 43
Secure RTP profiles SHOULD NOT be used with DCCP partial checksums, Secure RTP profiles SHOULD NOT be used with DCCP partial checksums,
since it requires authentication for security, and authentication is since it requires authentication for security, and authentication is
incompatible with partial checksums. incompatible with partial checksums.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
The following SDP "proto" field identifiers are registered: "DCCP", The following SDP "proto" field identifiers are registered: "DCCP",
"DCCP/RTP/AVP", "DCCP/RTP/SAVP", "DCCP/RTP/AVPF" and "DCCP/RTP/SAVPF" "DCCP/RTP/AVP", "DCCP/RTP/SAVP", "DCCP/RTP/AVPF" and "DCCP/RTP/SAVPF"
(see Section 5.1 of this memo). (see Section 5.1 of this memo).
One new SDP attribute ("a=dccp-service-code:") is registered (see One new SDP attribute ("dccp-service-code") is registered (see
Section 5.2 of this memo). Section 5.2 of this memo).
The following DCCP service codes are registered: SC:RTPA, SC:RTPV, The following DCCP service codes are registered: SC:RTPA, SC:RTPV,
SC:RTPT, SC:RTPO, and SC:RTCP (see Section 5.2 of this memo). SC:RTPT, SC:RTPO, and SC:RTCP (see Section 5.2 of this memo).
DCCP ports 5004 ("DCCP RTP") and 5005 ("DCCP RTCP") are registered DCCP ports 5004 ("DCCP RTP") and 5005 ("DCCP RTCP") are registered
for use as default RTP/RTCP ports (see Section 5.1 of this memo). for use as default RTP/RTCP ports (see Section 5.1 of this memo).
The four services codes listed above are to be associated with these The four services codes listed above are to be associated with these
ports. ports.
skipping to change at page 13, line 38 skipping to change at page 13, line 39
Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003. Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.
[5] Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection- [5] Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, June 2006. Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, June 2006.
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[7] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and [7] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", Control Packets on a Single Port",
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-04 (work in progress),
November 2006. March 2007.
[8] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [8] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004. RFC 3711, March 2004.
[9] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., and C. Burmeister, "Extended RTP [9] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., and C. Burmeister, "Extended RTP
Profile for RTCP-based Feedback(RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, Profile for RTCP-based Feedback(RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
June 2006. June 2006.
[10] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP- [10] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-
based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)", draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-08 based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)", draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-10
(work in progress), October 2006. (work in progress), February 2007.
[11] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 3:
TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, March 2006.
[12] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with [11] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[13] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the [12] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September 2005. Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September 2005.
[14] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in [13] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, October 2003. Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, October 2003.
[15] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [14] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[16] Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion [15] Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion
Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet", RFC 3714, Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet", RFC 3714,
March 2004. March 2004.
[17] Gharai, L., "RTP Profile for TCP Friendly Rate Control", [16] Gharai, L., "RTP with TCP Friendly Rate Control",
draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-avt-tfrc-profile-07 (work in progress), March 2007.
September 2007.
[18] Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP [17] Handley, M., Floyd, S., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
RFC 3448, January 2003. RFC 3448, January 2003.
[19] Andreasen, F., "A No-Op Payload Format for RTP", [18] Andreasen, F., "A No-Op Payload Format for RTP",
draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-03 (work in progress), May 2005. draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-03 (work in progress), May 2005.
[20] Phelan, T., "Strategies for Streaming Media Applications Using [19] Phelan, T., "Strategies for Streaming Media Applications Using
TCP-Friendly Rate Control", draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-media-01 TCP-Friendly Rate Control", draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-media-01
(work in progress), October 2005. (work in progress), October 2005.
[21] Phelan, T., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) User [20] Phelan, T., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) User
Guide", draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-03 (work in progress), Guide", draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-03 (work in progress),
April 2005. April 2005.
[22] Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie, "Real- [21] Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie, "Real-
Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage
Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi- Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-
Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 3267, June 2002. Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 3267, June 2002.
[23] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., [22] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[24] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol [23] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control Protocol
Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003. Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003.
Author's Address Author's Address
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
Department of Computing Science Department of Computing Science
17 Lilybank Gardens 17 Lilybank Gardens
Glasgow G12 8QQ Glasgow G12 8QQ
UK UK
Email: csp@csperkins.org Email: csp@csperkins.org
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
100 lines changed or deleted 96 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/