Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-09

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05
• 06
• 07
• 08
• 09

Network Working Group                                          M. Zanaty
Internet-Draft                                                 E. Berger
Intended status: Standards Track                           S. Nandakumar
Expires: September 29, 2019                                Cisco Systems
                                                          March 28, 2019

                   Frame Marking RTP Header Extension
                   draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking-09

Abstract

   This document describes a Frame Marking RTP header extension used to
   convey information about video frames that is critical for error
   recovery and packet forwarding in RTP middleboxes or network nodes.
   It is most useful when media is encrypted, and essential when the
   middlebox or node has no access to the media decryption keys.  It is
   also useful for codec-agnostic processing of encrypted or unencrypted
   media, while it also supports extensions for codec-specific
   information.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Zanaty, et al.         Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Frame Marking                   March 2019

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Words for Normative Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Frame Marking RTP Header Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Short Extension for Non-Scalable Streams  . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Long Extension for Scalable Streams . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Layer ID Mappings for Scalable Streams  . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.1.  H265 LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.2.  H264-SVC LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         3.2.1.3.  H264 (AVC) LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.2.1.4.  VP8 LID Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.2.1.5.  Future Codec LID Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Signaling Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Usage Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.4.1.  Relation to Layer Refresh Request (LRR) . . . . . . .   9
       3.4.2.  Scalability Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Many widely deployed RTP [RFC3550] topologies [RFC7667] used in
   modern voice and video conferencing systems include a centralized
   component that acts as an RTP switch.  It receives voice and video
   streams from each participant, which may be encrypted using SRTP
   [RFC3711], or extensions that provide participants with private media
   [I-D.ietf-perc-private-media-framework] via end-to-end encryption
   where the switch has no access to media decryption keys.  The goal is
   to provide a set of streams back to the participants which enable
   them to render the right media content.  In a simple video
   configuration, for example, the goal will be that each participant
   sees and hears just the active speaker.  In that case, the goal of
   the switch is to receive the voice and video streams from each