WebRTC-HTTP Egress Protocol (WHEP)
draft-ietf-wish-whep-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (wish WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sergio Garcia Murillo , Cheng Chen | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-18 | ||
| Replaces | draft-murillo-whep | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-wish-whep-01
wish S. Murillo
Internet-Draft Millicast
Intended status: Standards Track C. Chen
Expires: 19 September 2024 ByteDance
18 March 2024
WebRTC-HTTP Egress Protocol (WHEP)
draft-ietf-wish-whep-01
Abstract
This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow
WebRTC-based viewers to watch content from streaming services and/or
Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) or WebRTC Transmission Network
(WTNs).
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 19 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. ICE support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. HTTP PATCH request usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Trickle ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. ICE Restarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. WebRTC constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. SDP Bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. Single MediaStream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Trickle ICE and ICE restarts . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Load balancing and redirections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. STUN/TURN server configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5. Authentication and authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5.1. Bearer token authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.6. Protocol extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6.1. Server Sent Events extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6.2. Video Layer Selection extension . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Registration of WHEP URN Sub-namespace and WHEP
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. URN Sub-namespace for WHEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.1. Specification Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3. Registering WHEP Protocol Extensions URNs . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.2. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3.3. WHEP Protocol Extension Registration Template . . . . 30
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Introduction
The IETF RTCWEB working group standardized JSEP ([RFC8829]), a
mechanism used to control the setup, management, and teardown of a
multimedia session. It also describes how to negotiate media flows
using the Offer/Answer Model with the Session Description Protocol
(SDP) [RFC3264] as well as the formats for data sent over the wire
(e.g., media types, codec parameters, and encryption). WebRTC
intentionally does not specify a signaling transport protocol at
application level. This flexibility has allowed the implementation
of a wide range of services. However, those services are typically
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
standalone silos which don't require interoperability with other
services or leverage the existence of tools that can communicate with
them.
While WebRTC can be integrated with standard signaling protocols like
SIP [RFC3261] or XMPP [RFC6120], they are not designed to be used in
broadcasting/streaming services, and there also is no sign of
adoption in that industry. RTSP [RFC7826], which is based on RTP, is
not compatible with the SDP offer/answer model [RFC3264].
There are many situations in which the lack of a standard protocol
for consuming media from streaming service using WebRTC has become a
problem:
* Interoperability between WebRTC services and products.
* Reusing player software which can be integrated easily.
* Integration with Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) for
offering live streams via WebRTC while offering a time-shifted
version via DASH.
* Playing WebRTC streams on devices that don't support custom
javascript to be run (like TVs).
This document mimics what has been done in the WebRTC HTTP Ingest
Protocol (WHIP) [I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip] for ingestion and
specifies a simple HTTP-based protocol that can be used for consuming
media from a streaming service using WebRTC.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Overview
The WebRTC-HTTP Ingest Protocol (WHIP) is designed to facilitate a
one-time exchange of Session Description Protocol (SDP) offers and
answers using HTTP POST requests. This exchange is a fundamental
step in establishing an Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) session between WHEP
player and the streaming service endpoint (Media Server).
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
Upon successful establishment of the ICE/DTLS session, unidirectional
media data transmission commences from the media server to the WHEP
player. It is important to note that SDP renegotiations are not
supported in WHEP, meaning that no modifications to the "m=" sections
can be made after the initial SDP offer/answer exchange via HTTP POST
is completed and only ICE related information can be updated via HTTP
PATCH requests as defined in Section 4.1.
The following diagram illustrates the core operation of the WHEP
protocol for initiating and terminating a viewing session:
+-------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ +---------------+
| WHEP player | | WHEP endpoint | | Media Server | | WHEP session |
+--+----------+ +---------+-----+ +------+-------+ +--------|------+
| | | |
| | | |
|HTTP POST (SDP Offer) | | |
+------------------------>+ | |
|201 Created (SDP answer) | | |
+<------------------------+ | |
| ICE REQUEST | |
+--------------------------------------->+ |
| ICE RESPONSE | |
|<---------------------------------------+ |
| DTLS SETUP | |
|<======================================>| |
| RTP/RTCP FLOW | |
+<-------------------------------------->+ |
| HTTP DELETE |
+---------------------------------------------------------->+
| 200 OK |
<-----------------------------------------------------------x
Figure 1: WHEP session setup and teardown
The elements in Figure 1 are described as follows:
* WHEP player: This represents the WebRTC media player, which
functions as a client of the WHEP protocol by receiving and
decoding the media from a remote media server.
* WHEP endpoint: This denotes the egress server that receives the
initial WHEP request.
* WHEP endpoint URL: Refers to the URL of the WHEP endpoint
responsible for creating the WHEP session.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* Media server: This is the WebRTC Media Server that establishes the
media session with the WHEP player and delivers the media to it.
* WHEP sesion: Indicates the allocated HTTP resource by the WHEP
endpoint for an ongoing egress session.
* WHEP session URL: Refers to the URL of the WHEP resource allocated
by the WHEP endpoint for a specific media session. The WHEP
player can send requests to the WHEP session using this URL to
modify the session, such as ICE operations or termination.
4. Protocol Operation
In order to set up a streaming session, the WHEP player MUST generate
an SDP offer according to the JSEP rules for an initial offer as in
Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8829] and perform an HTTP POST request as per
Section 9.3.3 of [RFC9110] to the configured WHEP endpoint URL.
The HTTP POST request MUST have a content type of "application/sdp"
and contain the SDP offer as the body. The WHEP endpoint MUST
generate an SDP answer according to the JSEP rules for an initial
answer as in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8829] and return a "201 Created"
response with a content type of "application/sdp", the SDP answer as
the body, and a Location header field pointing to the newly created
WHEP session.
As the WHEP protocol only supports the playback use case with
unidirectional media, the WHEP player SHOULD use "recvonly" attribute
in the SDP offer but MAY use the "sendrecv" attribute instead,
"inactive" and "recvonly" attributes MUST NOT be used. The WHEP
endpoint MUST use "sendonly" attribute in the SDP answer.
If the HTTP POST to the WHEP endpoint has a content type different
than "application/sdp", the WHEP endpoint MUST reject the HTTP POST
request with a "415 Unsupported Media Type" error response. If the
SDP body is malformed, the WHIP session MUST reject the HTTP POST
with a "400 Bad Request" error response.
Following is an example of an HTTP POST sent from a WHEP player to a
WHEP endpoint and the "201 Created" response from the WHIP endpoint
containing the Location header pointing to the newly created WHEP
session:
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
POST /whep/endpoint HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 1326
v=0
o=- 5228595038118931041 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1
s=-
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE 0 1
a=extmap-allow-mixed
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 111
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=rtcp:9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=ice-ufrag:zjkk
a=ice-pwd:bP+XJMM09aR8AiX1jdukzR6Y
a=fingerprint:sha-256 DA:7B:57:DC:28:CE:04:4F:31:79:85:C4:31:67:EB:27:58:29:ED:77:2A:0D:24:AE:ED:AD:30:BC:BD:F1:9C:02
a=setup:actpass
a=mid:0
a=extmap:4 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=recvonly
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtpmap:111 opus/48000/2
a=fmtp:111 minptime=10;useinbandfec=1
m=video 0 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 97
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=rtcp:9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=ice-ufrag:zjkk
a=ice-pwd:bP+XJMM09aR8AiX1jdukzR6Y
a=fingerprint:sha-256 DA:7B:57:DC:28:CE:04:4F:31:79:85:C4:31:67:EB:27:58:29:ED:77:2A:0D:24:AE:ED:AD:30:BC:BD:F1:9C:02
a=setup:actpass
a=mid:1
a=bundle-only
a=extmap:4 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:10 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=extmap:11 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:repaired-rtp-stream-id
a=recvonly
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=rtcp-fb:96 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack pli
a=rtpmap:97 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:97 apt=96
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
ETag: "xyzzy"
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 1400
Location: https://whep.example.org/sessions/id
v=0
o=- 1657793490019 1 IN IP4 127.0.0.1
s=-
t=0 0
a=group:BUNDLE 0 1
a=extmap-allow-mixed
a=ice-lite
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 111
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=rtcp:9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=ice-ufrag:526be20a538ee422
a=ice-pwd:2e13dde17c1cb009202f627fab90cbec358d766d049c9697
a=fingerprint:sha-256 F7:EB:F3:3E:AC:D2:EA:A7:C1:EC:79:D9:B3:8A:35:DA:70:86:4F:46:D9:2D:CC:D0:BC:81:9F:67:EF:34:2E:BD
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 198.51.100.1 39132 typ host
a=setup:passive
a=mid:0
a=bundle-only
a=extmap:4 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=sendonly
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
a=rtcp-rsize
a=rtpmap:111 opus/48000/2
a=fmtp:111 minptime=10;useinbandfec=1
a=msid:- d46fb922-d52a-4e9c-aa87-444eadc1521b
m=video 0 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96 97
c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=rtcp:9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
a=ice-ufrag:526be20a538ee422
a=ice-pwd:2e13dde17c1cb009202f627fab90cbec358d766d049c9697
a=fingerprint:sha-256 F7:EB:F3:3E:AC:D2:EA:A7:C1:EC:79:D9:B3:8A:35:DA:70:86:4F:46:D9:2D:CC:D0:BC:81:9F:67:EF:34:2E:BD
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 198.51.100.1 39132 typ host
a=setup:passive
a=mid:1
a=bundle-only
a=extmap:4 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
a=extmap:10 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id
a=extmap:11 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:repaired-rtp-stream-id
a=sendonly
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtcp-mux-only
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
a=rtcp-rsize
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=rtcp-fb:96 ccm fir
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack pli
a=rtpmap:97 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:97 apt=96
a=msid:- d46fb922-d52a-4e9c-aa87-444eadc1521b
Figure 2: Example of SDP offer/answer exchange done via an HTTP POST
The WHEP endpoint COULD require a live publishing to be happening in
order to allow a WHEP players to start viewing a stream. In that
case, the WHEP endpoint SHALL return a "409 Conflict" response to the
POST request issued by the WHEP player with a "Retry-After" header
indicating the number of seconds before sending a new request. WHEP
players MAY periodically try to connect to the WHEP session with
exponential backoff period with an initial value of the "Retry-After"
header value in the "409 Conflict" response.
Once a session is setup, consent freshness as per [RFC7675] SHALL be
used to detect non-graceful disconnection by full ICE implementations
and DTLS teardown for session termination by either side.
To explicitly terminate a WHIP session, the WHEP player MUST perform
an HTTP DELETE request to the WHEP session URL returned in the
Location header field of the initial HTTP POST. Upon receiving the
HTTP DELETE request, the WHIP session will be removed and the
resources freed on the media server, terminating the ICE and DTLS
sessions.
A media server terminating a session MUST follow the procedures in
Section 5.2 of [RFC7675] for immediate revocation of consent.
The WHEP endpoints MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response
for any HTTP request method different than OPTIONS and POST on the
endpoint URL in order to reserve their usage for future versions of
this protocol specification.
The WHEP endpoints MUST support OPTIONS requests for Cross-Origin
Resource Sharing (CORS) as defined in [FETCH]. The "200 OK" response
to any OPTIONS request SHOULD include an "Accept-Post" header with a
media type value of "application/sdp" as per [W3C.REC-ldp-20150226].
The WHEP sessions MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response
for any HTTP request method different than PATCH and DELETE on the
session URLs in order to reserve their usage for future versions of
this protocol specification.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
4.1. ICE support
ICE [RFC8845] is a protocol addressing the complexities of Network
Address Translation (NAT) traversal, commonly encountered in Internet
communication. NATs hinder direct communication between devices on
different local networks, posing challenges for real-time
applications. ICE facilitates seamless connectivity by employing
techniques to discover and negotiate efficient communication paths.
Trickle ICE [RFC8838] optimizes the connectivity process by
incrementally sharing potential communication paths, reducing
latency, and facilitating quicker establishment.
ICE Restarts are crucial for maintaining connectivity in dynamic
network conditions or disruptions, allowing devices to re-establish
communication paths without complete renegotiation. This ensures
minimal latency and reliable real-time communication.
Trickle ICE and ICE restart support are RECOMMENDED for both WHEP
sessions and clients.
4.1.1. HTTP PATCH request usage
The WHEP player MAY perform trickle ICE or ICE restarts by sending an
HTTP PATCH request as per [RFC5789] to the WHEP session URL, with a
body containing a SDP fragment with media type "application/trickle-
ice-sdpfrag" as specified in [RFC8840] carrying the relevant ICE
information.
If the HTTP PATCH to the WHEP session has a content type different
than "application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag", the WHEP session MUST reject
the HTTP PATCH request with a "415 Unsupported Media Type" error
response. If the SDP fragment is malformed, the WHEP session MUST
reject the HTTP PATCH with a "400 Bad Request" error response.
If the WHEP session supports either Trickle ICE or ICE restarts, but
not both, it MUST return a "422 Unprocessable Content" response for
the HTTP PATCH requests that are not supported as per Section 15.5.21
of [RFC9110].
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
The WHEP player MAY send overlapping HTTP PATCH requests to one WHEP
session. Consequently, as those HTTP PATCH requests may be received
out-of-order by the WHEP session, if WHEP session supports ICE
restarts, it MUST generate a unique strong entity-tag identifying the
ICE session as per Section 8.8.3 of [RFC9110], being OPTIONAL
otherwise. The initial value of the entity-tag identifying the
initial ICE session MUST be returned in an ETag header field in the
"201 Created" response to the initial POST request to the WHEP
endpoint.
WHEP players SHOULD NOT use entity-tag validation when matching a
specific ICE session is not required, such as for example when
initiating a DELETE request to terminate a session. WHEP sessions
MUST ignore any entity-tag value sent by the WHEP player when ICE
session matching is not required, as in the HTTP DELETE request.
4.1.2. Trickle ICE
Depending on the Trickle ICE support on the WHEP player, the initial
offer by the WHEP player MAY be sent after the full ICE gathering is
complete with the full list of ICE candidates, or it MAY only contain
local candidates (or even an empty list of candidates) as per
[RFC8845]. For the purpose of reducing setup times, when using
Trickle ICE the WHEP player SHOULD send the SDP offer as soon as
possible, containing either locally gathered ICE candidates or an
empty list of candidates.
In order to simplify the protocol, the WHEP session cannot signal
additional ICE candidates to the WHEP player after the SDP answer has
been sent. The WHEP endpoint SHALL gather all the ICE candidates for
the media server before responding to the client request and the SDP
answer SHALL contain the full list of ICE candidates of the media
server.
As the WHEP player needs to know the WHEP session URL associated with
the ICE session in order to send a PATCH request containing new ICE
candidates, it MUST wait and buffer any gathered candidates until the
"201 Created" HTTP response to the initial POST request is received.
In order to lower the HTTP traffic and processing time required the
WHEP player SHOULD send a single aggregated HTTP PATCH request with
all the buffered ICE candidates once the response is received.
Additionally, if ICE restarts are supported by the WHEP session, the
WHEP player needs to know the entity-tag associated with the ICE
session in order to send a PATCH request containing new ICE
candidates, so it MUST also wait and buffer any gathered candidates
until it receives the HTTP response with the new entity-tag value to
the last PATCH request performing an ICE restart.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
WHEP players generating the HTTP PATCH body with the SDP fragment and
its subsequent processing by WHEP sessions MUST follow to the
guidelines defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC8840] with the following
considerations:
* As per [RFC8829], only m-sections not marked as bundle-only can
gather ICE candidates, so given that the "max-bundle" policy is
being used, the SDP fragment will contain only the offerer-tagged
m-line of the bundle group.
* The WHEP player MAY exclude ICE candidates from the HTTP PATCH
body if they have already been confirmed by the WHEP session with
a successful HTTP response to a previous HTTP PATCH request.
If the WHEP session is using entity-tags for identifying the ICE
sessions in explained in Section 4.1.1, a WHEP player sending a PATCH
request for performing trickle ICE MUST include an "If-Match" header
field with the latest known entity-tag as per Section 13.1.1 of
[RFC9110]. When the PATCH request is received by the WHEP session,
it MUST compare the indicated entity-tag value with the current
entity-tag of the resource as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110] and
return a "412 Precondition Failed" response if they do not match. If
the HTTP PATCH request does not contain an "If-Match" header the WHEP
session MUST return an "428 Precondition Required" response as per
Section 3 of [RFC6585].
When a WHEP session receives a PATCH request that adds new ICE
candidates without performing an ICE restart, it MUST return a "204
No Content" response without a body and MUST NOT include an ETag
header in the response. If the WHEP session does not support a
candidate transport or is not able to resolve the connection address,
it MUST silently discard the candidate and continue processing the
rest of the request normally.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
PATCH /session/id HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
If-Match: "xyzzy"
Content-Type: application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag
Content-Length: 576
a=group:BUNDLE 0 1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 111
a=mid:0
a=ice-ufrag:EsAw
a=ice-pwd:P2uYro0UCOQ4zxjKXaWCBui1
a=candidate:1387637174 1 udp 2122260223 192.0.2.1 61764 typ host generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 1
a=candidate:3471623853 1 udp 2122194687 198.51.100.2 61765 typ host generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 2
a=candidate:473322822 1 tcp 1518280447 192.0.2.1 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 1
a=candidate:2154773085 1 tcp 1518214911 198.51.100.2 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 2
a=end-of-candidates
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
Figure 3: Example of a Trickle ICE request and response
4.1.3. ICE Restarts
As defined in [RFC8839], when an ICE restart occurs, a new SDP offer/
answer exchange is triggered. However, as WHEP does not support
renegotiation of non-ICE related SDP information, a WHEP player will
not send a new offer when an ICE restart occurs. Instead, the WHEP
player and WHEP session will only exchange the relevant ICE
information via an HTTP PATCH request as defined in Section 4.1.1 and
MUST assume that the previously negotiated non-ICE related SDP
information still apply after the ICE restart.
When performing an ICE restart, the WHEP player MUST include the
updated "ice-pwd" and "ice-ufrag" in the SDP fragment of the HTTP
PATCH request body as well as the new set of gathered ICE candidates
as defined in [RFC8840]. Similar what is defined in Section 4.1.2,
as per [RFC8829] only m-sections not marked as bundle-only can gather
ICE candidates, so given that the "max-bundle" policy is being used,
the SDP fragment will contain only the offerer-tagged m-line of the
bundle group. A WHEP player sending a PATCH request for performing
ICE restart MUST contain an "If-Match" header field with a field-
value "*" as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110].
[RFC8840] states that an agent MUST discard any received requests
containing "ice-pwd" and "ice-ufrag" attributes that do not match
those of the current ICE Negotiation Session, however, any WHEP
session receiving an updated "ice-pwd" and "ice-ufrag" attributes
MUST consider the request as performing an ICE restart instead and,
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
if supported, SHALL return a "200 OK" with an "application/trickle-
ice-sdpfrag" body containing the new ICE username fragment and
password and a new set of ICE candidates for the WHEP session. Also,
the "200 OK" response for a successful ICE restart MUST contain the
new entity-tag corresponding to the new ICE session in an ETag
response header field and MAY contain a new set of ICE candidates for
the media server.
As defined in Section 4.4.1.1.1 of [RFC8839] the set of candidates
after an ICE restart may include some, none, or all of the previous
candidates for that data stream and may include a totally new set of
candidates. So after performing a successful ICE restart, both the
WHEP player and the WHEP session MUST replace the previous set of
remote candidates with the new set exchanged in the HTTP PATCH
request and response, discarding any remote ICE candidate not present
on the new set. Both the WHEP player and the WHEP session MUST
ensure that the HTTP PATCH requests and response bodies include the
same 'ice-options,' 'ice-pacing,' and 'ice-lite' attributes as those
used in the SDP offer or answer.
If the ICE restart request cannot be satisfied by the WHEP session,
the resource MUST return an appropriate HTTP error code and MUST NOT
terminate the session immediately and keep the existing ICE session.
The WHEP player MAY retry performing a new ICE restart or terminate
the session by issuing an HTTP DELETE request instead. In any case,
the session MUST be terminated if the ICE consent expires as a
consequence of the failed ICE restart as per Section 5.1 of
[RFC7675].
In case of unstable network conditions, the ICE restart HTTP PATCH
requests and responses might be received out of order. In order to
mitigate this scenario, when the client performs an ICE restart, it
MUST discard any previous ICE username and passwords fragments and
ignore any further HTTP PATCH response received from a pending HTTP
PATCH request. WHEP players MUST apply only the ICE information
received in the response to the last sent request. If there is a
mismatch between the ICE information at the WHEP player and at the
WHEP session (because of an out-of-order request), the STUN requests
will contain invalid ICE information and will be dropped by the
receiving side. If this situation is detected by the WHEP player, it
MUST send a new ICE restart request to the server.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
PATCH /session/id HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
If-Match: "*"
Content-Type: application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag
Content-Length: 82
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE 0 1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 111
a=mid:0
a=ice-ufrag:ysXw
a=ice-pwd:vw5LmwG4y/e6dPP/zAP9Gp5k
a=candidate:1387637174 1 udp 2122260223 192.0.2.1 61764 typ host generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 1
a=candidate:3471623853 1 udp 2122194687 198.51.100.2 61765 typ host generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 2
a=candidate:473322822 1 tcp 1518280447 192.0.2.1 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 1
a=candidate:2154773085 1 tcp 1518214911 198.51.100.2 9 typ host tcptype active generation 0 ufrag EsAw network-id 2
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
ETag: "abccd"
Content-Type: application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag
Content-Length: 252
a=ice-lite
a=ice-options:trickle ice2
a=group:BUNDLE 0 1
m=audio 9 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 111
a=mid:0
a=ice-ufrag:289b31b754eaa438
a=ice-pwd:0b66f472495ef0ccac7bda653ab6be49ea13114472a5d10a
a=candidate:1 1 udp 2130706431 198.51.100.1 39132 typ host
a=end-of-candidates
Figure 4: Example of an ICE restart request and response
4.2. WebRTC constraints
In order to reduce the complexity of implementing WHEP in both
clients and media servers, WHEP imposes the following restrictions
regarding WebRTC usage:
4.2.1. SDP Bundle
Both the WHEP player and the WHEP endpoint SHALL support [RFC9143]
and use "max-bundle" policy as defined in [RFC8829]. The WHEP player
and the media server MUST support multiplexed media associated with
the BUNDLE group as per Section 9 of [RFC9143]. In addition, per
[RFC9143] the WHEP player and media server SHALL use RTP/RTCP
multiplexing for all bundled media. In order to reduce the network
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
resources required at the media server, both The WHEP player and WHEP
endpoints MUST include the "rtcp-mux-only" attribute in each bundled
"m=" sections as per Section 3 of [RFC8858].
4.2.2. Single MediaStream
WHEP only supports a single MediaStream as defined in [RFC8830] and
therefore all "m=" sections MUST contain an "msid" attribute with the
same value. The MediaStream MUST contain at least one
MediaStreamTrack of any media kind and it MUST NOT have two or more
than MediaStreamTracks for the same media (audio or video). However,
it would be possible for future revisions of this spec to allow more
than a single MediaStream or MediaStreamTrack of each media kind, so
in order to ensure forward compatibility, if the number of audio and
or video MediaStreamTracks or number of MediaStreams are not
supported by the WHEP endpoint, it MUST reject the HTTP POST request
with a "406 Not Acceptable" error response.
4.2.3. Trickle ICE and ICE restarts
The media server SHOULD support full ICE, unless it is connected to
the Internet with an IP address that is accessible by each WHEP
player that is authorized to use it, in which case it MAY support
only ICE lite. The WHEP player MUST implement and use full ICE.
Trickle ICE and ICE restarts support is OPTIONAL for both the WHEP
players and media servers as explained in Section 4.1.
4.3. Load balancing and redirections
WHEP endpoints and media servers might not be colocated on the same
server, so it is possible to load balance incoming requests to
different media servers.
WHEP players SHALL support HTTP redirections as per Section 15.4 of
[RFC9110]. In order to avoid POST requests to be redirected as GET
requests, status codes 301 and 302 MUST NOT be used and the preferred
method for performing load balancing is via the "307 Temporary
Redirect" response status code as described in Section 15.4.8 of
[RFC9110]. Redirections are not required to be supported for the
PATCH and DELETE requests.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
In case of high load, the WHEP endpoints MAY return a "503 Service
Unavailable" response indicating that the server is currently unable
to handle the request due to a temporary overload or scheduled
maintenance as described in Section 15.6.4 of [RFC9110], which will
likely be alleviated after some delay. The WHEP endpoint might send
a Retry-After header field indicating the minimum time that the user
agent ought to wait before making a follow-up request as described in
Section 10.2.3 of [RFC9110].
4.4. STUN/TURN server configuration
The WHEP Endpoint MAY return STUN/TURN server configuration URLs and
credentials usable by the client in the "201 Created" response to the
HTTP POST request to the WHEP Endpoint URL.
Each STUN/TURN server will be returned using the "Link" header field
[RFC8288] with a "rel" attribute value of "ice-server" as specified
in [I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]
It might be also possible to configure the STUN/TURN server URLs with
long-term credentials provided by either the broadcasting service or
an external TURN provider on the WHEP player, overriding the values
provided by the WHEP Endpoint.
4.5. Authentication and authorization
All WHEP endpoints, sessions and clients MUST support HTTP
Authentication as per Section 11 of [RFC9110] and in order to ensure
interoperability, bearer token authentication as defined in the next
section MUST be supported by all WHEP entities. However this does
not preclude the support of additional HTTP authentication schemes as
defined in Section 11.6 of [RFC9110].
4.5.1. Bearer token authentication
WHEP endpoints and sessions MAY require the HTTP request to be
authenticated using an HTTP Authorization header field with a Bearer
token as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC6750]. WHEP players MUST
implement this authentication and authorization mechanism and send
the HTTP Authorization header field in all HTTP requests sent to
either the WHEP endpoint or session except the preflight OPTIONS
requests for CORS.
The nature, syntax, and semantics of the bearer token, as well as how
to distribute it to the client, is outside the scope of this
document. Some examples of the kind of tokens that could be used
are, but are not limited to, JWT tokens as per [RFC6750] and
[RFC8725] or a shared secret stored on a database. The tokens are
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
typically made available to the end user alongside the WHEP endpoint
URL and configured on the WHEP players (similar to the way RTMP URLs
and Stream Keys are distributed).
WHEP endpoints and sessions could perform the authentication and
authorization by encoding an authentication token within the URLs for
the WHEP endpoints or sessions instead. In case the WHEP player is
not configured to use a bearer token, the HTTP Authorization header
field MUST NOT be sent in any request.
4.6. Protocol extensions
In order to support future extensions to be defined for the WHEP
protocol, a common procedure for registering and announcing the new
extensions is defined.
Protocol extensions supported by the WHEP server MUST be advertised
to the WHEP player in the "201 Created" response to the initial HTTP
POST request sent to the WHEP Endpoint. The WHEP Endpoint MUST
return one "Link" header field for each extension that it supports,
with the extension "rel" attribute value containing the extension URN
and the URL for the HTTP resource that will be available for
receiving requests related to that extension.
Protocol extensions are optional for both WHEP players and WHEP
Endpoints and sessions. WHEP players MUST ignore any Link attribute
with an unknown "rel" attribute value and WHEP Endpoints and sessions
MUST NOT require the usage of any of the extensions.
Each protocol extension MUST register a unique "rel" attribute value
at IANA starting with the prefix: "urn:ietf:params:whep:ext" as
specified in Section 6.2.
In the first version of the WHEP specification, two optional
extensions are defined: the Server Sent Events and the Video Layer
Selection.
4.6.1. Server Sent Events extension
This optional extesion provides support for server-to-client
communication using WHATWG server sent events protocol as specified
in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/server-sent-
events.html#server-sent-events. When supported by the WHEP resource,
a "Link" header field with a "rel" attribute of
"urn:ietf:params:whep:ext:core:server-sent-events" MUST be returned
in the initial HTTP "201 Created" response, with the Url of the
Server Sent Events REST API entrypoint. The "Link" header field MAY
also contain an "events" attribute with a coma separated list of
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
supported event types.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/sdp
Location: https://whep.example.org/resource/213786HF
Link: <https://whep.ietf.org/resource/213786HF/sse>;
rel="urn:ietf:params:whep:ext:core:server-sent-events"
events="active,inactive,layers,viewercount"
Figure 5: HTTP 201 response example containing the Server Sent
Events extension
If the extension is also supported by the WHEP player, it MAY send a
POST request to the Server Sent Events REST API entrypoint to create
a server-to-client event stream using WHATWG server sent events
protocol. The POST request MAY contain an "application/json" body
with an JSON array indicating the subset of the event list announced
by the WHEP Resource on the "events" atribute which COULD be sent by
the server using the server-to-client communication channel. The
WHEP Endpoint will return a "201 Created" response with a Location
header field pointing to the newly created server-to-client event
stream.
POST /resource/213786HF/sse HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
Content-Type: application/sjon
["active","inactive","layers","viewercount"]
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Location: https://whep.example.org/resource/213786HF/sse/event-stream
Figure 6: HTTP POST request to create a server-to-client event stream
Once the server-to-client communication channel has been created the
WHEP player can perform a long pull using the Url returned on the
location header as expecified in the WHATWG server sent events
protocol.
When an event is generated, the WHEP Resource MUST check for each
event stream if the type is on the list provided by the WHEP player
when the event stream was created, and if so enque it for delivering
when an active long pull request is available.
The events types supported by this specification are the following:
* active: indicating that there is an active publication ongoing for
this resource.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* inactive: indicating that there is no active publication ongoing
for this resource.
* layers: provides information about the video layers being
published for this resource.
* viewercount: provides the number of viewers currently connected to
this resource.
The WHEP resource must indicate the event type in the "event" field
and a JSON serialized string in the "data" field of the WHATWG server
sent events message. In order to make the processing simpler on the
WHEP player, the WHEP resource MUST encode the event data in a single
"data" line.
event: viewercount
data: {"viewercount":3}
Figure 7: Example event
The WHEP player MAY destroy the event stream at anytime by sending a
HTTP DELETE request to the Url returned on the location header on the
created request. The WHEP Resource MUST drop any pending queued
event and return a "404 Not found" if any further long pull request
is received for the event stream.
All the event streams associated with a WHEP Resource MUST be
destroyed when the WHEP Resource is terminated.
4.6.1.1. active event
The event is sent by the WHEP Resource when an active publication for
the WHEP resource, either at the begining of the playback when the
resource is created or later during the playback session.
* event name: "active"
* event data: JSON object (TBD)
4.6.1.2. inactive event
The event is sent by the WHEP Resource when an active publication is
no longer available. The WHEP Resource MUST NOT send an initial
"inactive" event if there is no active publication when the resource
is created.
* event name: "active"
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* event data: JSON object (TBD)
4.6.1.3. layers event
The event is sent by the WHEP Resource to provide information to the
WHEP player about the avialable video layers or renditions to be used
in conjuction with the Layer Selection extension defined in Chapter
{TBD}.
* event name: "layers"
* event data: JSON object
The WHEP Resource MAY send the event periodically or just when the
layer information has changed.
The event data JSON object contains the video layer information
available for each "m-line" indexed by the "m-line" order in the SDP.
Each value of the JSON object entries will be a JSON object with the
following attributes
* active: (Array<Object>) Containing the information of the active
simulcast layers.
* inactive: (Array<Object>) Containing the information of the
inactive simulcast layers.
* layers: (Array<Object>) Containing the information of the active
simulcast, spatials or temporal layers available for layer
selection.
Each "active" JSON objet contains the following information:
* id: (String) rid value of the simulcast encoding of the layer
* simulcastIdx: (Number) the simulcast order of the encoding layer.
* bitrate: (Number) the spatial layer id of the encoding layer.
* width: (Number) the current video with of the encoding layer.
* heigth: (Number) the current video height of the encoding layer.
Each "inactive" JSON contains the following information:
* id: (String) rid value of the simulcast encoding of the layer.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* simulcastIdx: (Number) the simulcast order of the encoding layer.
* width: (Number) the current video with of the encoding layer
* heigth: (Number) the current video height of the encoding layer.
Each "layer" JSON contains the following information:
* encodingId: (String) rid value of the simulcast encoding of the
layer
* simulcastIdx: (Number) the simulcast order of the encoding layer.
* spatialLayerId: (Number) the spatial layer id of the encoding
layer.
* temporalLayerId: (Number) the temporal layer id of the encoding
layer.
* bitrate: (Number) the spatial layer id of the encoding layer.
* width: (Number) the current video with of the encoding layer.
* heigth: (Number) the current video height of the encoding layer.
The "layer" object MUST containt at least one of the encodingId,
spatialLayerId or temporalLayerId attributes, the other attributes
are OPTIONAL.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
{
"0": {
"active": [
{
"id": "1", "simulcastIdx": 1, "bitrate": 538288, width: 640, height: 360
},
{
"id": "0", "simulcastIdx": 0, "bitrate": 111600, width: 320, height: 180
}
],
"inactive": [
{
"id": "2", "simulcastIdx": 2
},
],
"layers": [
{ "encodingId": "1", "simulcastIdx": 1, "spatialLayerId": 0, "temporalLayerId": 1, "bitrate": 557112, width: 640, height: 360 },
{ "encodingId": "1", "simulcastIdx": 1, "spatialLayerId": 0, "temporalLayerId": 0, "bitrate": 343592, width: 640, height: 360 },
{ "encodingId": "0", "simulcastIdx": 0, "spatialLayerId": 0, "temporalLayerId": 1, "bitrate": 116352, width: 320, height: 180 },
{ "encodingId": "0", "simulcastIdx": 0, "spatialLayerId": 0, "temporalLayerId": 0, "bitrate": 67464 , width: 320, height: 180 }
]
}
}
Figure 8: Example event
4.6.1.4. viewercount event
The event is sent by the WHEP Resource to provide the WHIP Player the
information of number of viewers currently connected to this
resource.
* event name: "viewercount"
* event data: JSON object containing a "viewercount" attribute with
a Number value indicating the number of viewers currently watching
the WHIP resource.
The viewer count provided by the WHEP Resource MAY be approximate and
not updated in real time but periodically to avoid overloading both
the event stream and the Media Server.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
4.6.2. Video Layer Selection extension
The Layer Selection extensions allows the WHEP player to control
which video layer or rendition is being delivered through the
negotiated video MediaStreamTrack. When supported by the WHEP
resource, a "Link" header field with a "rel" attribute of
"urn:ietf:params:whep:ext:core:layer" MUST be returned in the initial
HTTP "201 Created" response, with the Url of the Video Layer
Selection REST API entrypoint. If this extension is supported by the
WHEP Resource, the Server Sent Events extension MUST be supported as
well and the "layers" event MUST be advertised as well.
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/sdp
Location: https://whep.example.org/resource/213786HF
Link: <https://whep.ietf.org/resource/213786HF/layer>;
rel="urn:ietf:params:whep:ext:core:layer"
Link: <https://whep.ietf.org/resource/213786HF/layer>;
rel="urn:ietf:params:whep:ext:core:server-sent-events"
events="layers"
Figure 9: HTTP 201 response example containing the Video Layer
Selection extension
In case that Simulcast or Scalable Video Codecs are supported by the
Media Server and used in the active publication to the WHEP Resource,
by default, the Media Server will choose one of the available video
layers to be sent to the WHEP player (based on bandwidth estimation
or any other business logic). However, the WHEP player (or the
person watching the stream) may decide that it whishes to receive a
different one (to preserve bandwidth or to best fit in the UI). In
this case the WHEP player MAY send a HTTP POST request to theVideo
Layer Selection API entrypoint containing an "application/json" body
with an JSON object indicating the information of the video layer
that wishes to be received. The WHEP Endpoint will return a "200 OK"
if the switch to the new video layer can be performed or an
appropiate HTTP error response if not.
The information that can sent on the JSON object in the POST request
for doing layer selection is as follows:
* mediaId: (String) m-line index to apply the layer
selection(default: first video m-line)
* encodingId: (String) rid value of the simulcast encoding of the
track (default: automatic selection)
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* spatialLayerId: (Number) The spatial layer id to send to the
outgoing stream (default: max layer available)
* temporalLayerId: (Number) The temporaral layer id to send to the
outgoing stream (default: max layer available)
* maxSpatialLayerId: (Number) Max spatial layer id (default:
unlimited)
* maxTemporalLayerId: (Number) Max temporal layer id (default:
unlimited)
The information about the avialable encodings, spatial or temporal
layers should be retrieverd from a "layers" event sent by the WHEP
Resource using the Server Sent Events extension:
POST /resource/213786HF/layer HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
Content-Type: application/sjon
{mediaId:"0", "encodingId": "hd"}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
If the WHEP player wishes to return to the default selection
performed by the Media Server, it just need to send an empty JSON
Object instead:
POST /resource/213786HF/layer HTTP/1.1
Host: whep.example.com
Content-Type: application/sjon
{}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
5. Security Considerations
This document specifies a new protocol on top of HTTP and WebRTC,
thus, security protocols and considerations from related
specifications apply to the WHEP specification. These include:_**_
* WebRTC security considerations: [RFC8826]. HTTPS SHALL be used in
order to preserve the WebRTC security model.
* Transport Layer Security (TLS): [RFC8446] and [RFC9147].
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* HTTP security: Section 11 of [RFC9112] and Section 17 of
[RFC9110].
* URI security: Section 7 of [RFC3986].
On top of that, the WHEP protocol exposes a thin new attack surface
specific of the REST API methods used within it:
* HTTP POST flooding and resource exhaustion: It would be possible
for an attacker in possession of authentication credentials valid
for watching a WHEP stream to make multiple HTTP POST to the WHIP
endpoint. This will force the WHEP endpoint to process the
incoming SDP and allocate resources for being able to setup the
DTLS/ICE connection. While the malicious client does not need to
initiate the DTLS/ICE connection at all, the WHIP session will
have to wait for the DTLS/ICE connection timeout in order to
release the associated resources. If the connection rate is high
enough, this could lead to resource exhaustion on the servers
handling the requests and it will not be able to process
legitimate incoming ingests. In order to prevent this scenario,
WHEP endpoints SHOULD implement a rate limit and avalanche control
mechanism for incoming initial HTTP POST requests.
* Insecure direct object references (IDOR) on the WHEP session
locations: If the URLs returned by the WHIP endpoint for the WHEP
sessions location are easy to guess, it would be possible for an
attacker to send multiple HTTP DELETE requests and terminate all
the WHEP sessions currently running. In order to prevent this
scenario, WHEP endpoints SHOULD generate URLs with enough
randomness, using a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number
generator following the best practices in Randomness Requirements
for Security [RFC4086], and implement a rate limit and avalanche
control mechanism for HTTP DELETE requests. The security
considerations for Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) [RFC4122],
Section 6 are applicable for generating the WHEP sessions location
URL.
* HTTP PATCH flooding: Similar to the HTTP POST flooding, a
malicious client could also create a resource exhaustion by
sending multiple HTTP PATCH request to the WHEP session, although
the WHEP sessions can limit the impact by not allocating new ICE
candidates and reusing the existing ICE candidates when doing ICE
restarts. In order to prevent this scenario, WHEP endpoints
SHOULD implement a rate limit and avalanche control mechanism for
incoming HTTP PATCH requests.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
6. IANA Considerations
This specification adds a registry for URN sub-namespaces for WHEP
protocol extensions.
6.1. Registration of WHEP URN Sub-namespace and WHEP Registry
IANA is asked to add an entry to the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for
Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry and create a sub-
namespace for the Registered Parameter Identifier as per [RFC3553]:
"urn:ietf:params:whep".
To manage this sub-namespace, IANA is asked to create the "WebRTC-
HTTP ingestion protocol (WHEP) URNs" registry, which is used to
manage entries within the "urn:ietf:params:whep" namespace. The
registry description is as follows:
* Registry name: WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHEP) URNs
* Specification: this document (RFC TBD)
* Registration policy: Specification Required
* Repository: See Section Section 6.2
* Index value: See Section Section 6.2
6.2. URN Sub-namespace for WHEP
WHEP endpoint utilizes URNs to identify the supported WHEP protocol
extensions on the "rel" attribute of the Link header as defined in
Section 4.6.
This section creates and registers an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use
in the WHEP specifications and future extensions.
6.2.1. Specification Template
Namespace ID:
* The Namespace ID "whep" has been assigned.
Registration Information:
* Version: 1
* Date: TBD
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
Declared registrant of the namespace:
* Registering organization: The Internet Engineering Task Force.
* Designated contact: A designated expert will monitor the WHEP
public mailing list, "wish@ietf.org".
Declaration of Syntactic Structure:
* The Namespace Specific String (NSS) of all URNs that use the
"whep" Namespace ID shall have the following structure:
urn:ietf:params:whep:{type}:{name}:{other}.
* The keywords have the following meaning:
- type: The entity type. This specification only defines the
"ext" type.
- name: A required US-ASCII string that conforms to the URN
syntax requirements (see [RFC8141]) and defines a major
namespace of a WHEP protocol extension. The value MAY also be
an industry name or organization name.
- other: Any US-ASCII string that conforms to the URN syntax
requirements (see [RFC8141]) and defines the sub-namespace
(which MAY be further broken down in namespaces delimited by
colons) as needed to uniquely identify an WHEP protocol
extension.
Relevant Ancillary Documentation:
* None
Identifier Uniqueness Considerations:
* The designated contact shall be responsible for reviewing and
enforcing uniqueness.
Identifier Persistence Considerations:
* Once a name has been allocated, it MUST NOT be reallocated for a
different purpose.
* The rules provided for assignments of values within a sub-
namespace MUST be constructed so that the meanings of values
cannot change.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
* This registration mechanism is not appropriate for naming values
whose meanings may change over time.
Process of Identifier Assignment:
* Namespace with type "ext" (e.g., "urn:ietf:params:whep:ext") is
reserved for IETF-approved WHEP specifications.
Process of Identifier Resolution:
* None specified.
Rules for Lexical Equivalence:
* No special considerations; the rules for lexical equivalence
specified in [RFC8141] apply.
Conformance with URN Syntax:
* No special considerations.
Validation Mechanism:
* None specified.
Scope:
* Global.
6.3. Registering WHEP Protocol Extensions URNs
This section defines the process for registering new WHEP protocol
extensions URNs with IANA in the "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol
(WHEP) URNs" registry (see Section 6.2).
A WHEP Protocol Extension URNs is used as a value in the "rel"
attribute of the Link header as defined in Section 4.6 for the
purpose of signaling the WHEP protocol extensions supported by the
WHEP endpoints.
WHEP Protocol Extensions URNs have a "ext" type as defined in
Section 6.2.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
6.3.1. Registration Procedure
The IETF has created a mailing list, "wish@ietf.org", which can be
used for public discussion of WHEP protocol extensions proposals
prior to registration. Use of the mailing list is strongly
encouraged. The IESG has appointed a designated expert RFC8126 who
will monitor the wish@ietf.org mailing list and review registrations.
Registration of new "ext" type URNs (in the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:whep:ext") belonging to a WHEP Protocol Extension
MUST be documented in a permanent and readily available public
specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between
independent implementations is possible and reviewed by the
designated expert as per Section 4.6 of [BCP26] . An RFC is REQUIRED
for the registration of new value data types that modify existing
properties. An RFC is also REQUIRED for registration of WHEP
Protocol Extensions URNs that modify WHEP Protocol Extensions
previously documented in an existing RFC.
The registration procedure begins when a completed registration
template, defined in the sections below, is sent to iana@iana.org.
Decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed to an
Applications and Real Time (ART) Area Director, then to the IESG.
The normal appeals procedure described in [BCP9] is to be followed.
Once the registration procedure concludes successfully, IANA creates
or modifies the corresponding record in the WHEP Protocol Extension
registry.
An RFC specifying one or more new WHEP Protocol Extension URNs MUST
include the completed registration templates, which MAY be expanded
with additional information. These completed templates are intended
to go in the body of the document, not in the IANA Considerations
section. The RFC MUST include the syntax and semantics of any
extension-specific attributes that may be provided in a Link header
field advertising the extension.
6.3.2. Guidance for Designated Experts
The Designated Expert (DE) is expected to ascertain the existence of
suitable documentation (a specification) as described in RFC8126 and
to verify that the document is permanently and publicly available.
The DE is also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of
the requested registration.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
Additionally, the DE must verify that any request for one of these
registrations has been made available for review and comment within
the IETF: the DE will post the request to the WebRTC Ingest Signaling
over HTTPS (wish) Working Group mailing list (or a successor mailing
list designated by the IESG).
If the request comes from within the IETF, it should be documented in
an Internet-Draft. Lastly, the DE must ensure that any other request
for a code point does not conflict with work that is active or
already published within the IETF.
6.3.3. WHEP Protocol Extension Registration Template
A WHEP Protocol Extension URNs is defined by completing the following
template:
* URN: A unique URN for the WHEP Protocol Extension.
* Reference: A formal reference to the publicly available
specification
* Name: A descriptive name of the WHEP Protocol Extension extension.
* Description: A brief description of the function of the extension,
in a short paragraph or two.
* Contact information: Contact information for the organization or
person making the registration.
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BCP26] Best Current Practice 26,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[BCP9] Best Current Practice 9,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>.
Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.
Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>.
Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.
Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475,
March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>.
Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.
Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>.
[FETCH] WHATWG, "Fetch - Living Standard", n.d.,
<https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3264>.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553, June
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3553>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4086>.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4122>.
[RFC5789] Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH Method for HTTP",
RFC 5789, DOI 10.17487/RFC5789, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5789>.
[RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
Codes", RFC 6585, DOI 10.17487/RFC6585, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6585>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", RFC 6750,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6750>.
[RFC7675] Perumal, M., Wing, D., Ravindranath, R., Reddy, T., and M.
Thomson, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usage
for Consent Freshness", RFC 7675, DOI 10.17487/RFC7675,
October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7675>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8725] Sheffer, Y., Hardt, D., and M. Jones, "JSON Web Token Best
Current Practices", BCP 225, RFC 8725,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8725, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725>.
[RFC8826] Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC",
RFC 8826, DOI 10.17487/RFC8826, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8826>.
[RFC8829] Uberti, J., Jennings, C., and E. Rescorla, Ed.,
"JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP)",
RFC 8829, DOI 10.17487/RFC8829, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8829>.
[RFC8830] Alvestrand, H., "WebRTC MediaStream Identification in the
Session Description Protocol", RFC 8830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8830, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8830>.
[RFC8838] Ivov, E., Uberti, J., and P. Saint-Andre, "Trickle ICE:
Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol", RFC 8838,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8838, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8838>.
[RFC8839] Petit-Huguenin, M., Nandakumar, S., Holmberg, C., Keränen,
A., and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Offer/Answer Procedures for Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE)", RFC 8839, DOI 10.17487/RFC8839,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8839>.
[RFC8840] Ivov, E., Stach, T., Marocco, E., and C. Holmberg, "A
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage for Incremental
Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (Trickle ICE)", RFC 8840,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8840, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8840>.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
[RFC8845] Duckworth, M., Ed., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger,
"Framework for Telepresence Multi-Streams", RFC 8845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8845, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8845>.
[RFC8858] Holmberg, C., "Indicating Exclusive Support of RTP and RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8858,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8858, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8858>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.
[RFC9112] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10.17487/RFC9112,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112>.
[RFC9143] Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 9143,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9143, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9143>.
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147>.
[W3C.REC-ldp-20150226]
Malhotra, A., Ed., Arwe, J., Ed., and S. Speicher, Ed.,
"Linked Data Platform 1.0", W3C REC REC-ldp-20150226, W3C
REC-ldp-20150226, 26 February 2015,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-ldp-20150226/>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]
Murillo, S. G. and A. Gouaillard, "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-wish-whip-13, 7 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-wish-
whip-13>.
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft whip March 2024
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261>.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6120>.
[RFC7826] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M.,
and M. Stiemerling, Ed., "Real-Time Streaming Protocol
Version 2.0", RFC 7826, DOI 10.17487/RFC7826, December
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7826>.
[RFC8141] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
(URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8141>.
Authors' Addresses
Sergio Garcia Murillo
Millicast
Email: sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io
Cheng Chen
ByteDance
Email: webrtc@bytedance.com
Murillo & Chen Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 35]