Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport (ROUTE)
draft-zia-route-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Waqar Zia  , Thomas Stockhammer 
Last updated 2021-06-08 (latest revision 2021-06-04)
Stream Independent Submission
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream ISE state Finding Reviewers
Awaiting Reviews, Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd Adrian Farrel
IESG IESG state I-D Exists::Revised I-D Needed
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Internet Draft                                               Waqar Zia,
                                                     Thomas Stockhammer
Intended status: Informational                    Qualcomm Incorporated
Expires: December 2021                                     June 4, 2021

     Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
                                  (ROUTE)
                          draft-zia-route-01.txt

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
   protocol (ROUTE protocol) is specified for robust delivery of
   Application Objects, including Application Objects with real-time
   delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
   Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
   that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, for
   example, it can be a file, or a DASH or HLS segment, a WAV audio
   clip, etc. The ROUTE protocol also supports low-latency streaming
   applications.

   The ROUTE protocol is suitable for unicast, broadcast, and multicast
   transport. Therefore, it can be run over IP/UDP including multicast
   IP. The ROUTE protocol can leverage the features of the underlying
   protocol layer, e.g. to provide security it can leverage IP security
   protocols such as IPSec.

   This document specifies the ROUTE protocol such that it could be used
   by a variety of applications for delivery of Application Objects by
   specifying their own profiles of this protocol (e.g. by adding or
   constraining some features).

Status of this Memo

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

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
   (http://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 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.

Conventions used in this document

   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.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................4
      1.1. Overview..................................................4
      1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE..................................5

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

      1.3. Data Model................................................6
      1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification...................7
      1.5. Intellectual Property.....................................8
   2. ROUTE Packet Format............................................8
      2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields........................8
      2.2. LCT Header Extensions....................................10
      2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows..........................10
      2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows..........................11
   3. Session Metadata..............................................11
      3.1. Generic Metadata.........................................11
      3.2. Session Metadata for Source Flows........................12
      3.3. Session metadata for Repair Flows........................12
   4. Delivery Object Mode..........................................13
      4.1. File Mode................................................14
         4.1.1. Extensions to FDT...................................14
         4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT.........................15
      4.2. Entity Mode..............................................15
      4.3. Unsigned Package Mode....................................16
      4.4. Signed Package Mode......................................16
   5. Sender Operation..............................................17
      5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow.....................17
      5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow......................18
         5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization...........................19
         5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content........19
      5.3. Timing of Packet Emission................................20
      5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending..............20
      5.5. FEC Framework Considerations.............................20
      5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction........................21
      5.7. Super-Object Construction................................22
      5.8. Repair Packet Considerations.............................23
      5.9. Summary FEC Information..................................24
   6. Receiver operation............................................25
      6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows.......25
      6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition..................................26
      6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance for File Mode...........27
         6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location
         Derivation.................................................27
         6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation.....................27
         6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation.....................28
   7. FEC Application...............................................28
      7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines.......................28
      7.2. TOI Mapping..............................................29
      7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout........................29
      7.4. Example FEC Operation....................................30
   8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles....................31
   9. ROUTE Concepts................................................31
      9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery..................................32

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

      9.2. File Mode Optimizations..................................32
      9.3. In Band Signaling of Object Transfer Length..............32
      9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts.................................33
   10. Interoperability Chart.......................................34
   11. Security and Privacy Considerations..........................35
      11.1. Security Considerations.................................35
      11.2. Privacy Considerations..................................37
   12. IANA Considerations..........................................37
   13. References...................................................38
      13.1. Normative References....................................38
      13.2. Informative References..................................39
   14. Acknowledgments..............................................40

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

   The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
   protocol (ROUTE protocol) can be used for robust delivery of
   Application Objects, including Application Objects with real-time
   delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
   The robustness is enabled by a built-in mechanism e.g. signaling for
   loss detection, enabling loss recovery, and optionally integrating
   application-layer Forward Error Correction (FEC).

   Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
   that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g.,
   an Application Object can be a file, or an MPEG Dynamic Adaptive
   Streaming over HTTP (DASH)[DASH] video segment, a WAV audio clip, an
   MPEG Common Media Application Format (CMAF) [CMAF] addressable
   resource, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.

   The ROUTE protocol is designed to enable delivery of sequences of
   related Application Objects in a timely manner to receivers, e.g., a
   sequence of DASH video segments associated to a Representation or a
   sequence of CMAF addressable resources associated to a CMAF Track.
   Most of these applications are real-time in the sense that they are
   sensitive to and reply upon such timely reception of data. The ROUTE
   protocol also supports chunked delivery of real-time Application
   Objects to enable low latency streaming applications (similar in its
   properties to chunked delivery using HTTP). The protocol also enables
   low-latency delivery of DASH and Apple HTTP Live Streaming (HLS)
   content with CMAF Chunks.

   Content not intended for rendering in real time as it is received
   e.g. a downloaded application, or a file comprising continuous or
   discrete media and belonging to an app-based feature, or a file

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   containing (opaque) data to be consumed by a Digital Rights
   Management (DRM) system client can also delivered by ROUTE.

   The ROUTE protocol supports a caching model, where Application
   Objects are recovered into a cache at the receiver and may be made
   available to applications via standard HTTP requests from the cache.
   Many current day applications rely on using HTTP to access content,
   and hence this approach enables such applications in
   broadcast/multicast environments.

   Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) 3.0 specifies the ROUTE
   protocol integrated with an ATSC 3.0 services layer. That
   specification will be referred to as ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] for the
   remainder of this document. DVB has specified a profile of ATSC-ROUTE
   in DVB Adaptive Media Streaming over IP Multicast (DVB-MABR)
   [DVBMABR]. This document specifies the Application Object delivery
   aspects (delivery protocol) for such applications, as the
   corresponding delivery protocol could be used as a reference by a
   variety of applications by specifying profiles of ROUTE in their
   respective fora, e.g. by adding new optional features atop or by
   restricting various optional features specified in this document in a
   specific application standard. Hence in the context of this document,
   the aforementioned ATSC-ROUTE and DVB-MABR are the applications using
   ROUTE. The definition of profiles by the applications also have to
   give due consideration to compatibility issues, and some related
   guidelines are also provided in this document.

1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE

   ROUTE delivers Application Objects such as MPEG DASH or HLS segments
   and optionally the associated repair data, operating over UDP/IP
   networks, as depicted in Figure 1. The session metadata signaling to
   realize ROUTE session as specified in this document MAY be delivered
   out-of-band or in-band as well. Since ROUTE delivers objects in an
   application cache at the receiver from where the application can
   access them using HTTP, an application like DASH may use its
   standardized unicast streaming mechanisms in conjunction with ROUTE
   over broadcast/multicast to augment the services.

                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |Application (DASH, HLS, CMAF, etc.)|
                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |              ROUTE                |
                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |               UDP                 |
                    +-----------------------------------+

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

                    |               IP                  |
                    +-----------------------------------+

                          Figure 1 Protocol Layering

1.3. Data Model

   The ROUTE data model is constituted by the following key concepts.

   Application Object - data that has meaning to the application that
   uses the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g., an
   Application Object can be a file, or a DASH video segment, a WAV
   audio clip, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.

   Delivery Object - An object on course of delivery to the application
   from the ROUTE sender to ROUTE receiver.

   Transport Object - an object identified by the Transport Object
   Identifier (TOI)in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. It MAY be a either a source
   or a repair object, if it is carried by a Source Flow or a Repair
   Flow, respectively.

   Transport Session - An Layered Coding Transport (LCT) channel, as
   defined by RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. Transport session SHALL be uniquely
   identified by a unique Transport Session Identifier (TSI) value in
   the LCT header. The TSI is scoped by the IP address of the sender,
   and the IP address of the sender together with the TSI uniquely
   identify the session. Transport sessions are a subset of a ROUTE
   session. For media delivery, a Transport Session would typically
   carry a media component, for example a DASH Representation. Within
   each transport session, one or more objects are carried, typically
   objects that are related, e.g. DASH Segments associated to one
   Representation.

   ROUTE Session - An ensemble or multiplex of one or more Transport
   Sessions. Each ROUTE Session is associated with an IP address/port
   combination. ROUTE session typically carries one or more media
   components of streaming media e.g. Representations associated with a
   DASH Media Presentation.

   Source Flow - Transport session carrying source data. Source Flow is
   independent of the repair Flow, i.e. the Source Flow MAY be used by
   a ROUTE receiver without the ROUTE Repair Flows.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Repair Flow - Transport session carrying repair data for one or more
   Source Flows.

1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification

   The scope of the ROUTE protocol is robust and real-time transport of
   delivery objects using LCT packets. This architecture is depicted in
   Figure 2.
   The normative aspects of the ROUTE protocol focus on the following
   aspects:

   o  The format of the LCT packets that carry the transport objects.

   o  The robust transport of the delivery object using a repair
      protocol based on Forward Error Correction (FEC).

   o  The definition and possible carriage of object metadata along with
      the delivery objects. Metadata may be conveyed in LCT packets
      and/or separate objects.

   o  The ROUTE session, LCT channel and delivery object description
      provided as service metadata signaling to enable the reception of
      objects.

   o  The normative aspects (formats, semantics) of the delivery objects
      conveyed as a content manifest to be delivered along with the
      objects to optimize the performance for specific applications;
      e.g., real-time delivery. The objects and manifest are made
      available to the application through an Application Object cache.
      The interface of this cache to the application is not specified in
      this document, however it will typically be enabled by the
      application acting as an HTTP Client and the cache as the HTTP
      server.

                                                Application Objects
   Application                                  to application
   Objects from                                          ^
   an application    +--------------------------------------------+
        +            |  ROUTE Receiver                   |        |
        |            |                            +------+------+ |
        |            |                            | Application | |
        |            |                            | Object Cache| |
        |            |                            +------+------+ |
        |    LCT over|    +---------------+              ^        |
        v    UDP/IP  |    | Source object |  +---------+ |        |
   +----+---+        | +->+ recovery      +--+  Repair +-+        |

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   | ROUTE  |        | |  +---------------+  +----+----+          |
   | Sender +----------+                          ^               |
   +----+---+        | |                          |               |
        |            | |  +---------------+       |               |
        |            | |  | Repair object |       |               |
        |            | +->+ recovery      +-------+               |
        +----------->+    +---------------+                       |
          ROUTE      |                                            |
          Metadata   +--------------------------------------------+

               Figure 2 Architecture/functional block diagram

1.5. Intellectual Property

   The protocol described in this document may be subject to
   intellectual property rights disclosed to the IETF in accordance with
   BCP 78 and recorded in the datatracker entry for this document.

2. ROUTE Packet Format

2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields

   The packet format used by ROUTE Source Flows and Repair Flows follows
   the ALC packet format specified in RFC 5775 [RFC5775], with the UDP
   header followed by the default LCT header and the source FEC Payload
   ID followed by the packet payload. The overall ROUTE packet format is
   as depicted in Figure 3 below.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           UDP Header                          |
   |                                                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                       Default LCT header                      |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         FEC Payload ID                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Payload Data                         |
   |                               ...                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Figure 3 Overall ROUTE packet format

   The Default LCT header is as defined in the LCT building block in RFC
   5651 [RFC5651].

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   The LCT packet header fields SHALL be used as defined by the LCT
   building block in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The semantics and usage of the
   following LCT header fields SHALL be further constrained in ROUTE as
   follows:

   Version number (V) - This 4-bit field indicates the protocol version
   number. The version number SHALL be set to '0001', as specified in
   RFC 5651 [RFC5651].

   Congestion Control flag (C) field - This 2-bit field, as defined in
   RFC 5651 [RFC5651], SHALL be set to '00'.

   Protocol-Specific Indication (PSI) - The most significant bit of this
   two bit flag is called the Source Packet Indicator (SPI) and
   indicates whether the current packet is a source packet or an FEC
   repair packet. The SPI SHALL be set to '1' to indicate a source
   packet, and SHALL bet set to '0' to indicate a repair packet.
   If the payload of this packet is carrying the first part of a CMAF
   Random Access chunk, except for the first CMAF chunk in a segment,
   the least significant bit of the PSI field MAY be set to 1, and in
   this case, this information can be used by a ROUTE receiver for fast
   stream acquisition (details in Section 6.2). Note that setting the
   least significant bit of the Protocol Specific Information (PSI) to 1
   is not compatible with ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] signaling for the source
   packet.

   Transport Session Identifier flag (S) - This 1-bit field SHALL be set
   to '1' to indicate a 32-bit word in the TSI field.

   Transport Object Identifier flag (O) - This 2-bit field SHALL be set
   to '01' to indicate the number of full 32-bit words in the TOI field.

   Half-word flag (H) - This 1-bit field SHALL be set to '0' to indicate
   that no half-word field sizes are used.

   Codepoint (CP) - This 8-bit field is used to indicate the type of the
   payload that is carried by this packet, and for ROUTE, is defined as
   shown below to indicate the type of delivery object carried in the
   payload of the associated ROUTE packet. The remaining, unmapped
   Codepoint values can be used by an application using ROUTE. In this
   case, the Codepoint values SHALL follow the semantics specified in
   the following table:

   Codepoint value         |   Semantics
   ----------------------------------------------------
   0                       |   Reserved (not used)

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   1                       |   Non Real Time (NRT) - File Mode
   2                       |   NRT - Entity Mode
   3                       |   NRT - Unsigned Package Mode
   4                       |   NRT - Signed Package Mode
   5                       |   New IS, timeline changed
   6                       |   New IS, timeline continued
   7                       |   Redundant IS
   8                       |   Media Segment, File Mode
   9                       |   Media Segment, Entity Mode
   10 - 255                |   Application specific

   Congestion Control Information (CCI) - For packets carrying DASH
   segments, MAY convey the earliest presentation time contained in the
   ROUTE packet. In this case, this information can be used by a ROUTE
   receiver for fast stream acquisition (details in Section 6.2).
   Otherwise this field SHALL be set to 0.

   Transport Session Identifier (TSI) - This 32-bit field identifies the
   Transport Session in ROUTE. The context of the Transport Session is
   provided by signaling metadata. The value TSI = 0 SHALL only be used
   for application-specific signaling.

   Transport Object Identifier (TOI) - This 32-bit field SHALL identify
   the object within this session to which the payload of the current
   packet belongs. The mapping of the TOI field to the object is
   provided by the Extended File Delivery Table (FDT).

2.2. LCT Header Extensions

   The following LCT header extensions are defined or used by ROUTE:

   EXT_FTI - as specified in RFC 5775.

   EXT_TOL - as specified by ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331].

   NOTE: The transport object length can also be determined without the
   use of EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object (B)
   flag. However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information
   can be used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.

   EXT_TIME Header - as specified in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The Sender
   Current Time SHALL be signaled using EXT_TIME.

2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows

   The syntax of the FEC Payload ID for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
   used in ROUTE Source Flows is a 32-bit unsigned integer value that

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   SHALL express the start_offset, as an octet number corresponding to
   the first octet of the fragment of the delivery object carried in
   this packet. The start_offset value for the first fragment of any
   delivery object SHALL be set to 0. Figure 4 shows the 32-bit
   start_offset field.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         start_offset                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               Figure 4 FEC Payload ID for Source Flows.

2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows

   FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows is specified in RFC 6330 [RFC6330].

3. Session Metadata

   The required session metadata for Source and Repair Flows is
   specified in the following sections. The list specified here is not
   exhaustive; an application MAY signal more metadata to meet its
   needs. The data format is also not specified beyond its cardinality,
   and basic type (e.g. integral or alphanumeric data); the exact format
   of specifying the data is left for the application, e.g. by using XML
   encoding format. It is specified if an attribute is mandatory (m),
   conditional mandatory (cm) or optional (o) to realize a basic ROUTE
   session. The delivery of the session metadata to the ROUTE receiver
   is beyond scope of this document.

3.1. Generic Metadata

   Generic metadata is applicable to both Source and Repair Flows as
   follows. Before a receiver can join a ROUTE session, the receiver
   needs to obtain this generic metadata that contains at least the
   following information:

   ROUTE version number (m): The version number of ROUTE used in this
   session. The version number conforming to this document SHALL be 1.

   Connection ID (m): unique identifier of a Connection, usually
   consisting of source IP address/source port number, destination IP
   address/destination port number.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

3.2. Session Metadata for Source Flows

   stsi (m) - LCT TSI value corresponding to the transport session for
   the Source Flow.

   rt (o) - A Boolean flag which SHALL indicate whether the content
   component carried by this Source Flow corresponds to real-time
   streaming media, or non-real-time content. When set to "true", it
   SHALL be an indication of real-time content, and when absent or set
   to "false", it SHALL be an indication of non-real-time (NRT) content.

   minBufferSize (o) - A 32-bit unsigned integer which SHALL represent,
   in kilobytes, the minimum required storage size of the receiver
   transport buffer, for the parent LCT channel of this Source Flow.
   This attribute is only be applicable when rt = "true". When rt "true"
   and this attribute is absent, the minimum receiver transport buffer
   size is unknown.

   EFDT (cm) - when present, SHALL contain a single instance of an FDT-
   Instance element per RFC 6726 FLUTE [RFC6726], which MAY contain the
   optional FDT extensions as defined in Section 4.1. The optional EFDT
   element MAY only be present for File Mode of delivery. In File Mode,
   it SHALL be present if this Source Flow transports streaming media
   segments.

   contentType (o) - A string that SHALL represent media type for the
   media content. It SHALL obey the semantics of the Content-Type header
   as specified by HTTP/1.1 protocol in RFC 7231 [RFC7231]. This
   document does not define any new contentType strings.

   applicationMapping (m) - A set of identifiers that provide an
   application-specific mapping of the received Application Objects to
   the Source Flows. For example, for DASH, this would provide the
   mapping a Source Flow to a specific DASH representation from a Media
   Presentation Description (MPD), the latter identified by its
   Representation and corresponding Adaptation Set and Period IDs.

3.3. Session metadata for Repair Flows

   maximumDelay (o) - An integer value, when present, SHALL represent
   the maximum delivery delay, in milliseconds, between any source
   packet in the Source Flow and the repair packet, associated with that
   source packet, in the Repair Flow. Default semantics of this
   attribute, when absent, is not defined.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   overhead (o) - An integer whose value SHALL represent the sum of the
   AL-FEC related fields in the ROUTE repair packet relative to the size
   of the repair packet size as a percentage.

   minBuffSize (o) - A 32-bit unsigned integer whose value SHALL
   represent a required size of the receiver transport buffer for AL-FEC
   decoding processing. When present, this attribute SHALL indicate the
   minimum buffer size that is required to handle all associated objects
   that are assigned to a super-object i.e. a delivery object formed by
   the concatenation of multiple FEC transport objects in order to
   bundle these FEC transport objects for AL-FEC protection.

   fecOTI (m) - A parameter consisting of the concatenation of Common
   and Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information (FEC OTI) as
   defined in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of RFC 6330 [RFC6330], and which
   corresponds to the delivery objects carried in the Source Flow to
   which this Repair Flow is associated, with the following
   qualification. The 40-bit Transfer Length (F) field may either
   represent the actual size of the object, or it is encoded as all
   zeroes. In the latter case, it means that the FEC transport object
   size is either unknown, or cannot be represented by this attribute.
   In other words, for the all-zeroes format, the delivery objects in
   the Source flow correspond to streaming content - either a live
   Service whereby content encoding has not yet occurred at the time
   this session data was generated, or pre-recorded streaming content
   whose delivery object sizes, albeit known at the time of session data
   generation, are variable and cannot be represented as a single value
   by the fecOTI attribute.

   ptsi (m) - TSI value(s) of each Source Flow protected by this Repair
   Flow.

   mappingTOIx (o) - Values of the constant X for use in deriving the
   TOI of the delivery object of each protected Source Flow from the
   TOI of the FEC (super-)object. The default value is "1". Multiple
   mappingTOIx values MAY be provided for each protected Source Flow,
   depending upon the usage of FEC (super-)object.

   mappingTOIy (o) - The corresponding constant Y to each mappingTOIx,
   when present, for use in deriving the parent SourceTOI value from the
   above equation. The default value is "0".

4. Delivery Object Mode

   ROUTE provides several different delivery object modes, and one of
   these modes may suite the application needs better for a given
   transport session. A delivery object is self-contained for the

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   application, typically associated with certain properties, metadata
   and timing-related information that are of relevance for the
   application. The signaling of the delivery object mode is done on an
   object based using Codepoint as specified in Section 2.1.

4.1. File Mode

   File mode uses an out-of-band Extended FDT (EDFT) signaling for
   recovery of delivery objects with the following extensions and
   considerations.

4.1.1. Extensions to FDT

   Following extensions are specified to FDT specified in RFC 6726
   [RFC6726]. An Extended FDT Instance is an instance of FLUTE FDT as
   specified in [RFC6726], plus optionally one or more of the following
   extensions.

   efdtVersion - A value that SHALL represent the version of this
   Extended FDT Instance.

   maxExpiresDelta - A value, which when present, SHALL represent a time
   interval in number of seconds, which when added to the wall clock
   time at the receiver when the receiver acquires the first ROUTE
   packet carrying data of the object described by this Extended FDT
   Instance, SHALL represent the expiration time of the associated
   Extended FDT Instance. When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the
   expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance SHALL be given by the
   sum of a) the value of the ERT field in the EXT_TIME LCT header
   extension in the first ROUTE packet carrying data of that file, and
   b) the current receiver time when parsing the packet header of that
   ROUTE packet. See Sections 5.4 and 6.3.3 on additional rules for
   deriving the Extended FDT Instance expiration time.

   maxTransportSize - An attribute that SHALL represent the maximum
   transport size in bytes of any delivery object described by this
   Extended FDT Instance. This attribute SHALL be present if a) the
   fileTemplate is present in Extended FDT-Instance; or b) one or more
   File elements, if present in this Extended FDT Instance, do not
   include the Transfer-Length attribute. When maxTransportSize is not
   present, the maximum transport size is not signaled.

   fileTemplate - A string value, which when present and in conjunction
   with parameter substitution, is used in deriving the Content-Location
   attribute, for the delivery object described by this Extended FDT
   Instance. It SHALL include the "$TOI$" identifier. Each identifier

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   MAY be suffixed as needed by specific file names, within the
   enclosing '$' characters following this prototype:
   %0[width]d
   The width parameter is an unsigned integer that provides the minimum
   number of characters to be printed. If the value to be printed is
   shorter than this number, the result SHALL be padded with leading
   zeroes. The value is not truncated even if the result is larger. When
   no format tag is present, a default format tag with width=1 SHALL be
   used.

   Strings other than identifiers SHALL only contain characters that are
   permitted within URIs according to RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

   $$ Is an escape sequence in fileTemplate value, i.e. "$$" is non-
   recursively replaced with a single "$"

   The usage of fileTemplate is described in Sender and Receiver
   operations in Sections 5.4 and 6.3, respectively.

4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT

   The Extended FDT Instance SHALL conform to an FDT Instance according
   to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], with the following constraints: at least one
   File element and the @Expires attribute SHALL be present.

   Content encoding MAY be used for delivery of any file described by an
   FDT-Instance.File element in the Extended FDT Instance. The content
   encoding defined in the present RFC is gzip [RFC1952]. When content
   encoding is used, the File@Content-Encoding and File@Content-Length
   attributes SHALL be present in the Extended FDT Instance.

4.2. Entity Mode

   For Entity Mode, the following applies:

   o  Delivery Object metadata SHALL be expressed in the form of entity
      headers as defined in HTTP/1.1, and which correspond to one or
      more of the representation header fields, payload header fields
      and response header fields as defined in Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 7,
      respectively, of RFC 7231. Additionally, a Digest HTTP response
      header [RFC7231] MAY be included to enable a receiver to verify
      the integrity of the multicast transport object.

      The entity headers sent along with the delivery object provide all
      information about that multicast transport object.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  Sending a media object (if the object is chunked) in Entity Mode
      may result in one of the following options:

       o If the length of the chunked object is known at sender, the
          ROUTE Entity Mode delivery object MAY be sent without using
          HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer coding, i.e. the object starts with
          an HTTP header containing the Content Length field, followed
          by the concatenation of CMAF chunks:

          |HTTP Header+Length||---chunk ----||---chunk ----||---chunk --
          --||---chunk ----|

       o If the length of the chunked object is unknown at sender when
          starting to send the object, HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer coding
          format SHALL be used:

          |HTTP Header||Separator+Length||---chunk ----
          ||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length||---chunk
          ----||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length=0|

          Note, however, that it is not required to send a CMAF chunk in
          exactly one HTTP chunk.

4.3. Unsigned Package Mode

   In this delivery mode, the delivery object consists of a group of
   files that are packaged for delivery only. If applied, the client is
   expected to unpack the package and provide each file as an
   independent object to the application. Packaging is supported by
   Multipart Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2557],
   where objects are packaged into one document for transport.

4.4. Signed Package Mode

   In Signed Package Mode delivery, the delivery object consists of a
   group of files that are packaged for delivery, and the package
   includes one or more signatures for validation. Signed packaging is
   supported by RFC 8551 Secure MIME (S/MIME) [RFC8551], where objects
   are packaged into one document for transport and the package includes
   objects necessary for validation of the package.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

5. Sender Operation

5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow

   ROUTE Source Flow carry the source data as specified in RFC 5775
   [RFC5775]. There are several special considerations that ROUTE
   introduces to the usage of the LCT building block as outlined in the
   following:

   o  ROUTE limits the usage of the LCT building block to a single
      channel per session. Congestion control is thus sender-driven in
      ROUTE. The functionality of receiver-driven layered multicast may
      still be offered by the application, allowing the receiver
      application to select the appropriate delivery session based on
      the bandwidth requirement of that session.

   Further, following details apply to LCT:

   o  The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in
      RFC 5651 [RFC5651] is used with the following constraints:

       o The TSI in the LCT header SHALL be set equal to the value of
          the stsi attribute in Section 3.2.

       o The Codepoint (CP) in the LCT header SHALL be used to signal
          the applied formatting as defined in the signaling metadata.

       o In accordance to ALC, a source FEC Payload ID header is used to
          identify, for FEC purposes, the encoding symbols of the
          delivery object, or a portion thereof, carried by the
          associated ROUTE packet. This information may be sent in
          several ways:

            . As a simple new null FEC scheme with the following usage:

                 . The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL
                    be set to 0, in case the ROUTE packet contains the
                    entire delivery object, or

                 . The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL
                    be set as a direct address (start offset)
                    corresponding to the starting byte position of the
                    portion of the object carried in this packet using a
                    32-bit field.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

            . In a compatible manner to RFC 6330 [RFC6330] where the
               SBN and ESI defines the start offset together with the
               symbol size T.

            . The signaling metadata provides the appropriate
               parameters to indicate any of the above modes using the
               srcFecPayloadId attribute.

   o  The LCT Header EXT_TIME extension as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]
      MAY be used by the sender in the following manner:

       o The Sender Current Time (SCT), depending on the application,
          MAY be used to occasionally or frequently signal the sender
          current time, possibly for reliever time synchronization.

       o The Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used to indicate the
          expected remaining time for transmission of the current
          object, to optimize detection of a lost delivery object.

       o The Sender Last Changed (SLC) flag is typically not utilized,
          but MAY be used to indicate addition/removal of Segments.

   Additional extension headers MAY be used to support real-time
   delivery. Such extension headers are defined in Section 2.1.

5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow

   The following description of the ROUTE sender operation on the
   mapping of the Application Object to the ROUTE packet payloads
   logically represents an extension of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], which in
   turn inherits the context, language, declarations and restrictions of
   the FEC building block in RFC 5052 [RFC5052].

   The data carried in the payload of a given ROUTE packet constitute a
   contiguous portion of the Application Object. ROUTE source delivery
   can be considered as a special case of the use of the Compact No-Code
   Scheme associated with FEC Encoding ID = 0 according to Sections
   3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], in which the encoding symbol
   size is exactly one byte. As specified in Section 2.1, for ROUTE
   Source Flows, the FEC Payload ID SHALL deliver the 32-bit
   start_offset. All receivers are expected to support, at minimum,
   operation with this special case of the Compact No-Code FEC.

   Note that in the event the source object size is greater than 2^32
   bytes (approximately 4.3 GB), the applications (in the broadcaster
   server and the receiver) are expected to perform segmentation/re-
   assembly using methods beyond the scope of this transport Standard.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Finally, in some special cases a ROUTE sender MAY need to produce
   ROUTE packets that do not contain any payload. This may be required,
   for example, to signal the end of a session or to convey congestion
   control information. These data-less packets do not contain FEC
   Payload ID or payload data, but only the LCT header fields. The total
   datagram length, conveyed by outer protocol headers (e.g., the IP or
   UDP header), enables receivers to detect the absence of the LCT
   header, FEC Payload ID and payload data.

5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization

   In the basic operation, it is assumed that the Application Object is
   fully available at the ROUTE sender.

   1. The amount of data to be sent in a single ROUTE packet is limited
      by the maximum transfer unit of the data packets or the size of
      the remaining data of the Application Object being sent, whichever
      is smaller. The transfer unit is determined either by knowledge of
      underlying transport block sizes or by other constraints.
   2. The start_offset field in the LCT header of the ROUTE packet
      indicates the byte offset of the carried data in the Application
      Object being sent.
   3. The Close Object (B) flag is set to 1 if this is the last ROUTE
      packet carrying the data of the Application Object.

   The order of packet delivery is arbitrary, but in the absence of
   other constraints delivery with increasing start_offset value is
   recommended.

5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content

   Following additional guidelines should be followed for ROUTE
   packetization of CMAF Chunked Content in addition to the guideline of
   Section 5.2.1:

   1. As specified in Section 2.1, if it is the first ROUTE packet
      carrying a CMAF Random Access chunk, except for the first CMAF
      chunk in the segment, the least significant bit of the Protocol
      Specific Information (PSI) field in the LCT header MAY be set to
      1. The receiver MAY use this information for optimization of
      random access.
   2. As soon as the total length of the media object is known,
      potentially with the packaging of the last CMAF chunk of a
      segment, the EXT_TOL extension header MAY be added to the LCT
      header to signal the Transfer Length, so that the receiver may
      know this information in a timely fashion.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

5.3. Timing of Packet Emission

   The sender SHALL use the timing information provided by the
   application to time the emission of packets for a timely reception.
   This information may be contained in the Application Objects e.g.
   DASH Segments and/or the presentation manifest. Hence such packets of
   streaming media with real time constraints SHALL be sent in such a
   way to enable their timely reception with respect to the presentation
   timeline.

5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending

   For File Mode Sending:

   o  The TOI field in the ROUTE packet header SHALL be set such that
      Content-Location can be derived at the receiver according to File
      Template substitution specified in Section 6.3.1.

   o  After sending the first packet with a given TOI value, none of the
      packets pertaining to this TOI SHALL be sent later than the wall
      clock time as derived from maxExpiresDelta. The EXT_TIME header
      with Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used in order to convey
      more accurate expiry time.

5.5. FEC Framework Considerations

   The FEC framework uses concepts of the FECFRAME work as defined in
   RFC 6363 [RFC6363], as well as the FEC building block, RFC 5052
   [RFC5052], which is adopted in the existing FLUTE/ALC/LCT
   specifications.
   The FEC design adheres to the following principles:

   o  FEC-related information is provided only where needed.

   o  Receivers not capable of this framework can ignore repair packets.

   o  The FEC is symbol-based with fixed symbol size per protected
      Repair Flow. The ALC protocol and existing FEC schemes are reused.

   o  A FEC Repair Flow provides protection of delivery objects from one
      or more Source Flows.

   The FEC-specific components of the FEC framework are:

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  FEC Repair Flow declaration including all FEC-specific
      information.

   o  FEC transport object that is the concatenation of a delivery
      object, padding octets and size information in order to form an N-
      symbol-sized chunk of data, where N >= 1.

   o  FEC super-object that is the concatenation of one or more FEC
      transport objects in order to bundle FEC transport objects for FEC
      protection.

   o  FEC protocol and packet structure.

   A receiver needs to be able to recover delivery objects from repair
   packets based on available FEC information.

5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction

   In order to identify a delivery object in the context of the Repair
   protocol, the following information is needed:

   o  TSI and TOI of the delivery object. In this case, the FEC object
      corresponds to the (entire) delivery object.

   o  Octet range of the delivery object, i.e. start offset within the
      delivery object and number of subsequent and contiguous octets of
      delivery object that constitutes the FEC object (i.e., the FEC-
      protected portion of the source object). In this case, the FEC
      object corresponds to a contiguous byte range portion of the
      delivery object.

   Typically, for real-time object delivery with smaller delivery object
   sizes, the first mapping is applied; i.e., the delivery object is an
   FEC object.
   Assuming that the FEC object is the delivery object, for each
   delivery object, the associated FEC transport object is comprised of
   the concatenation of the delivery object, padding octets (P) and the
   FEC object size (F) in octets, where F is carried in a 4-octet field.
   The FEC transport object size S, in FEC encoding symbols, SHALL be an
   integer multiple of the symbol size Y.
   S is determined from the session information and/or the repair packet
   headers.
   F is carried in the last 4 octets of the FEC transport object.
   Specifically, let:

   o  F be the size of the delivery object in octets,

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  F' be the F octets of data of the delivery object,

   o  f' denote the four octets of data carrying the value of F in
      network octet order (high-order octet first),

   o  S be the size of the FEC transport object with S=ceil((F+4)/Y),
      where the ceil() function rounds the result upward to its nearest
      integer,

   o  P' be S*Y-4-F octets of data, i.e. padding placed between the
      delivery object and the 4-byte field conveying the value of F and
      located at the end of the FEC transport object, and

   o  O' be the concatenation of F', P' and f'.

   O' then constitutes the FEC transport object of size S*Y octets. Note
   that padding octets and the object size F are not sent in source
   packets of the delivery object, but are only part of an FEC transport
   object that FEC decoding recovers in order to extract the FEC object
   and thus the delivery object or portion of the delivery object that
   constitutes the FEC object. In the above context, the FEC transport
   object size in symbols is S.

   The general information about an FEC transport object that is
   conveyed to an FEC-enabled receiver is the source TSI, source TOI and
   the associated octet range within the delivery object comprising the
   associated FEC object. However, as the size in octets of the FEC
   object is provided in the appended field within the FEC transport
   object, the remaining information can be conveyed as:

   o  TSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC object
      associated with the FEC transport object is generated

   o  Start octet within delivery object for the associated FEC object

   o  Size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S

5.7. Super-Object Construction

   From the FEC Repair Flow declaration, the construction of an FEC
   super-object as the concatenation of one or more FEC transport
   objects can be determined. The FEC super-object includes the general
   information about the FEC transport objects as described in the
   previous sections, as well as the placement order of FEC transport
   objects within the FEC super-object.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Let:
   o  N be the total number of FEC transport objects for the FEC super-
      object construction.

   o  For i = 0,..., N-1, let S[i] be the size in symbols of FEC
      transport object i.

   o  B' be the FEC super-object which is the concatenation of the FEC
      transport objects in numerical order, comprised of K = Sum of N
      source symbols, each symbol denoted as S[i].

   For each FEC super-object, the remaining general information that
   needs to be conveyed to an FEC-enabled receiver, beyond what is
   already carried in the FEC transport objects that constitute the FEC
   super-object, comprises:

   o  The total number of FEC transport objects N.

   o  For each FEC transport object, the:

       o TSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC object
          associated with the FEC transport object is generated,

       o Start octet within delivery object for the associated FEC
          object, and

       o Size in symbols of the FEC transport object.

   The carriage of the FEC repair information is discussed below.

5.8. Repair Packet Considerations

   The repair protocol is based on Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) as
   defined in RFC 5775 [RFC5775] and the Layered Coding Transport (LCT)
   Building Block as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651] with the following
   details:

   o  The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in
      RFC 5651 [RFC5651] is used as defined in Asynchronous Layered
      Coding (ALC), Section 2.1. In addition, the following constraints
      apply:

       o The TSI in the LCT header SHALL identify the Repair Flow to
          which this packet applies, by the matching value of the ptsi
          attribute in the signaling metadata among the LCT channels
          carrying Repair Flows.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  The FEC building block is used according to RFC 6330 [RFC6330],
      but only repair packets are delivered.

       o Each repair packet within the scope of the Repair Flow (as
          indicated by the TSI field in the LCT header) SHALL carry the
          repair symbols for a corresponding FEC transport object/super-
          object as identified by its TOI. The repair object/super-
          object TOI SHALL be unique for each FEC super-object that is
          created within the scope of the TSI.

5.9. Summary FEC Information

   For each super-object (identified by a unique TOI within a Repair
   Flow that is in turn identified by the TSI in the LCT header) that is
   generated, the following information needs to be communicated to the
   receiver:

   o  The FEC configuration consisting of:

       o FEC Object Transmission Information (OTI) per RFC 5052
          [RFC5052].

       o Additional FEC information (see Section 3.3).

       o The total number of FEC objects included in the FEC super-
          object, N.

   o  For each FEC transport object:

       o TSI and TOI of the delivery object used to generate the FEC
          object associated with the FEC transport object,

       o Start octet within the delivery object of the associated FEC
          object, if applicable, and

       o The size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S.

   The above information is delivered:

   o  Statically in the session metadata as defined in Section 3.3, and

   o  Dynamically in an LCT extension header.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

6. Receiver operation

   The receiver receives packets and filters those packets according to
   the following. From the ROUTE session and each contained LCT channel,
   the receiver regenerates delivery objects from the ROUTE session and
   each contained LCT channel.

   In the event that the receiver receives data that does not conform to
   the ROUTE protocol specified in this document, the receiver SHOULD
   attempt to recover gracefully by e.g. informing the application about
   the issues using means beyond the scope of this document.

   The basic receiver information is provided below.

6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows

   Upon receipt of each ROUTE packet of a Source Flow, the receiver
   proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.

   1) The ROUTE receiver is expected to parse the LCT and FEC Payload ID
      to verify that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the
      payload is discarded without further processing.
   2) All ROUTE packets used to recover a specific delivery object carry
      the same TOI value in the LCT header.
   3) The ROUTE receiver is expected to assert that the TSI and the
      Codepoint represent valid operation points in the signaling
      metadata, i.e. the signaling contains a matching entry to the TSI
      value provided in the packet header, as well as for this TSI, and
      Codepoint field in the LCT header has a valid Codepoint mapping.
   4) The ROUTE receiver should process the remainder of the payload,
      including the appropriate interpretation of the other payload
      header fields, and using the source FEC Payload ID (to determine
      the start_offset) and the payload data to reconstruct the
      corresponding object as follows:
        a.  For File Mode, upon receipt of the first ROUTE packet
          payload for an object, the ROUTE receiver uses the
          File@Transfer-Length attribute of the associated Extended FDT
          Instance, when present, to determine the length T of the
          object. When the File@Transfer-Length attribute is not
          present in the Extended FDT Instance, the receiver uses the
          maxTransportSize attribute of the associated Extended FDT
          Instance to determine the maximum length T' of the object.
          Alternatively, and specifically for delivery modes other than
          File Mode, EXT_TOL header can be used to determine the length
          T of the object.
        b.  The ROUTE receiver allocates buffer space for the T or T'
          bytes that the object will or may occupy.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

        c.  The ROUTE receiver computes the length of the payload, Y, by
          subtracting the payload header length from the total length
          of the received payload.
        d.  The ROUTE receiver allocates a Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T-
          1] or RECEIVED[0..T'-1], as appropriate, with all entries
          initialized to false to track received object symbols. The
          ROUTE receiver continuously acquires packet payloads for the
          object as long as all of the following conditions are
          satisfied: i) there is at least one entry in RECEIVED still
          set to false; ii) the object has not yet expired; and iii)
          the application has not given up on reception of this object.
          More details are provided below.
        e.  For each received ROUTE packet payload for the object
          (including the first payload), the steps to be taken to help
          recover the object are as follows:
            i. If the packet includes an EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI header,
               modify the Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T'-1] to become
               RECEIVED[0..T-1].
           ii. Let X be the value of the start_offset field in the ROUTE
               packet header and let Y be the length of the payload, Y,
               computed by subtracting the LCT header size and the FEC
               Payload ID size from the total length of the received
               packet.
          iii. The ROUTE receiver copies the data into the appropriate
               place within the space reserved for the object and sets
               RECEIVED[X ... X+Y-1] = true.
           iv. If all T entries of RECEIVED are true, then the receiver
               has recovered the entire object.

   Upon recovery of both the complete set of packet payloads for the
   delivery object associated with a given TOI value, and the metadata
   for that delivery object, the reception of the delivery object, now a
   fully received Application Object, is complete.

   The receiver SHALL ensure making availability of Application Objects
   in a timely fashion to the application, based on the application
   provided timing data e.g. via presentation manifest file. For
   example, HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer may need to be enabled to transfer
   the Application Objects if MPD@availabilityTimeOffset is signaled in
   the DASH presentation manifest, to allow for timely sending of
   segment data to the application.

6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition

   When the receiver initially starts reception of ROUTE packets, it is
   likely that the reception does not start from the very first packet
   carrying the data of a multicast transport object, and in this case

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   such a partially received object is normally discarded. However, the
   channel acquisition or "tune-in" times can be improved if the
   partially received object is usable by the application.
   One example realization for this is as follows:

   o  The receiver checks for the first received packet with the least
      significant bit of the PSI set to 1, indicating the start of a
      CMAF Random Access chunk.

   o  The receiver MAY make the partially received object (a partial
      DASH segment starting from the packet above) available to the
      application for fast stream acquisition.

   o  It MAY recover the earliest presentation time of this CMAF Random
      Access chunk from the ROUTE packet LCT Congestion Control
      Information (CCI) field as specified in Section 2.1 to be able to
      add a new Period element in the MPD exposed to the application
      containing just the partially received DASH segment with period
      continuity signaling.

6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance for File Mode

   An Extended FDT Instance conforming to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], is
   produced at the receiver using the service metadata and in band
   signaling as follows:

6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location Derivation

   The Content-Location of an Application Object is derived as follows:
   "$TOI$" is substituted with the unique TOI value in the LCT header of
   the ROUTE packets used to recover the given delivery object (as
   specified in Section 6.1).

   After the substitution, the fileTemplate SHALL be a valid URL
   corresponding to the Content-Location attribute of the associated
   Application Object.

   An example @fileTemplate using a width of 5 is:
   fileTemplate="myVideo$TOI%05d$.mps", resulting in file names with
   exactly five digits in the number portion. The Media Segment file
   name for TOI=33 using this template is myVideo00033.mps.

6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation

   Either the EXT_FTI header (per RFC 5775 [RFC5775]) or the EXT_TOL
   header, when present, is used to derive the Transport Object Length
   (TOL) of the File. If the File@Transfer-Length parameter in the

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Extended FDT Instance is not present, then the EXT_TOL header or the
   or EXT_FTI header SHALL be present. Note that a header containing the
   transport object length (EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI) need not be present in
   each packet header. If the broadcaster does not know the length of
   the transport object at the beginning of the transfer, an EXT_TOL or
   EXT_FTI header SHALL be included in at least the last packet of the
   file and should be included in the last few packets of the transfer.

6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation

   When present, the maxExpiresDelta attribute SHALL be used to generate
   the value of the FDT-Instance@Expires attribute. The receiver is
   expected to add this value to its wall clock time when acquiring the
   first ROUTE packet carrying the data of a given delivery object to
   obtain the value for @Expires.

   When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the EXT_TIME header with
   Expected Residual Time (ERT) SHALL be used to derive the expiry time
   of the Extended FDT Instance. When both maxExpiresDelta and the ERT
   of EXT_TIME are present, the smaller of the two values should be used
   as the incremental time interval to be added to the receiver's
   current time to generate the effective value for @Expires. When
   neither maxExpiresDelta nor the ERT field of the EXT_TIME header is
   present, then the expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance is
   given by its @Expires attribute.

7. FEC Application

7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines

   It is up to the receiver to decide to use zero, one or more of the
   FEC streams. Hence, the application assigns a recovery property to
   each flow, which defines aspects such as the delay and the required
   memory if one or the other is chosen. The receiver MAY decide whether
   or not to utilize Repair Flows based on the following considerations:

   o  The desired start-up and end-to-end latency. If a Repair Flow
      requires a significant amount of buffering time to be effective,
      such Repair Flow might only be used in time-shift operations or in
      poor reception conditions, since use of such Repair Flow trades
      off end-to-end latency against DASH Media Presentation quality.

   o  FEC capabilities, i.e. the receiver MAY pick only the FEC
      algorithm that it supports.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  Which Source Flows are being protected; for example, if the Repair
      Flow protects Source Flows that are not selected by the receiver,
      then the receiver may not select the Repair Flow.

   o  Other considerations such as available buffer size, reception
      conditions, etc.

   If a receiver decides to acquire a certain Repair Flow then the
   receiver must receive data on all Source Flows that are protected by
   that Repair Flow to collect the relevant packets.

7.2. TOI Mapping

   When mappingTOIx/mappingTOIy are used to signal X and Y values, then
   the TOI value(s) of the one or more source objects (sourceTOI)
   protected by a given FEC transport object or FEC super-object with a
   TOI value rTOI is derived through an equation sourceTOI = X*rTOI + Y.

   When neither mappingTOIx nor mappingTOIy is present there is a 1:1
   relationship between each delivery object carried in the Source Flow
   as identified by ptsi to an FEC object carried in this Repair Flow.
   In this case the TOI of each of those delivery objects SHALL be
   identical to the TOI of the corresponding FEC object.

7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout

   The permitted start and end times for the receiver to perform the
   file repair procedure, in case of unsuccessful broadcast file
   reception, and associated rules and parameters are as follows:

   o  The latest time that the file repair procedure may start is bound
      by the @Expires attribute of the FDT-Instance.

   o  The receiver may choose to start the file repair procedure
      earlier, if it detects the occurrence of any of the following
      events:

       o Presence of the Close Object flag (B) in the LCT header
          [RFC5651] for the file of interest;

       o Presence of the Close Session flag (A) in the LCT header
          [RFC5651] before the nominal expiration of the Extended FDT
          Instance as defined by the @Expires attribute.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 29]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

7.4. Example FEC Operation

   To be able to recover the delivery objects that are protected by a
   Repair Flow, a receiver needs to obtain the necessary Service
   signaling metadata fragments that describe the corresponding
   collection of delivery objects that are covered by this Repair Flow.
   A Repair Flow is characterized by the combination of an LCT channel,
   a unique TSI number, as well as the corresponding protected Source
   Flows.
   If a receiver acquires data of a Repair Flow, the receiver is
   expected to collect all packets of all protected Transport Sessions.
   Upon receipt of each packet, whether it is a source or repair packet,
   the receiver proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.
   1. The receiver is expected to parse the packet header and verify
     that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the packet
     SHALL be discarded without further processing.
   2. The receiver is expected to parse the TSI field of the packet
     header and verify that a matching value exists in the Service
     signaling for the Repair Flow or the associated Protected Source
     Flow. If no match is found, the packet SHALL be discarded without
     further processing.
   3. The receiver processes the remainder of the packet, including
     interpretation of the other header fields, and using the source
     FEC Payload ID (to determine the start_offset byte position within
     the source object), the Repair FEC Payload ID, as well as the
     payload data, reconstructs the decoding blocks corresponding to a
     FEC super-object as follows:
        a.  For a source packet, the receiver identifies the delivery
          object to which the received packet is associated, using the
          session information and the TOI carried in the payload
          header. Similarly, for a repair object the receiver
          identifies the FEC super-object to which the received packet
          is associated, using the session information and the TOI
          carried in the payload header.
        b.  For source packets, the receiver collects the data for each
          FEC super-object and recovers FEC super-objects in same way
          as Source Flow in Section 6.1. The received FEC super-object
          is then mapped to a source block and the corresponding
          encoding symbols are generated.
        c.  With the reception of the repair packets, the FEC super-
          object can be recovered.
        d.  Once the FEC super-object is recovered, the individual
          delivery objects can be extracted.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 30]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles

   Applications may define specific ROUTE profiles based on this
   document with the following considerations. Applications MAY

   o  Restrict the signaling certain values signaled in the LCT header
      and/or provision unused fields in the LCT header.

   o  Restrict using certain LCT header extensions and/or add new LCT
      header extensions.

   o  Restrict or limit certain Codepoints, and/or add of application
      specific Codepoints marked as reserved in this document.

   o  Restrict usage of certain service signaling attributes and/or add
      own service metadata.

   Applications SHALL NOT redefine the semantics of any of the ROUTE
   attributes in LCT headers and extension, and service signaling
   attributes already specified in this document.

   By following these guidelines, applications can define profiles that
   are interoperable.

9. ROUTE Concepts

   ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] as well
   as the extensions defined in MBMS [MBMS], but also makes use of some
   principles of FCAST (Object Delivery for the ALC and NACK-Oriented
   Reliable Multicast Protocols) as defined in RFC 6968 [RFC6968]; for
   example, object metadata and the object content may be sent together
   in a compound object.

   In addition to the basic FLUTE protocol, certain optimizations and
   restrictions are added that enable optimized support for real-time
   delivery of media data; hence, the name of the protocol. Among
   others, the source ROUTE protocol enables or enhances the following
   functionalities:

   o  Real-time delivery of object-based media data

   o  Flexible packetization, including enabling media-aware
      packetization as well as transport-aware packetization of delivery
      objects

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 31]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  Independence of Application Objects and delivery objects, i.e. a
      delivery object may be a part of a file or may be a group of
      files.

9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery

   Different ROUTE delivery modes specified in Section 4 are optimized
   for delivery of different types of media data. For example, File Mode
   is specifically optimized for delivering DASH content using Segment
   Template with number substitution. Using File Template in EFDT avoids
   the need of repeated sending of metadata as outlined in the following
   section. Same optimizations however cannot be used for time
   substitution and segment timeline where the addressing of each
   segment is time dependent and in general does not follow a fixed or
   repeated pattern. In this case, Entity mode is more optimized which
   carries the file location in band. Also, Entity mode can be used to
   deliver a file or part of the file using HTTP Partial Content
   response headers.

9.2. File Mode Optimizations

   In the file mode, the delivery object represents an Application
   Object. This mode replicates FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726],
   but with the ability to send static and pre-known file metadata out
   of band.
   In FLUTE, FDT Instances are delivered in-band and need to be
   generated and delivered in real-time if objects are generated in
   real-time at the sender. In contrast to the FDT in RFC 6726
   [RFC6726], Section 3.4.2 and MBMS [MBMS], Section 7.2.10, besides
   separated delivery of file metadata from the delivery object it
   describes, the FDT functionality in ROUTE may be extended by
   additional file metadata and rules that enable the receiver to
   generate the Content-Location attribute of the File element of the
   FDT, on-the-fly, by using information in both the extensions to the
   FDT and the LCT header. The combination of pre-delivery of static
   file metadata and receiver self-generation of dynamic file metadata
   avoids the necessity of continuously sending the FDT Instances for
   real-time objects. Such modified FDT functionality in ROUTE is
   referred to as the Extended FDT.

9.3. In Band Signaling of Object Transfer Length

   As an extension to FLUTE, ROUTE allows for using EXT_TOL LCT header
   extension with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of to signal the
   Transfer Length directly within the ROUTE packet.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 32]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   The transport object length can also be determined without the use of
   EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object (B) flag.
   However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information can be
   used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.

   Applications using ROUTE for delivery of low-latency streaming
   content may make use of this feature for sender-end latency
   optimizations: the sender does not have to wait for the completion of
   the packaging of a whole Application Object to find its transfer
   length to be included in the FDT before the sending can start.
   Rather, partially encoded data can already be started to be sent via
   the ROUTE sender. As the time approaches when the encoding of the
   Application Object is nearing completion, and the length of the
   object becomes known (e.g. time of writing the last CMAF Chunk of a
   DASH segment), only then the sender can signal the object length
   using the EXT TOL LCT header. For example, for a 2 seconds DASH
   segment with 100 millisecond chunks, it may result in saving up to
   1.9 second latency at the sending end.

9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts

   The ROUTE repair protocol is FEC-based and is enabled as an
   additional layer between the transport layer (e.g., UDP) and the
   object delivery layer protocol. The FEC reuses concepts of FEC
   Framework defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], but in contrast to the FEC
   Framework in RFC 6363 [RFC6363] the ROUTE repair protocol does not
   protect packets, but instead it protects delivery objects as
   delivered in the source protocol. In addition, as an extension to
   FLUTE, it supports the protection of multiple objects in one source
   block which is in alignment with the FEC Framework as defined in RFC
   6363 [RFC6363]. Each FEC source block may consist of parts of a
   delivery object, as a single delivery object (similar to FLUTE) or
   multiple delivery objects that are bundled prior to FEC protection.
   ROUTE FEC makes use of FEC schemes in a similar way as those defined
   in RFC 5052 [RFC5052] and uses the terminology of that document. The
   FEC scheme defines the FEC encoding and decoding, as well as the
   protocol fields and procedures used to identify packet payload data
   in the context of the FEC scheme.
   In ROUTE all packets are LCT packets as defined in RFC 5651
   [RFC5651]. Source and repair packets may be distinguished by:

   o  Different ROUTE sessions; i.e., they are carried on different
      IP/UDP port combinations.

   o  Different LCT channels; i.e., they use different TSI values in the
      LCT header.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 33]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   o  The PSI bit in the LCT, if carried in the same LCT channel. This
      mode of operation is mostly suitable for FLUTE-compatible
      deployments.

10. Interoperability Chart

   The following table is an informative comparison of the
   interoperability of ROUTE as specified in this document, with the
   ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] and DVB-MABR [DVBMABR]:

+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Element       | ATSC-ROUTE    | This Document      | DVB-MABR        |
|               |               |                    |                 |
+--------+------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| LCT    |PSI   | Set to 0      | Set to 1 for Source Flow for CMAF    |
| header |least | for Source    | Random access chunk                  |
| fields |signi-| Flow.         |                                      |
|        |ficant|               |                                      |
|        |bit   |               |                                      |
|        +------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
|        |CCI   | May be set    | May be set to EPT for Source Flow    |
|        |      | to 0          |                                      |
+--------+------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| LCT header    | EXT_ROUTE_    | Not defined,       | Shall not       |
| extensions    | PRESENTATION_ | may be added       | be used         |
|               | TIME Header   | by a profile.      |                 |
|               | used for      |                    |                 |
|               | MDE mode      |                    |                 |
|               +---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
|               | EXT_TIME      | EXT_TIME Header may be used          |
|               | Header        | regardless (for                      |
|               | linked to     | FDT-Instance@Expires                 |
|               | MDE mode      | calculation)                         |
|               | in Annex      |                                      |
|               | A.3.7.2       |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Codepoints    | Full set      | Does not specify   | Restricted      |
|               |               | range 10 - 255     | to 5 - 9        |
|               |               | (leaves to         |                 |
|               |               | profiles)          |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Session       | Full set      | Only defines       | Reuses A/331    |
| metadata      |               | a small subset     | metadata,       |
|               |               | of data necessary  | duplicated      |
|               |               | for setting up     | from its own    |
|               |               | Source and Repair  | service         |

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 34]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

|               |               | Flows.             | signaling.      |
|               |               | Does not define    |                 |
|               |               | format or          |                 |
|               |               | encoding of data   |                 |
|               |               | except if data is  |                 |
|               |               | integral/          |                 |
|               |               | alphanumerical.    |                 |
|               |               | Leaves rest to     |                 |
|               |               | profiles.          |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Extended      | Instance      | Not restricted,    | Instance shall  |
| FDT           | shall not     | may be             | not be sent     |
|               | be sent       | restricted         | with Source     |
|               | with Source   | by a profile.      | Flow            |
|               | Flow          |                    |                 |
|               +---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
|               | No            | Only allowed in File Mode            |
|               | restriction   |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Delivery      | File, Entity, Signed/              | Signed/         |
| Object        | unsigned package                   | unsigned        |
| Mode          |                                    | package not     |
|               |                                    | allowed         |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Sender        | Defined for   | Defined for DASH segment and CMAF    |
| operation:    | DASH          | Chunks                               |
| Packet-       | segment       |                                      |
| ization       |               |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
| Receiver      | Object        | Object may be handed before          |
| object        | handed        | completion if                        |
| recovery      | to            | MPD@availabilityTimeOffset           |
|               | application   | signaled                             |
|               | upon          |                                      |
|               | complete      |                                      |
|               | reception     |                                      |
|               +---------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | -             | Fast Stream acquisition              |
|               |               | guideline provided                   |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+

11. Security and Privacy Considerations

11.1. Security Considerations

   As noted in Section 9, ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE as specified in
   RFC 6726 [RFC6726], and only diverges in certain signaling

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 35]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   optimizations, especially for the real-time object delivery case.
   Hence most of the security considerations documented in RFC 6726
   [RFC6726] for the data flow itself, the session metadata (session
   control parameters in RFC 6726 [RFC6726]), and the associated
   building blocks apply directly to ROUTE. Some additional
   considerations are documented in the following.

   Both encryption and integrity protection applied either on file or
   packet level, as recommended in file corruption considerations of RFC
   6726 [RFC6726], are also recommended for ROUTE with the same
   considerations. Additionally, security considerations documented in
   The Multicast Group Security Architecture in RFC 3740 [RFC3740] are
   recommended to be followed.

   In addition, if ROUTE is carried over transport layers such as TCP or
   UDP, then the appropriate security mechanism for these transport
   protocols apply.  For instance, if ROUTE is carried over UDP then the
   security mechanisms provided by Datagram Transport Layer Security
   (DTLS, see RFC 6347 [RFC6347]) apply.

   In regard to considerations for attacks against session description,
   this document does not specify the semantics or mechanism of delivery
   of session metadata, though the same threats apply for an application
   of ROUTE as well. Hence an application of ROUTE has to take these
   threats into consideration and address them appropriately following
   the guideline provided by RFC 6726 [RFC6726]. Additionally to the
   recommendations of RFC 6726 [RFC6726], for Internet connected
   devices, applications may enable and recommend clients to access the
   session description information using HTTPS with customary
   authentication/authorization, instead of sending this data via
   multicast/broadcast, since considerable security work has been done
   already in this unicast domain which can enable highly secure access
   of session description data. Accessing via unicast however will have
   different privacy considerations, noted in Section 11.2. Note that in
   general the multicast/broadcast stream is delayed with respect to the
   unicast stream.  Therefore the session description protocol time
   synchronization with the broadcast stream should be considered,
   particularly if the session description contains security-related
   information.

   In regard to FDT, there is one key difference for File Mode when
   using File Template in EFDT, which avoids repeated sending of FDT
   instance and hence the corresponding threat does not apply directly
   to ROUTE in this case. The threat however is shifted to the ALC/LCT
   headers since they carry the additional signaling that enables
   determining Content-Location and File@Transfer-Length in this case.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 36]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   Hence integrity protection recommendations of ALC/LCT header should
   be considered with higher emphasis in ROUTE.

   Finally, attacks against the congestion control building block for
   the case of ROUTE can impact the optional fast stream acquisition
   specified in Section 6.2. Receivers are recommended to have
   robustness against timing values that are suspicious, by comparing
   the signaled time with the approximate time signaled by the MPD and
   to discard outlying values. Integrity protection mechanisms
   documented in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] are also recommended to be used to
   address this threat.

11.2. Privacy Considerations

   Encryption mechanisms recommended for security considerations are
   also recommended to be applied to enable privacy and protection from
   snooping attacks.

   Since this protocol is primarily targeted for IP multicast/broadcast
   environment where the end user is mostly listening, identity
   protection and user data retention considerations are more protected
   than in the unicast case. Best practices for enabling privacy on IP
   multicast/broadcast should be applied by the operators, e.g.
   Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators in RFC 8932
   [RFC8932].

   However, if clients access session description information via HTTPS,
   the same privacy considerations and solutions apply to this case as
   for regular HTTPS communication, an area which is very well studied
   and the concepts of which are being integrated directly into newer
   transport protocols such as IETF QUIC [RFC9000] enabling HTTP/3
   [HTTP3]. Hence such newer protocols are recommended to be used to
   foster privacy.

   Note that streaming services may contain content that may only be
   accessed via DRM (digital rights management) systems.  DRM systems
   can prevent unauthorized access to content delivered via ROUTE.

12. IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests for IANA action.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 37]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

13. References

13.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

   [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
   Key Words", BCP 14, FC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174

   [RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding
   Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, October 2009.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5651

   [RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
   Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775, April 2010.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5775

   [RFC6726] Paila, T., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., Roca, V., Walsh, R.,
   "FLUTE-File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport." 2012.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6726

   [RFC6330] Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., Stockhammer, T., and
   Minder, L. "RaptorQ forward error correction scheme for object
   delivery", 2011.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6330

   [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and Masinter, L., "Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", January 2005.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

   [RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3,"
   Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, May, 1996.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952

   [RFC2557] Palme, J., Hopmann, A. and Shelness, N., "MIME
   Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", Internet
   Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March 1999.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557

   [RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner,
   "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
   Message Specification," Internet Engineering Task Force, Fremont, CA,
   January 2010.
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8551

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 38]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   [RFC5445] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,"
   Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March, 2009.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5445

   [RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and Vicisano, L., "Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) Building Block," Internet Engineering Task Force,
   Reston, VA, August 2007. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5052

   [RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A. and Roca, V., "Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) Framework," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
   VA, October, 2011. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6363

   [RFC7231] IETF RFC 7231 "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1):
   Semantics and Content", June 2014.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231

   [ATSCA331] ATSC A/331:2019: "ATSC Standard: Signaling, Delivery,
   Synchronization, and Error Protection", 20 June 2019.

13.2. Informative References

   [RFC6968] Roca, V. and Adamson, B., "FCAST: Object Delivery for the
   Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Reliable
   Multicast (NORM) Protocols," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
   VA, July, 2013. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6968

   [DVBMABR] DVB Document A176 (Second edition), "Adaptive media
   streaming over IP multicast", March 2020.

   [DASH] ISO/IEC 23009-1:2019: "Information technology - Dynamic
   adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media presentation
   description and segment formats", Fourth edition, December 2019.

   [CMAF] ISO/IEC 23000-19:2018: "Information technology - Multimedia
   application format (MPEG-A) - Part 19: Common media application
   format (CMAF) for segmented media", First edition, January 2018.

   [MBMS] ETSI: "Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS);
   LTE; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and
   codecs (3GPP TS 26.346 version 13.3.0 Release 13)," Doc. ETSI TS 126
   346 v13.3.0 (2016-01), European Telecommunications Standards
   Institute, January 2016.

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 39]
Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2021

   [RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
   Architecture", RFC 3740, DOI 10.17487/RFC3740, March 2004,
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3740.

   [HTTP3] M. Bishop, Ed, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
   (HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-34, February 2021.

   [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed., and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
   Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000,
   May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

   [RFC6347] Rescorla E. and N. Modadugu.  "Datagram Transport Layer
   Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January 2012,
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347.

   [RFC8932] Dickinson, S., Overeinder, B., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., and
   A. Mankin, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators", BCP
   232, RFC 8932, DOI 10.17487/RFC8932, October 2020, https://www.rfc-
   editor.org/info/rfc8932.

14. Acknowledgments

   As outlined in the introduction and in ROUTE concepts in Section 9,
   the concepts specified in this draft are the culmination of the
   collaborative work of several experts and organizations over the
   years. The authors would especially like to acknowledge the work and
   efforts of the following people and organizations to help realize the
   technologies described in this draft (in no specific order): Mike
   Luby, Kent Walker, Charles Lo, Giridhar Mandyam, and other colleagues
   from Qualcomm Incorporated, LG Electronics, Nomor Research, Sony, and
   BBC R&D.

Authors' Addresses

   Waqar Zia
   Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
   Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, Germany
   Email: wzia@qti.qualcomm.com

   Thomas Stockhammer
   Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
   Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, Germany
   Email: tsto@qti.qualcomm.com

Zia, et al.            Expires December 4, 2021               [Page 40]