Network Working Group Y.-K. Wang
Internet Draft Qualcomm
Intended status: Standards track Y. Sanchez
Expires: November 2014 T. Schierl
Fraunhofer HHI
S. Wenger
Vidyo
M. M. Hannuksela
Nokia
May 28, 2014
RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-04.txt
Abstract
This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding
standard ITU-T Recommendation H.265 and ISO/IEC International
Standard 23008-2, both also known as High Efficiency Video Coding
(HEVC) [HEVC] and developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video
Coding (JCT-VC). The RTP payload format allows for packetization of
one or more Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet
payload, as well as fragmentation of a NAL unit into multiple RTP
packets. Furthermore, it supports transmission of an HEVC bitstream
over a single as well as multiple RTP streams. The payload format
has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video
streaming, and high bit-rate entertainment-quality video, among
others.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
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 November 28, 2014.
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................1
Status of this Memo...............................................1
Table of Contents.................................................3
1. Introduction...................................................5
1.1. Overview of the HEVC Codec................................5
1.1.1 Coding-Tool Features..................................5
1.1.2 Systems and Transport Interfaces......................7
1.1.3 Parallel Processing Support..........................14
1.1.4 NAL Unit Header......................................16
1.2. Overview of the Payload Format...........................17
2. Conventions...................................................18
3. Definitions and Abbreviations.................................18
3.1 Definitions...............................................18
3.1.1 Definitions from the HEVC Specification..............18
3.1.2 Definitions Specific to This Memo....................20
3.2 Abbreviations.............................................22
4. RTP Payload Format............................................23
4.1 RTP Header Usage..........................................23
4.2 Payload Header Usage......................................26
4.3 Payload Structures........................................26
4.4 Transmission Modes........................................27
4.5 Decoding Order Number.....................................28
4.6 Single NAL Unit Packets...................................30
4.7 Aggregation Packets (APs).................................31
4.8 Fragmentation Units (FUs).................................35
4.9 PACI packets..............................................38
4.9.1 Reasons for the PACI rules (informative).............41
4.9.2 PACI extensions (Informative)........................41
4.10 Temporal Scalability Control Information.................43
5. Packetization Rules...........................................45
6. De-packetization Process......................................45
7. Payload Format Parameters.....................................48
7.1 Media Type Registration...................................48
7.2 SDP Parameters............................................73
7.2.1 Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP............73
7.2.2 Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model....................74
7.2.3 Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions............83
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
7.2.4 Parameter Sets Considerations........................84
7.2.5 Dependency Signaling in Multi-Stream Mode............84
8. Use with Feedback Messages....................................85
8.1 Picture Loss Indication (PLI).............................86
8.2 Slice Loss Indication.....................................86
8.3 Use of HEVC with the RPSI Feedback Message................87
8.4 Full Intra Request (FIR)..................................88
9. Security Considerations.......................................88
10. Congestion Control...........................................90
11. IANA Consideration...........................................91
12. Acknowledgements.............................................91
13. References...................................................91
13.1 Normative References.....................................91
13.2 Informative References...................................93
14. Authors' Addresses...........................................95
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview of the HEVC Codec
High Efficiency Video Coding [HEVC], formally known as ITU-T
Recommendation H.265 and ISO/IEC International Standard 23008-2 was
ratified by ITU-T in April 2013 and reportedly provides significant
coding efficiency gains over H.264 [H.264].
As both H.264 [H.264] and its RTP payload format [RFC6184] are
widely deployed and generally known in the relevant implementer
communities, frequently only the differences between those two
specifications are highlighted in non-normative, explanatory parts
of this memo. Basic familiarity with both specifications is assumed
for those parts. However, the normative parts of this memo do not
require study of H.264 or its RTP payload format.
H.264 and HEVC share a similar hybrid video codec design.
Conceptually, both technologies include a video coding layer (VCL),
which is often used to refer to the coding-tool features, and a
network abstraction layer (NAL), which is often used to refer to the
systems and transport interface aspects of the codecs.
1.1.1 Coding-Tool Features
Similarly to earlier hybrid-video-coding-based standards, including
H.264, the following basic video coding design is employed by HEVC.
A prediction signal is first formed either by intra or motion
compensated prediction, and the residual (the difference between the
original and the prediction) is then coded. The gains in coding
efficiency are achieved by redesigning and improving almost all
parts of the codec over earlier designs. In addition, HEVC includes
several tools to make the implementation on parallel architectures
easier. Below is a summary of HEVC coding-tool features.
Quad-tree block and transform structure
One of the major tools that contribute significantly to the coding
efficiency of HEVC is the usage of flexible coding blocks and
transforms, which are defined in a hierarchical quad-tree manner.
Unlike H.264, where the basic coding block is a macroblock of fixed
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
size 16x16, HEVC defines a Coding Tree Unit (CTU) of a maximum size
of 64x64. Each CTU can be divided into smaller units in a
hierarchical quad-tree manner and can represent smaller blocks down
to size 4x4. Similarly, the transforms used in HEVC can have
different sizes, starting from 4x4 and going up to 32x32. Utilizing
large blocks and transforms contribute to the major gain of HEVC,
especially at high resolutions.
Entropy coding
HEVC uses a single entropy coding engine, which is based on Context
Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC), whereas H.264 uses two
distinct entropy coding engines. CABAC in HEVC shares many
similarities with CABAC of H.264, but contains several improvements.
Those include improvements in coding efficiency and lowered
implementation complexity, especially for parallel architectures.
In-loop filtering
H.264 includes an in-loop adaptive deblocking filter, where the
blocking artifacts around the transform edges in the reconstructed
picture are smoothed to improve the picture quality and compression
efficiency. In HEVC, a similar deblocking filter is employed but
with somewhat lower complexity. In addition, pictures undergo a
subsequent filtering operation called Sample Adaptive Offset (SAO),
which is a new design element in HEVC. SAO basically adds a pixel-
level offset in an adaptive manner and usually acts as a de-ringing
filter. It is observed that SAO improves the picture quality,
especially around sharp edges contributing substantially to visual
quality improvements of HEVC.
Motion prediction and coding
There have been a number of improvements in this area that are
summarized as follows. The first category is motion merge and
advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) modes. The motion
information of a prediction block can be inferred from the spatially
or temporally neighboring blocks. This is similar to the DIRECT
mode in H.264 but includes new aspects to incorporate the flexible
quad-tree structure and methods to improve the parallel
implementations. In addition, the motion vector predictor can be
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
signaled for improved efficiency. The second category is high-
precision interpolation. The interpolation filter length is
increased to 8-tap from 6-tap, which improves the coding efficiency
but also comes with increased complexity. In addition, the
interpolation filter is defined with higher precision without any
intermediate rounding operations to further improve the coding
efficiency.
Intra prediction and intra coding
Compared to 8 intra prediction modes in H.264, HEVC supports angular
intra prediction with 33 directions. This increased flexibility
improves both objective coding efficiency and visual quality as the
edges can be better predicted and ringing artifacts around the edges
can be reduced. In addition, the reference samples are adaptively
smoothed based on the prediction direction. To avoid contouring
artifacts a new interpolative prediction generation is included to
improve the visual quality. Furthermore, discrete sine transform
(DST) is utilized instead of traditional discrete cosine transform
(DCT) for 4x4 intra transform blocks.
Other coding-tool features
HEVC includes some tools for lossless coding and efficient screen
content coding, such as skipping the transform for certain blocks.
These tools are particularly useful for example when streaming the
user-interface of a mobile device to a large display.
1.1.2 Systems and Transport Interfaces
HEVC inherited the basic systems and transport interfaces designs,
such as the NAL-unit-based syntax structure, the hierarchical syntax
and data unit structure from sequence-level parameter sets, multi-
picture-level or picture-level parameter sets, slice-level header
parameters, lower-level parameters, the supplemental enhancement
information (SEI) message mechanism, the hypothetical reference
decoder (HRD) based video buffering model, and so on. In the
following, a list of differences in these aspects compared to H.264
is summarized.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Video parameter set
A new type of parameter set, called video parameter set (VPS), was
introduced. For the first (2013) version of [HEVC], the video
parameter set NAL unit is required to be available prior to its
activation, while the information contained in the video parameter
set is not necessary for operation of the decoding process. For
future HEVC extensions, such as the 3D or scalable extensions, the
video parameter set is expected to include information necessary for
operation of the decoding process, e.g. decoding dependency or
information for reference picture set construction of enhancement
layers. The VPS provides a "big picture" of a bitstream, including
what types of operation points are provided, the profile, tier, and
level of the operation points, and some other high-level properties
of the bitstream that can be used as the basis for session
negotiation and content selection, etc. (see section 7.1).
Profile, tier and level
The profile, tier and level syntax structure that can be included in
both VPS and sequence parameter set (SPS) includes 12 bytes of data
to describe the entire bitstream (including all temporally scalable
layers, which are referred to as sub-layers in the HEVC
specification), and can optionally include more profile, tier and
level information pertaining to individual temporally scalable
layers. The profile indicator indicates the "best viewed as"
profile when the bitstream conforms to multiple profiles, similar to
the major brand concept in the ISO base media file format (ISOBMFF)
[ISOBMFF] and file formats derived based on ISOBMFF, such as the
3GPP file format [3GP]. The profile, tier and level syntax
structure also includes the indications of whether the bitstream is
free of frame-packed content, whether the bitstream is free of
interlaced source content and free of field pictures, i.e. contains
only frame pictures of progressive source, such that clients/players
with no support of post-processing functionalities for handling of
frame-packed or interlaced source content or field pictures can
reject those bitstreams.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Bitstream and elementary stream
HEVC includes a definition of an elementary stream, which is new
compared to H.264. An elementary stream consists of a sequence of
one or more bitstreams. An elementary stream that consists of two
or more bitstreams has typically been formed by splicing together
two or more bitstreams (or parts thereof). When an elementary
stream contains more than one bitstream, the last NAL unit of the
last access unit of a bitstream (except the last bitstream in the
elementary stream) must contain an end of bitstream NAL unit and the
first access unit of the subsequent bitstream must be an intra
random access point (IRAP) access unit. This IRAP access unit may
be a clean random access (CRA), broken link access (BLA), or
instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) access unit.
Random access support
HEVC includes signaling in NAL unit header, through NAL unit types,
of IRAP pictures beyond IDR pictures. Three types of IRAP pictures,
namely IDR, CRA and BLA pictures are supported, wherein IDR pictures
are conventionally referred to as closed group-of-pictures (closed-
GOP) random access points, and CRA and BLA pictures are those
conventionally referred to as open-GOP random access points. BLA
pictures usually originate from splicing of two bitstreams or part
thereof at a CRA picture, e.g. during stream switching. To enable
better systems usage of IRAP pictures, altogether six different NAL
units are defined to signal the properties of the IRAP pictures,
which can be used to better match the stream access point (SAP)
types as defined in the ISOBMFF [ISOBMFF], which are utilized for
random access support in both 3GP-DASH [3GPDASH] and MPEG DASH
[MPEGDASH]. Pictures following an IRAP picture in decoding order
and preceding the IRAP picture in output order are referred to as
leading pictures associated with the IRAP picture. There are two
types of leading pictures, namely random access decodable leading
(RADL) pictures and random access skipped leading (RASL) pictures.
RADL pictures are decodable when the decoding started at the
associated IRAP picture, and RASL pictures are not decodable when
the decoding started at the associated IRAP picture and are usually
discarded. HEVC provides mechanisms to enable the specification of
conformance of bitstreams with RASL pictures being discarded, thus
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
to provide a standard-compliant way to enable systems components to
discard RASL pictures when needed.
Temporal scalability support
HEVC includes an improved support of temporal scalability, by
inclusion of the signaling of TemporalId in the NAL unit header, the
restriction that pictures of a particular temporal sub-layer cannot
be used for inter prediction reference by pictures of a lower
temporal sub-layer, the sub-bitstream extraction process, and the
requirement that each sub-bitstream extraction output be a
conforming bitstream. Media-aware network elements (MANEs) can
utilize the TemporalId in the NAL unit header for stream adaptation
purposes based on temporal scalability.
Temporal sub-layer switching support
HEVC specifies, through NAL unit types present in the NAL unit
header, the signaling of temporal sub-layer access (TSA) and
stepwise temporal sub-layer access (STSA). A TSA picture and
pictures following the TSA picture in decoding order do not use
pictures prior to the TSA picture in decoding order with TemporalId
greater than or equal to that of the TSA picture for inter
prediction reference. A TSA picture enables up-switching, at the
TSA picture, to the sub-layer containing the TSA picture or any
higher sub-layer, from the immediately lower sub-layer. An STSA
picture does not use pictures with the same TemporalId as the STSA
picture for inter prediction reference. Pictures following an STSA
picture in decoding order with the same TemporalId as the STSA
picture do not use pictures prior to the STSA picture in decoding
order with the same TemporalId as the STSA picture for inter
prediction reference. An STSA picture enables up-switching, at the
STSA picture, to the sub-layer containing the STSA picture, from the
immediately lower sub-layer.
Sub-layer reference or non-reference pictures
The concept and signaling of reference/non-reference pictures in
HEVC are different from H.264. In H.264, if a picture may be used
by any other picture for inter prediction reference, it is a
reference picture; otherwise it is a non-reference picture, and this
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
is signaled by two bits in the NAL unit header. In HEVC, a picture
is called a reference picture only when it is marked as "used for
reference". In addition, the concept of sub-layer reference picture
was introduced. If a picture may be used by another other picture
with the same TemporalId for inter prediction reference, it is a
sub-layer reference picture; otherwise it is a sub-layer non-
reference picture. Whether a picture is a sub-layer reference
picture or sub-layer non-reference picture is signaled through NAL
unit type values.
Extensibility
Besides the TemporalId in the NAL unit header, HEVC also includes
the signaling of a six-bit layer ID in the NAL unit header, which
must be equal to 0 for a single-layer bitstream. Extension
mechanisms have been included in VPS, SPS, PPS, SEI NAL unit, slice
headers, and so on. All these extension mechanisms enable future
extensions in a backward compatible manner, such that bitstreams
encoded according to potential future HEVC extensions can be fed to
then-legacy decoders (e.g. HEVC version 1 decoders) and the then-
legacy decoders can decode and output the base layer bitstream.
Bitstream extraction
HEVC includes a bitstream extraction process as an integral part of
the overall decoding process, as well as specification of the use of
the bitstream extraction process in description of bitstream
conformance tests as part of the hypothetical reference decoder
(HRD) specification.
Reference picture management
The reference picture management of HEVC, including reference
picture marking and removal from the decoded picture buffer (DPB) as
well as reference picture list construction (RPLC), differs from
that of H.264. Instead of the sliding window plus adaptive memory
management control operation (MMCO) based reference picture marking
mechanism in H.264, HEVC specifies a reference picture set (RPS)
based reference picture management and marking mechanism, and the
RPLC is consequently based on the RPS mechanism. A reference
picture set consists of a set of reference pictures associated with
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
a picture, consisting of all reference pictures that are prior to
the associated picture in decoding order, that may be used for inter
prediction of the associated picture or any picture following the
associated picture in decoding order. The reference picture set
consists of five lists of reference pictures; RefPicSetStCurrBefore,
RefPicSetStCurrAfter, RefPicSetStFoll, RefPicSetLtCurr and
RefPicSetLtFoll. RefPicSetStCurrBefore, RefPicSetStCurrAfter and
RefPicSetLtCurr contain all reference pictures that may be used in
inter prediction of the current picture and that may be used in
inter prediction of one or more of the pictures following the
current picture in decoding order. RefPicSetStFoll and
RefPicSetLtFoll consist of all reference pictures that are not used
in inter prediction of the current picture but may be used in inter
prediction of one or more of the pictures following the current
picture in decoding order. RPS provides an "intra-coded" signaling
of the DPB status, instead of an "inter-coded" signaling, mainly for
improved error resilience. The RPLC process in HEVC is based on the
RPS, by signaling an index to an RPS subset for each reference
index. The RPLC process has been simplified compared to that in
H.264, by removal of the reference picture list modification (also
referred to as reference picture list reordering) process.
Ultra low delay support
HEVC specifies a sub-picture-level HRD operation, for support of the
so-called ultra-low delay. The mechanism specifies a standard-
compliant way to enable delay reduction below one picture interval.
Sub-picture-level coded picture buffer (CPB) and DPB parameters may
be signaled, and utilization of these information for the derivation
of CPB timing (wherein the CPB removal time corresponds to decoding
time) and DPB output timing (display time) is specified. Decoders
are allowed to operate the HRD at the conventional access-unit-
level, even when the sub-picture-level HRD parameters are present.
New SEI messages
HEVC inherits many H.264 SEI messages with changes in syntax and/or
semantics making them applicable to HEVC. Additionally, there are a
few new SEI messages reviewed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The display orientation SEI message informs the decoder of a
transformation that is recommended to be applied to the cropped
decoded picture prior to display, such that the pictures can be
properly displayed, e.g. in an upside-up manner.
The structure of pictures SEI message provides information on the
NAL unit types, picture order count values, and prediction
dependencies of a sequence of pictures. The SEI message can be used
for example for concluding what impact a lost picture has on other
pictures.
The decoded picture hash SEI message provides a checksum derived
from the sample values of a decoded picture. It can be used for
detecting whether a picture was correctly received and decoded.
The active parameter sets SEI message includes the IDs of the active
video parameter set and the active sequence parameter set and can be
used to activate VPSs and SPSs. In addition, the SEI message
includes the following indications: 1) An indication of whether
"full random accessibility" is supported (when supported, all
parameter sets needed for decoding of the remaining of the bitstream
when random accessing from the beginning of the current coded video
sequence by completely discarding all access units earlier in
decoding order are present in the remaining bitstream and all coded
pictures in the remaining bitstream can be correctly decoded); 2) An
indication of whether there is no parameter set within the current
coded video sequence that updates another parameter set of the same
type preceding in decoding order. An update of a parameter set
refers to the use of the same parameter set ID but with some other
parameters changed. If this property is true for all coded video
sequences in the bitstream, then all parameter sets can be sent out-
of-band before session start.
The decoding unit information SEI message provides coded picture
buffer removal delay information for a decoding unit. The message
can be used in very-low-delay buffering operations.
The region refresh information SEI message can be used together with
the recovery point SEI message (present in both H.264 and HEVC) for
improved support of gradual decoding refresh (GDR). This supports
random access from inter-coded pictures, wherein complete pictures
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
can be correctly decoded or recovered after an indicated number of
pictures in output/display order.
1.1.3 Parallel Processing Support
The reportedly significantly higher encoding computational demand of
HEVC over H.264, in conjunction with the ever increasing video
resolution (both spatially and temporally) required by the market,
led to the adoption of VCL coding tools specifically targeted to
allow for parallelization on the sub-picture level. That is,
parallelization occurs, at the minimum, at the granularity of an
integer number of CTUs. The targets for this type of high-level
parallelization are multicore CPUs and DSPs as well as
multiprocessor systems. In a system design, to be useful, these
tools require signaling support, which is provided in Section 7 of
this memo. This section provides a brief overview of the tools
available in [HEVC].
Many of the tools incorporated in HEVC were designed keeping in mind
the potential parallel implementations in multi-core/multi-processor
architectures. Specifically, for parallelization, four picture
partition strategies are available.
Slices are segments of the bitstream that can be reconstructed
independently from other slices within the same picture (though
there may still be interdependencies through loop filtering
operations). Slices are the only tool that can be used for
parallelization that is also available, in virtually identical form,
in H.264. Slices based parallelization does not require much inter-
processor or inter-core communication (except for inter-processor or
inter-core data sharing for motion compensation when decoding a
predictively coded picture, which is typically much heavier than
inter-processor or inter-core data sharing due to in-picture
prediction), as slices are designed to be independently decodable.
However, for the same reason, slices can require some coding
overhead. Further, slices (in contrast to some of the other tools
mentioned below) also serve as the key mechanism for bitstream
partitioning to match Maximum Transfer Unit (MTU) size requirements,
due to the in-picture independence of slices and the fact that each
regular slice is encapsulated in its own NAL unit. In many cases,
the goal of parallelization and the goal of MTU size matching can
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
place contradicting demands to the slice layout in a picture. The
realization of this situation led to the development of the more
advanced tools mentioned below.
Dependent slice segments allow for fragmentation of a coded slice
into fragments at CTU boundaries without breaking any in-picture
prediction mechanism. They are complementary to the fragmentation
mechanism described in this memo in that they need the cooperation
of the encoder. As a dependent slice segment necessarily contains
an integer number of CTUs, a decoder using multiple cores operating
on CTUs can process a dependent slice segment without communicating
parts of the slice segment's bitstream to other cores.
Fragmentation, as specified in this memo, in contrast, does not
guarantee that a fragment contains an integer number of CTUs.
In wavefront parallel processing (WPP), the picture is partitioned
into rows of CTUs. Entropy decoding and prediction are allowed to
use data from CTUs in other partitions. Parallel processing is
possible through parallel decoding of CTU rows, where the start of
the decoding of a row is delayed by two CTUs, so to ensure that data
related to a CTU above and to the right of the subject CTU is
available before the subject CTU is being decoded. Using this
staggered start (which appears like a wavefront when represented
graphically), parallelization is possible with up to as many
processors/cores as the picture contains CTU rows.
Because in-picture prediction between neighboring CTU rows within a
picture is allowed, the required inter-processor/inter-core
communication to enable in-picture prediction can be substantial.
The WPP partitioning does not result in the creation of more NAL
units compared to when it is not applied, thus WPP cannot be used
for MTU size matching, though slices can be used in combination for
that purpose.
Tiles define horizontal and vertical boundaries that partition a
picture into tile columns and rows. The scan order of CTUs is
changed to be local within a tile (in the order of a CTU raster scan
of a tile), before decoding the top-left CTU of the next tile in the
order of tile raster scan of a picture. Similar to slices, tiles
break in-picture prediction dependencies (including entropy decoding
dependencies). However, they do not need to be included into
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
individual NAL units (same as WPP in this regard), hence tiles
cannot be used for MTU size matching, though slices can be used in
combination for that purpose. Each tile can be processed by one
processor/core, and the inter-processor/inter-core communication
required for in-picture prediction between processing units decoding
neighboring tiles is limited to conveying the shared slice header in
cases a slice is spanning more than one tile, and loop filtering
related sharing of reconstructed samples and metadata. Insofar,
tiles are less demanding in terms of inter-processor communication
bandwidth compared to WPP due to the in-picture independence between
two neighboring partitions.
1.1.4 NAL Unit Header
HEVC maintains the NAL unit concept of H.264 with modifications.
HEVC uses a two-byte NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 1. The
payload of a NAL unit refers to the NAL unit excluding the NAL unit
header.
+---------------+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| Type | LayerId | TID |
+-------------+-----------------+
Figure 1 The structure of HEVC NAL unit header
The semantics of the fields in the NAL unit header are as specified
in [HEVC] and described briefly below for convenience. In addition
to the name and size of each field, the corresponding syntax element
name in [HEVC] is also provided.
F: 1 bit
forbidden_zero_bit. MUST be zero. HEVC declares a value of 1 as
a syntax violation. Note that the inclusion of this bit in the
NAL unit header is to enable transport of HEVC video over MPEG-2
transport systems (avoidance of start code emulations) [MPEG2S].
Type: 6 bits
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
nal_unit_type. This field specifies the NAL unit type as defined
in Table 7-1 of [HEVC]. If the most significant bit of this
field of a NAL unit is equal to 0 (i.e. the value of this field
is less than 32), the NAL unit is a VCL NAL unit. Otherwise, the
NAL unit is a non-VCL NAL unit. For a reference of all currently
defined NAL unit types and their semantics, please refer to
Section 7.4.1 in [HEVC].
LayerId: 6 bits
nuh_layer_id. MUST be equal to zero. It is anticipated that in
future scalable or 3D video coding extensions of this
specification, this syntax element will be used to identify
additional layers that may be present in the coded video
sequence, wherein a layer may be, e.g. a spatial scalable layer,
a quality scalable layer, a texture view, or a depth view.
TID: 3 bits
nuh_temporal_id_plus1. This field specifies the temporal
identifier of the NAL unit plus 1. The value of TemporalId is
equal to TID minus 1. A TID value of 0 is illegal to ensure that
there is at least one bit in the NAL unit header equal to 1, so
to enable independent considerations of start code emulations in
the NAL unit header and in the NAL unit payload data.
1.2. Overview of the Payload Format
This payload format defines the following processes required for
transport of HEVC coded data over RTP [RFC3550]:
o Usage of RTP header with this payload format
o Packetization of HEVC coded NAL units into RTP packets using three
types of payload structures, namely single NAL unit packet,
aggregation packet, and fragment unit
o Transmission of HEVC NAL units of the same bitstream within a
single RTP stream or multiple RTP streams within one or more RTP
sessions, where within an RTP stream transmission of NAL units may
be either non-interleaved (i.e. the transmission order of NAL
units is the same as their decoding order) or interleaved (i.e.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
the transmission order of NAL units is different from their
decoding order)
o Media type parameters to be used with the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]
o A payload header extension mechanism and data structures for
enhanced support of temporal scalability based on that extension
mechanism.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
In this document, these key words will appear with that
interpretation only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these
words are not to be interpreted as carrying the RFC 2119
significance.
This specification uses the notion of setting and clearing a bit
when bit fields are handled. Setting a bit is the same as assigning
that bit the value of 1 (On). Clearing a bit is the same as
assigning that bit the value of 0 (Off).
3. Definitions and Abbreviations
3.1 Definitions
This document uses the terms and definitions of [HEVC]. Section
3.1.1 lists relevant definitions copied from [HEVC] for convenience.
Section 3.1.2 provides definitions specific to this memo.
3.1.1 Definitions from the HEVC Specification
access unit: A set of NAL units that are associated with each other
according to a specified classification rule, are consecutive in
decoding order, and contain exactly one coded picture.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
BLA access unit: An access unit in which the coded picture is a BLA
picture.
BLA picture: An IRAP picture for which each VCL NAL unit has
nal_unit_type equal to BLA_W_LP, BLA_W_RADL, or BLA_N_LP.
coded video sequence: A sequence of access units that consists, in
decoding order, of an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal
to 1, followed by zero or more access units that are not IRAP access
units with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1, including all subsequent
access units up to but not including any subsequent access unit that
is an IRAP access unit with NoRaslOutputFlag equal to 1.
Informative note: An IRAP access unit may be an IDR access unit,
a BLA access unit, or a CRA access unit. The value of
NoRaslOutputFlag is equal to 1 for each IDR access unit, each BLA
access unit, and each CRA access unit that is the first access
unit in the bitstream in decoding order, is the first access unit
that follows an end of sequence NAL unit in decoding order, or
has HandleCraAsBlaFlag equal to 1.
CRA access unit: An access unit in which the coded picture is a CRA
picture.
CRA picture: A RAP picture for which each VCL NAL unit has
nal_unit_type equal to CRA_NUT.
IDR access unit: An access unit in which the coded picture is an IDR
picture.
IDR picture: A RAP picture for which each VCL NAL unit has
nal_unit_type equal to IDR_W_RADL or IDR_N_LP.
IRAP access unit: An access unit in which the coded picture is an
IRAP picture.
IRAP picture: A coded picture for which each VCL NAL unit has
nal_unit_type in the range of BLA_W_LP (16) to RSV_IRAP_VCL23 (23),
inclusive.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
layer: A set of VCL NAL units that all have a particular value of
nuh_layer_id and the associated non-VCL NAL units, or one of a set
of syntactical structures having a hierarchical relationship.
operation point: bitstream created from another bitstream by
operation of the sub-bitstream extraction process with the another
bitstream, a target highest TemporalId, and a target layer
identifier list as inputs.
random access: The act of starting the decoding process for a
bitstream at a point other than the beginning of the bitstream.
sub-layer: A temporal scalable layer of a temporal scalable
bitstream consisting of VCL NAL units with a particular value of the
TemporalId variable, and the associated non-VCL NAL units.
sub-layer representation: A subset of the bitstream consisting of
NAL units of a particular sub-layer and the lower sub-layers.
tile: A rectangular region of coding tree blocks within a particular
tile column and a particular tile row in a picture.
tile column: A rectangular region of coding tree blocks having a
height equal to the height of the picture and a width specified by
syntax elements in the picture parameter set.
tile row: A rectangular region of coding tree blocks having a height
specified by syntax elements in the picture parameter set and a
width equal to the width of the picture.
3.1.2 Definitions Specific to This Memo
dependee RTP stream: An RTP stream on which another RTP stream
depends. All RTP streams in an MSM except for the highest RTP
stream are dependee RTP streams.
highest RTP stream: The RTP stream on which no other RTP stream
depends. The RTP stream in an SSM is the highest RTP stream.
media aware network element (MANE): A network element, such as a
middlebox, selective forwarding unit, or application layer gateway
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
that is capable of parsing certain aspects of the RTP payload
headers or the RTP payload and reacting to their contents.
Informative note: The concept of a MANE goes beyond normal
routers or gateways in that a MANE has to be aware of the
signaling (e.g. to learn about the payload type mappings of the
media streams), and in that it has to be trusted when working
with SRTP. The advantage of using MANEs is that they allow
packets to be dropped according to the needs of the media coding.
For example, if a MANE has to drop packets due to congestion on a
certain link, it can identify and remove those packets whose
elimination produces the least adverse effect on the user
experience. After dropping packets, MANEs must rewrite RTCP
packets to match the changes to the RTP stream as specified in
Section 7 of [RFC3550].
multi-stream mode(MSM): Transmission of an HEVC bitstream using more
than one RTP stream.
NAL unit decoding order: A NAL unit order that conforms to the
constraints on NAL unit order given in Section 7.4.2.4 in [HEVC].
NAL-unit-like structure: A data structure that is similar to NAL
units in the sense that it also has a NAL unit header and a payload,
with a difference that the payload does not follow the start code
emulation prevention mechanism required for the NAL unit syntax as
specified in Section 7.3.1.1 of [HEVC]. Examples NAL-unit-like
structures defined in this memo are packet payloads of AP, PACI, and
FU packets.
NALU-time: The value that the RTP timestamp would have if the NAL
unit would be transported in its own RTP packet.
RTP stream: See [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy]. Within the
scope of this memo, one RTP stream is utilized to transport one or
more temporal sub-layers.
single-stream mode (SSM): Transmission of an HEVC bitstream using
only one RTP stream.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
transmission order: The order of packets in ascending RTP sequence
number order (in modulo arithmetic). Within an aggregation packet,
the NAL unit transmission order is the same as the order of
appearance of NAL units in the packet.
3.2 Abbreviations
AP Aggregation Packet
BLA Broken Link Access
CRA Clean Random Access
CTB Coding Tree Block
CTU Coding Tree Unit
CVS Coded Video Sequence
DPH Decoded Picture Hash
FU Fragmentation Unit
GDR Gradual Decoding Refresh
HRD Hypothetical Reference Decoder
IDR Instantaneous Decoding Refresh
IRAP Intra Random Access Point
MANE Media Aware Network Element
MSM Multi-Stream Mode
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NAL Network Abstraction Layer
NALU Network Abstraction Layer Unit
PACI PAyload Content Information
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
PHES Payload Header Extension Structure
PPS Picture Parameter Set
RADL Random Access Decodable Leading (Picture)
RASL Random Access Skipped Leading (Picture)
RPS Reference Picture Set
SEI Supplemental Enhancement Information
SPS Sequence Parameter Set
SSM Single-Stream Mode
STSA Step-wise Temporal Sub-layer Access
TSA Temporal Sub-layer Access
TCSI Temporal Scalability Control Information
VCL Video Coding Layer
VPS Video Parameter Set
4. RTP Payload Format
4.1 RTP Header Usage
The format of the RTP header is specified in [RFC3550] and reprinted
in Figure 2 for convenience. This payload format uses the fields of
the header in a manner consistent with that specification.
The RTP payload (and the settings for some RTP header bits) for
aggregation packets and fragmentation units are specified in
Sections 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| contributing source (CSRC) identifiers |
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 RTP header according to [RFC3550]
The RTP header information to be set according to this RTP payload
format is set as follows:
Marker bit (M): 1 bit
Set for the last packet, carried in the current RTP stream, of
the access unit, in line with the normal use of the M bit in
video formats, to allow an efficient playout buffer handling.
When MSM is in use, if an access unit appears in multiple RTP
streams, the marker bit is set on each RTP stream's last packet
of the access unit.
Informative note: The content of a NAL unit does not tell
whether or not the NAL unit is the last NAL unit, in decoding
order, of an access unit. An RTP sender implementation may
obtain this information from the video encoder. If, however,
the implementation cannot obtain this information directly
from the encoder, e.g. when the bitstream was pre-encoded, and
also there is no timestamp allocated for each NAL unit, then
the sender implementation can inspect subsequent NAL units in
decoding order to determine whether or not the NAL unit is the
last NAL unit of an access unit as follows. A NAL unit naluX
is the last NAL unit of an access unit if it is the last NAL
unit of the bitstream or the next VCL NAL unit naluY in
decoding order has the high-order bit of the first byte after
its NAL unit header equal to 1, and all NAL units between
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
naluX and naluY, when present, have nal_unit_type in the range
of 32 to 35, inclusive, equal to 39, or in the ranges of 41 to
44, inclusive, or 48 to 55, inclusive.
Payload type (PT): 7 bits
The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format
is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified
here. The assignment of a payload type has to be performed
either through the profile used or in a dynamic way.
Informative note: It is not required to use different payload
type values for different RTP streams in MSM.
Sequence number (SN): 16 bits
Set and used in accordance with RFC 3550.
Timestamp: 32 bits
The RTP timestamp is set to the sampling timestamp of the
content. A 90 kHz clock rate MUST be used.
If the NAL unit has no timing properties of its own (e.g.
parameter set and SEI NAL units), the RTP timestamp MUST be set
to the RTP timestamp of the coded picture of the access unit in
which the NAL unit (according to Section 7.4.2.4.4 of [HEVC]) is
included.
Receivers MUST use the RTP timestamp for the display process,
even when the bitstream contains picture timing SEI messages or
decoding unit information SEI messages as specified in [HEVC].
However, this does not mean that picture timing SEI messages in
the bitstream should be discarded, as picture timing SEI messages
may contain frame-field information that is important in
appropriately rendering interlaced video.
Synchronization source (SSRC): 32-bits
Used to identify the source of the RTP packets. In SSM, by
definition a single SSRC is used for all parts of a single
bitstream. In MSM, each SSRC is used for an RTP stream
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
containing a subset of the sub-layers for a single (temporally
scalable) bitstream. A receiver is required to correctly
associate the set of SSRCs that are included parts of the same
bitstream.
Informative note: The term "bitstream" in this document is
equivalent to the term "encoded stream" in [I-D.ietf-avtext-
rtp-grouping-taxonomy].
4.2 Payload Header Usage
The TID value indicates (among other things) the relative importance
of an RTP packet, for example because NAL units belonging to higher
temporal sub-layers are not used for the decoding of lower temporal
sub-layers. A lower value of TID indicates a higher importance.
More important NAL units MAY be better protected against
transmission losses than less important NAL units.
4.3 Payload Structures
The first two bytes of the payload of an RTP packet are referred to
as the payload header. The payload header consists of the same
fields (F, Type, LayerId, and TID) as the NAL unit header as shown
in section 1.1.4, irrespective of the type of the payload structure.
Four different types of RTP packet payload structures are specified.
A receiver can identify the type of an RTP packet payload through
the Type field in the payload header.
The four different payload structures are as follows:
o Single NAL unit packet: Contains a single NAL unit in the
payload, and the NAL unit header of the NAL unit also serves as
the payload header. This payload structure is specified in
section 4.6.
o Aggregation packet (AP): Contains more than one NAL unit within
one access unit. This payload structure is specified in
section 4.7.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
o Fragmentation unit (FU): Contains a subset of a single NAL unit.
This payload structure is specified in section 4.8.
o PACI carrying RTP packet: Contains a payload header (that differs
from other payload headers for efficiency), a Payload Header
Extension Structure (PHES), and a PACI payload. This payload
structure is specified in section 4.9.
4.4 Transmission Modes
This memo enables transmission of an HEVC bitstream over a single
RTP stream or multiple RTP streams. The concept and working
principle is inherited from the design of what was called single and
multiple session transmission in [RFC6190] and follows a similar
design. If only one RTP stream is used for transmission of the HEVC
bitstream, the transmission mode is referred to as single-stream
mode (SSM); otherwise (more than one RTP stream is used for
transmission of the HEVC bitstream), the transmission mode is
referred to as multi-stream mode (MSM).
Dependency of one RTP stream on another RTP stream is typically
indicated as specified in [RFC5583]. When an RTP stream A depends
on another RTP stream B, the RTP stream B is referred to as a
dependee RTP stream of the RTP stream A.
Informative note: An MSM may involve one or more RTP sessions.
For example, each RTP stream in an MSM may be in its own RTP
session. For another example, a set of multiple RTP streams in
an MSM may belong to the same RTP session, e.g. as indicated by
the mechanism specified in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream] or
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].
SSM SHOULD be used for point-to-point unicast scenarios, while MSM
SHOULD be used for point-to-multipoint multicast scenarios where
different receivers require different operation points of the same
HEVC bitstream, to improve bandwidth utilizing efficiency.
Informative note: A multicast may degrade to a unicast after all
but one receivers have left (this is a justification of the first
"SHOULD" instead of "MUST"), and there might be scenarios where
MSM is desirable but not possible e.g. when IP multicast is not
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
deployed in certain network (this is a justification of the
second "SHOULD" instead of "MUST").
The transmission mode is indicated by the tx-mode media parameter
(see section 7.1). If tx-mode is equal to "SSM", SSM MUST be used.
Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "MSM"), MSM MUST be used.
Receivers MUST support both SSM and MSM.
4.5 Decoding Order Number
For each NAL unit, the variable AbsDon is derived, representing the
decoding order number that is indicative of the NAL unit decoding
order.
Let NAL unit n be the n-th NAL unit in transmission order within an
RTP stream.
If tx-mode is equal to "SSM" and sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0,
AbsDon[n], the value of AbsDon for NAL unit n, is derived as equal
to n.
Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is
greater than 0), AbsDon[n] is derived as follows, where DON[n] is
the value of the variable DON for NAL unit n:
o If n is equal to 0 (i.e. NAL unit n is the very first NAL unit in
transmission order), AbsDon[0] is set equal to DON[0].
o Otherwise (n is greater than 0), the following applies for
derivation of AbsDon[n]:
If DON[n] == DON[n-1],
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1]
If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] < 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + DON[n] - DON[n-1]
If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] >= 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + 65536 - DON[n-1] + DON[n]
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] >= 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] + 65536 - DON[n])
If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] < 32768),
AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] - DON[n])
For any two NAL units m and n, the following applies:
o AbsDon[n] greater than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n
follows NAL unit m in NAL unit decoding order.
o When AbsDon[n] is equal to AbsDon[m], the NAL unit decoding order
of the two NAL units can be in either order.
o AbsDon[n] less than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n precedes
NAL unit m in decoding order.
When two consecutive NAL units in the NAL unit decoding order have
different values of AbsDon, the value of AbsDon for the second NAL
unit in decoding order MUST be greater than the value of AbsDon for
the first NAL unit, and the absolute difference between the two
AbsDon values MAY be greater than or equal to 1.
Informative note: There are multiple reasons to allow for the
absolute difference of the values of AbsDon for two consecutive
NAL units in the NAL unit decoding order to be greater than one.
An increment by one is not required, as at the time of
associating values of AbsDon to NAL units, it may not be known
whether all NAL units are to be delivered to the receiver. For
example, a gateway may not forward VCL NAL units of higher sub-
layers or some SEI NAL units when there is congestion in the
network. In another example, the first intra-coded picture of a
pre-encoded clip is transmitted in advance to ensure that it is
readily available in the receiver, and when transmitting the
first intra-coded picture, the originator does not exactly know
how many NAL units will be encoded before the first intra-coded
picture of the pre-encoded clip follows in decoding order. Thus,
the values of AbsDon for the NAL units of the first intra-coded
picture of the pre-encoded clip have to be estimated when they
are transmitted, and gaps in values of AbsDon may occur. Another
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
example is MSM where the AbsDon values must indicate cross-layer
decoding order for NAL units conveyed in all the RTP streams.
4.6 Single NAL Unit Packets
A single NAL unit packet contains exactly one NAL unit, and consists
of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), a conditional 16-bit
DONL field (in network byte order), and the NAL unit payload data
(the NAL unit excluding its NAL unit header) of the contained NAL
unit, as shown in Figure 3.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr | DONL (conditional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| NAL unit payload data |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 The structure a single NAL unit packet
The payload header SHOULD be an exact copy of the NAL unit header of
the contained NAL unit. However, the Type (i.e. nal_unit_type)
field MAY be changed, e.g. when it is desirable to handle a CRA
picture to be a BLA picture [JCTVC-J0107].
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the contained NAL
unit. If tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is greater
than 0, the DONL field MUST be present, and the variable DON for the
contained NAL unit is derived as equal to the value of the DONL
field. Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "SSM" and sprop-max-don-diff
is equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
4.7 Aggregation Packets (APs)
Aggregation packets (APs) are introduced to enable the reduction of
packetization overhead for small NAL units, such as most of the non-
VCL NAL units, which are often only a few octets in size.
An AP aggregates NAL units within one access unit. Each NAL unit to
be carried in an AP is encapsulated in an aggregation unit. NAL
units aggregated in one AP are in NAL unit decoding order.
An AP consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr) followed
by two or more aggregation units, as shown in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=48) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| two or more aggregation units |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 The structure of an aggregation packet
The fields in the payload header are set as follows. The F bit MUST
be equal to 0 if the F bit of each aggregated NAL unit is equal to
zero; otherwise, it MUST be equal to 1. The Type field MUST be
equal to 48. The value of LayerId MUST be equal to the lowest value
of LayerId of all the aggregated NAL units. The value of TID MUST
be the lowest value of TID of all the aggregated NAL units.
Informative Note: All VCL NAL units in an AP have the same TID
value since they belong to the same access unit. However, an AP
may contain non-VCL NAL units for which the TID value in the NAL
unit header may be different than the TID value of the VCL NAL
units in the same AP.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
An AP MUST carry at least two aggregation units and can carry as
many aggregation units as necessary; however, the total amount of
data in an AP obviously MUST fit into an IP packet, and the size
SHOULD be chosen so that the resulting IP packet is smaller than the
MTU size so to avoid IP layer fragmentation. An AP MUST NOT contain
Fragmentation Units (FUs) specified in section 4.8. APs MUST NOT be
nested; i.e. an AP MUST NOT contain another AP.
The first aggregation unit in an AP consists of a conditional 16-bit
DONL field (in network byte order) followed by a 16-bit unsigned
size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of
the NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but including the
NAL unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL
unit header, as shown in Figure 5.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: DONL (conditional) | NALU size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU size | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NAL unit |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 The structure of the first aggregation unit in an AP
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the aggregated NAL
unit.
If tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is greater than
0, the DONL field MUST be present in an aggregation unit that is the
first aggregation unit in an AP, and the variable DON for the
aggregated NAL unit is derived as equal to the value of the DONL
field. Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "SSM" and sprop-max-don-diff
is equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present in an aggregation
unit that is the first aggregation unit in an AP.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
An aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP
consists of a conditional 8-bit DOND field followed by a 16-bit
unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the
size of the NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but
including the NAL unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself,
including its NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 6.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: DOND (cond) | NALU size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| NAL unit |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 The structure of an aggregation unit that is not the first
aggregation unit in an AP
When present, the DOND field plus 1 specifies the difference between
the decoding order number values of the current aggregated NAL unit
and the preceding aggregated NAL unit in the same AP.
If tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is greater than
0, the DOND field MUST be present in an aggregation unit that is not
the first aggregation unit in an AP, and the variable DON for the
aggregated NAL unit is derived as equal to the DON of the preceding
aggregated NAL unit in the same AP plus the value of the DOND field
plus 1 modulo 65536. Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "SSM" and
sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0), the DOND field MUST NOT be
present in an aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation
unit in an AP, and in this case the transmission order and decoding
order of NAL units carried in the AP are the same as the order the
NAL units appear in the AP.
Figure 7 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure, without the DONL and DOND
fields being present.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=48) | NALU 1 Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 1 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 1 Data |
| . . . |
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . | NALU 2 Size | NALU 2 HDR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 2 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 2 Data |
| . . . |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 An example of an AP packet containing two aggregation units
without the DONL and DOND fields
Figure 8 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure, with the DONL and DOND
fields being present.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=48) | NALU 1 DONL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 1 Size | NALU 1 HDR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| NALU 1 Data . . . |
| |
+ . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | NALU 2 DOND | NALU 2 Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NALU 2 HDR | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ NALU 2 Data |
| |
| . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 An example of an AP containing two aggregation units with
the DONL and DOND fields
4.8 Fragmentation Units (FUs)
Fragmentation units (FUs) are introduced to enable fragmenting a
single NAL unit into multiple RTP packets, possibly without
cooperation or knowledge of the HEVC encoder. A fragment of a NAL
unit consists of an integer number of consecutive octets of that NAL
unit. Fragments of the same NAL unit MUST be sent in consecutive
order with ascending RTP sequence numbers (with no other RTP packets
within the same RTP stream being sent between the first and last
fragment).
When a NAL unit is fragmented and conveyed within FUs, it is
referred to as a fragmented NAL unit. APs MUST NOT be fragmented.
FUs MUST NOT be nested; i.e. an FU MUST NOT contain a subset of
another FU.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The RTP timestamp of an RTP packet carrying an FU is set to the
NALU-time of the fragmented NAL unit.
An FU consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), an FU
header of one octet, a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network
byte order), and an FU payload, as shown in Figure 9.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=49) | FU header | DONL (cond) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
| DONL (cond) | |
|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| FU payload |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 The structure of an FU
The fields in the payload header are set as follows. The Type field
MUST be equal to 49. The fields F, LayerId, and TID MUST be equal
to the fields F, LayerId, and TID, respectively, of the fragmented
NAL unit.
The FU header consists of an S bit, an E bit, and a 6-bit FuType
field, as shown in Figure 10.
+---------------+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|E| FuType |
+---------------+
Figure 10 The structure of FU header
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The semantics of the FU header fields are as follows:
S: 1 bit
When set to one, the S bit indicates the start of a fragmented
NAL unit i.e. the first byte of the FU payload is also the first
byte of the payload of the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU
payload is not the start of the fragmented NAL unit payload, the
S bit MUST be set to zero.
E: 1 bit
When set to one, the E bit indicates the end of a fragmented NAL
unit, i.e. the last byte of the payload is also the last byte of
the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU payload is not the last
fragment of a fragmented NAL unit, the E bit MUST be set to zero.
FuType: 6 bits
The field FuType MUST be equal to the field Type of the
fragmented NAL unit.
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
significant bits of the decoding order number of the fragmented NAL
unit.
If tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is greater than
0, and the S bit is equal to 1, the DONL field MUST be present in
the FU, and the variable DON for the fragmented NAL unit is derived
as equal to the value of the DONL field. Otherwise (tx-mode is
equal to "SSM" and sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0, or the S bit is
equal to 0), the DONL field MUST NOT be present in the FU.
A non-fragmented NAL unit MUST NOT be transmitted in one FU; i.e.
the Start bit and End bit MUST NOT both be set to one in the same FU
header.
The FU payload consists of fragments of the payload of the
fragmented NAL unit so that if the FU payloads of consecutive FUs,
starting with an FU with the S bit equal to 1 and ending with an FU
with the E bit equal to 1, are sequentially concatenated, the
payload of the fragmented NAL unit can be reconstructed. The NAL
unit header of the fragmented NAL unit is not included as such in
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
the FU payload, but rather the information of the NAL unit header of
the fragmented NAL unit is conveyed in F, LayerId, and TID fields of
the FU payload headers of the FUs and the FuType field of the FU
header of the FUs. An FU payload MUST not be empty.
If an FU is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all following
fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to the same
fragmented NAL unit, unless the decoder in the receiver is known to
be prepared to gracefully handle incomplete NAL units.
A receiver in an endpoint or in a MANE MAY aggregate the first n-1
fragments of a NAL unit to an (incomplete) NAL unit, even if
fragment n of that NAL unit is not received. In this case, the
forbidden_zero_bit of the NAL unit MUST be set to one to indicate a
syntax violation.
4.9 PACI packets
This section specifies the PACI packet structure. The basic payload
header specified in this memo is intentionally limited to the 16
bits of the NAL unit header so to keep the packetization overhead to
a minimum. However, cases have been identified where it is
advisable to include control information in an easily accessible
position in the packet header, despite the additional overhead. One
such control information is the Temporal Scalability Control
Information as specified in section 4.10 below. PACI packets carry
this and future, similar structures.
The PACI packet structure is based on a payload header extension
mechanism that is generic and extensible to carry payload header
extensions. In this section, the focus lies on the use within this
specification. Section 4.9.2 below provides guidance for the
specification designers in how to employ the extension mechanism in
future specifications.
A PACI packet consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr),
for which the structure follows what is described in section 4.3
above. The payload header is followed by the fields A, cType,
PHSsize, F[0..2] and Y.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Figure 11 shows a PACI packet in compliance with this memo; that is,
without any extensions.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=50) |A| cType | PHSsize |F0..2|Y|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Header Extension Structure (PHES) |
|=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=|
| |
| PACI payload: NAL unit |
| . . . |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 11 The structure of a PACI
The fields in the payload header are set as follows. The F bit MUST
be equal to 0. The Type field MUST be equal to 50. The value of
LayerId MUST be a copy of the LayerId field of the PACI payload NAL
unit or NAL-unit-like structure. The value of TID MUST be a copy of
the TID field of the PACI payload NAL unit or NAL-unit-like
structure.
The semantics of other fields are as follows:
A: 1 bit
Copy of the F bit of the PACI payload NAL unit or NAL-unit-like
structure.
cType: 6 bits
Copy of the Type field of the PACI payload NAL unit or NAL-unit-
like structure.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
PHSsize: 5 bits
Indicates the total length of the fields F[0..2], Y, and PHES.
The value is limited to be less than or equal to 32 octets, to
simplify encoder design for MTU size matching.
F0
This field equal to 1 specifies the presence of a temporal
scalability support extension in the PHES.
F1, F2
MUST be 0, available for future extensions, see section 4.9.2.
Y: 1 bit
MUST be 0, available for future extensions, see section 4.9.2.
PHES: variable number of octets
A variable number of octets as indicated by the value of PHSsize.
PACI Payload
The NAL unit or NAL-unit-like structure (such as: FU or AP) to be
carried, not including the first two octets.
Informative note: The first two octets of the NAL unit or NAL-
unit-like structure carried in the PACI payload are not
included in the PACI payload. Rather, the respective values
are copied in locations of the PayloadHdr of the RTP packet.
This design offers two advantages: first, the overall
structure of the payload header is preserved, i.e. there is no
special case of payload header structure that needs to be
implemented for PACI. Second, no additional overhead is
introduced.
A PACI payload MAY be a single NAL unit, an FU, or an AP. PACIs
MUST NOT be fragmented or aggregated. The following subsection
documents the reasons for these design choices.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
4.9.1 Reasons for the PACI rules (informative)
A PACI cannot be fragmented. If a PACI could be fragmented, and a
fragment other than the first fragment would get lost, access to the
information in the PACI would not be possible. Therefore, a PACI
must not be fragmented. In other words, an FU must not carry
(fragments of) a PACI.
A PACI cannot be aggregated. Aggregation of PACIs is inadvisable
from a compression viewpoint, as, in many cases, several to be
aggregated NAL units would share identical PACI fields and values
which would be carried redundantly for no reason. Most, if not all
the practical effects of PACI aggregation can be achieved by
aggregating NAL units and bundling them with a PACI (see below).
Therefore, a PACI must not be aggregated. In other words, an AP
must not contain a PACI.
The payload of a PACI can be a fragment. Both middleboxes and
sending systems with inflexible (often hardware-based) encoders
occasionally find themselves in situations where a PACI and its
headers, combined, are larger than the MTU size. In such a
scenario, the middlebox or sender can fragment the NAL unit and
encapsulate the fragment in a PACI. Doing so preserves the payload
header extension information for all fragments, allowing downstream
middleboxes and the receiver to take advantage of that information.
Therefore, a sender may place a fragment into a PACI, and a receiver
must be able to handle such a PACI.
The payload of a PACI can be an aggregation NAL unit. HEVC
bitstreams can contain unevenly sized and/or small (when compared to
the MTU size) NAL units. In order to efficiently packetize such
small NAL units, AP were introduced. The benefits of APs are
independent from the need for a payload header extension.
Therefore, a sender may place an AP into a PACI, and a receiver must
be able to handle such a PACI.
4.9.2 PACI extensions (Informative)
This subsection includes recommendations for future specification
designers on how to extent the PACI syntax to accommodate future
extensions. Obviously, designers are free to specify whatever
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
appears to be appropriate to them at the time of their design.
However, a lot of thought has been invested into the extension
mechanism described below, and we suggest that deviations from it
warrant a good explanation.
This memo defines only a single payload header extension (Temporal
Scalability Control Information, described below in section 4.10),
and, therefore, only the F0 bit carries semantics. F1 and F2 are
already named (and not just marked as reserved, as a typical video
spec designer would do). They are intended to signal two additional
extensions. The Y bit allows to, recursively, add further F and Y
bits to extend the mechanism beyond 3 possible payload header
extensions. It is suggested to define a new packet type (using a
different value for Type) when assigning the F1, F2, or Y bits
different semantics than what is suggested below.
When a Y bit is set, an 8 bit flag-extension is inserted after the Y
bit. A flag-extension consists of 7 flags F[n..n+6], and another Y
bit.
The basic PACI header already includes F0, F1, and F2. Therefore,
the Fx bits in the first flag-extensions are numbered F3, F4, ...,
F9, the F bits in the second flag-extension are numbered F10, F11,
..., F16, and so forth. As a result, at least 3 Fx bits are always
in the PACI, but the number of Fx bits (and associated types of
extensions), can be increased by setting the next Y bit and adding
an octet of flag-extensions, carrying 7 flags and another Y bit.
The size of this list of flags is subject to the limits specified in
section 4.9 (32 octets for all flag-extensions and the PHES
information combined).
Each of the F bits can indicate either the presence of information
in the Payload Header Extension Structure (PHES), described below,
or a given F bit can indicate a certain condition, without including
additional information in the PHES.
When a spec developer devises a new syntax that takes advantage of
the PACI extension mechanism, he/she must follow the constraints
listed below; otherwise the extension mechanism may break.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
1) The fields added for a particular Fx bit MUST be fixed in
length and not depend on what other Fx bits are set (no parsing
dependency).
2) The Fx bits must be assigned in order.
3) An implementation that supports the n-th Fn bit for any value
of n must understand the syntax (though not necessarily the
semantics) of the fields Fk (with k < n), so to be able to
either use those bits when present, or at least be able to skip
over them.
4.10 Temporal Scalability Control Information
This section describes the single payload header extension defined
in this specification, known as Temporal Scalability Control
Information (TSCI). If, in the future, additional payload header
extensions become necessary, they could be specified in this section
of an updated version of this document, or in their own documents.
When F0 is set to 1 in a PACI, this specifies that the PHES field
includes the TSCI fields TL0REFIDX, IrapPicID, S, and E as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PayloadHdr (Type=50) |A| cType | PHSsize |F0..2|Y|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TL0REFIDX | IrapPicID |S|E|RES| |
|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| .... |
| PACI payload: NAL unit |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :...OPTIONAL RTP padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12 The structure of a PACI with a PHES containing a TSCI
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
TL0PICIDX (8 bits)
When present, the TL0PICIDX field MUST be set to equal to
temporal_sub_layer_zero_idx as specified in Section D.3.32 of
[H.265] for the access unit containing the NAL unit in the PACI.
IrapPicID (8 bits)
When present, the IrapPicID field MUST be set to equal to
irap_pic_id as specified in Section D.3.22 of [H.265] for the
access unit containing the NAL unit in the PACI.
S (1 bit)
The S bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is
true and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is the first VCL NAL
unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is an AP and the NAL
unit in the first contained aggregation unit is the first VCL
NAL unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is an FU with its S bit
equal to 1 and the FU payload containing a fragment of the
first VCL NAL unit, in decoding order of a picture.
E (1 bit)
The E bit MUST be set to 1 if any of the following conditions is
true and MUST be set to 0 otherwise:
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is the last VCL NAL
unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is an AP and the NAL
unit in the last contained aggregation unit is the last VCL NAL
unit, in decoding order, of a picture.
. The NAL unit in the payload of the PACI is an FU with its E bit
equal to 1 and the FU payload containing a fragment of the last
VCL NAL unit, in decoding order of a picture.
RES (2 bits)
MUST be equal to 0. Reserved for future extensions.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The value of PHSsize MUST be set to 3. Receivers MUST allow other
values of the fields F0, F1, F2, Y, and PHSsize, and MUST ignore any
additional fields, when present, than specified above in the PHES.
5. Packetization Rules
The following packetization rules apply:
o If tx-mode is equal to "MSM" or sprop-max-don-diff is greater
than 0 for an RTP stream, the transmission order of NAL units
carried in the RTP stream MAY be different than the NAL unit
decoding order. Otherwise (tx-mode is equal to "SSM" and sprop-
max-don-diff is equal to 0 for an RTP stream), the transmission
order of NAL units carried in the RTP stream MUST be the same as
the NAL unit decoding order.
o A NAL unit of a small size SHOULD be encapsulated in an
aggregation packet together with one or more other NAL units in
order to avoid the unnecessary packetization overhead for small
NAL units. For example, non-VCL NAL units such as access unit
delimiters, parameter sets, or SEI NAL units are typically small
and can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units without violating
MTU size constraints.
o Each non-VCL NAL unit SHOULD, when possible from an MTU size
match viewpoint, be encapsulated in an aggregation packet
together with its associated VCL NAL unit, as typically a non-VCL
NAL unit would be meaningless without the associated VCL NAL unit
being available.
o For carrying exactly one NAL unit in an RTP packet, a single NAL
unit packet MUST be used.
6. De-packetization Process
The general concept behind de-packetization is to get the NAL units
out of the RTP packets in an RTP stream and all RTP streams the RTP
stream depends on, if any, and pass them to the decoder in the NAL
unit decoding order.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The de-packetization process is implementation dependent.
Therefore, the following description should be seen as an example of
a suitable implementation. Other schemes may be used as well as
long as the output for the same input is the same as the process
described below. The output is the same when the set of output NAL
units and their order are both identical. Optimizations relative to
the described algorithms are possible.
All normal RTP mechanisms related to buffer management apply. In
particular, duplicated or outdated RTP packets (as indicated by the
RTP sequences number and the RTP timestamp) are removed. To
determine the exact time for decoding, factors such as a possible
intentional delay to allow for proper inter-stream synchronization
must be factored in.
NAL units with NAL unit type values in the range of 0 to 47,
inclusive may be passed to the decoder. NAL-unit-like structures
with NAL unit type values in the range of 48 to 63, inclusive, MUST
NOT be passed to the decoder.
The receiver includes a receiver buffer, which is used to compensate
for transmission delay jitter within individual RTP streams and
across RTP streams, to reorder NAL units from transmission order to
the NAL unit decoding order, and to recover the NAL unit decoding
order in MSM, when applicable. In this section, the receiver
operation is described under the assumption that there is no
transmission delay jitter within an RTP stream and across RTP
streams. To make a difference from a practical receiver buffer that
is also used for compensation of transmission delay jitter, the
receiver buffer is here after called the de-packetization buffer in
this section. Receivers should also prepare for transmission delay
jitter; i.e. either reserve separate buffers for transmission delay
jitter buffering and de-packetization buffering or use a receiver
buffer for both transmission delay jitter and de-packetization.
Moreover, receivers should take transmission delay jitter into
account in the buffering operation; e.g. by additional initial
buffering before starting of decoding and playback.
If only one RTP stream is being received and sprop-max-don-diff of
the only RTP stream being received is equal to 0, the de-
packetization buffer size is zero bytes, i.e. the NAL units carried
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
in the RTP stream are directly passed to the decoder in their
transmission order, which is identical to the decoding order of the
NAL units. Otherwise, the process described in the remainder of this
section applies.
There are two buffering states in the receiver: initial buffering
and buffering while playing. Initial buffering starts when the
reception is initialized. After initial buffering, decoding and
playback are started, and the buffering-while-playing mode is used.
Regardless of the buffering state, the receiver stores incoming NAL
units, in reception order, into the de-packetization buffer. NAL
units carried in RTP packets are stored in the de-packetization
buffer individually, and the value of AbsDon is calculated and
stored for each NAL unit. When MSM is in use, NAL units of all RTP
streams of a bitstream are stored in the same de-packetization
buffer. When NAL units carried in any two RTP streams are available
to be placed into the de-packetization buffer, those NAL units
carried in the RTP stream that is lower in the dependency tree are
placed into the buffer first. For example, if RTP stream A depends
on RTP stream B, then NAL units carried in RTP stream B are placed
into the buffer first.
Initial buffering lasts until condition A (the difference between
the greatest and smallest AbsDon values of the NAL units in the de-
packetization buffer is greater than or equal to the value of sprop-
max-don-diff of the highest RTP stream) or condition B (the number
of NAL units in the de-packetization buffer is greater than the
value of sprop-depack-buf-nalus) is true.
After initial buffering, whenever condition A or condition B is
true, the following operation is repeatedly applied until both
condition A and condition A become false:
o The NAL unit in the de-packetization buffer with the smallest
value of AbsDon is removed from the de-packetization buffer and
passed to the decoder.
When no more NAL units are flowing into the de-packetization buffer,
all NAL units remaining in the de-packetization buffer are removed
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
from the buffer and passed to the decoder in the order of increasing
AbsDon values.
7. Payload Format Parameters
This section specifies the parameters that MAY be used to select
optional features of the payload format and certain features or
properties of the bitstream or the RTP stream. The parameters are
specified here as part of the media type registration for the HEVC
codec. A mapping of the parameters into the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] is also provided for applications that use
SDP. Equivalent parameters could be defined elsewhere for use with
control protocols that do not use SDP.
7.1 Media Type Registration
The media subtype for the HEVC codec is allocated from the IETF
tree.
The receiver MUST ignore any unrecognized parameter.
Media Type name: video
Media subtype name: H265
Required parameters: none
OPTIONAL parameters:
profile-space, tier-flag, profile-id, profile-compatibility-
indicator, interop-constraints, and level-id:
These parameters indicate the profile, tier, default level,
and some constraints of the bitstream carried by the RTP
stream and all RTP streams the RTP stream depends on, or a
specific set of the profile, tier, default level, and some
constraints the receiver supports.
The profile and some constraints are indicated collectively by
profile-space, profile-id, profile-compatibility-indicator,
and interop-constraints. The profile specifies the subset of
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
coding tools that may have been used to generate the bitstream
or that the receiver supports.
Informative note: There are 32 values of profile-id, and
there are 32 flags in profile-compatibility-indicator, each
flag corresponding to one value of profile-id. According
to HEVC version 1 in [HEVC], when more than one of the 32
flags is set for a bitstream, the bitstream would comply
with all the profiles corresponding to the set flags.
However, in a draft of HEVC version 2 in [HEVC draft v2],
subclause A.3.5, 19 Format Range Extensions profiles have
been specified, all using the same value of profile-id (4),
differentiated by some of the 48 bits in interop-
constraints - this (rather unexpected way of profile
signalling) means that one of the 32 flags may correspond
to multiple profiles. To be able to support whatever HEVC
extension profile that might be specified and indicated
using profile-space, profile-id, profile-compatibility-
indicator, and interop-constraints in the future, it would
be safe to require symmetric use of these parameters in SDP
offer/answer unless recv-sub-layer-id is included in the
SDP answer for choosing one of the sub-layers offered.
The tier is indicated by tier-flag. The default level is
indicated by level-id. The tier and the default level specify
the limits on values of syntax elements or arithmetic
combinations of values of syntax elements that are followed
when generating the bitstream or that the receiver supports.
A set of profile-space, tier-flag, profile-id, profile-
compatibility-indicator, interop-constraints, and level-id
parameters ptlA is said to be consistent with another set of
these parameters ptlB if any decoder that conforms to the
profile, tier, level, and constraints indicated by ptlB can
decode any bitstream that conforms to the profile, tier,
level, and constraints indicated by ptlA.
In SDP offer/answer, when the SDP answer does not include the
recv-sub-layer-id parameter that is less than the sprop-sub-
layer-id parameter in the SDP offer, the following applies:
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
o The profile-space, tier-flag, profile-id, profile-
compatibility-indicator, and interop-constraints
parameters MUST be used symmetrically, i.e. the value of
each of these parameters in the offer MUST be the same as
that in the answer, either explicitly signalled or
implicitly inferred.
o The level-id parameter is changeable as long as the
highest level indicated by the answer is either equal to
or lower than that in the offer. Note that the highest
level is indicated by level-id and max-recv-level-id
together.
In SDP offer/answer, when the SDP answer does include the
recv-sub-layer-id parameter that is less than the sprop-sub-
layer-id parameter in the SDP offer, the set of profile-space,
tier-flag, profile-id, profile-compatibility-indicator,
interop-constraints, and level-id parameters included in the
answer MUST be consistent with that for the chosen sub-layer
representation as indicated in the SDP offer, with the
exception that the level-id parameter in the SDP answer is
changable as long as the highest level indicated by the answer
is either lower than or equal to that in the offer.
More specifications of these parameters, including how they
relate to the values of the profile, tier, and level syntax
elements specified in [HEVC] are provided below.
profile-space, profile-id:
The value of profile-space MUST be in the range of 0 to 3,
inclusive. The value of profile-id MUST be in the range of 0
to 31, inclusive.
When profile-space is not present, a value of 0 MUST be
inferred. When profile-id is not present, a value of 1 (i.e.
the Main profile) MUST be inferred.
When used to indicate properties of a bitstream, profile-space
and profile-id are derived from the profile, tier, and level
syntax elements in SPS or VPS NAL units as follows, where
general_profile_space, general_profile_idc,
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
sub_layer_profile_space[j], and sub_layer_profile_idc[j] are
specified in [HEVC]:
If the RTP stream is the highest RTP stream, the following
applies:
o profile_space = general_profile_space
o profile_id = general_profile_idc
Otherwise (the RTP stream is a dependee RTP stream), the
following applies, with j being the value of the sprop-sub-
layer-id parameter:
o profile_space = sub_layer_profile_space[j]
o profile_id = sub_layer_profile_idc[j]
tier-flag, level-id:
The value of tier-flag MUST be in the range of 0 to 1,
inclusive. The value of level-id MUST be in the range of 0
to 255, inclusive.
If the tier-flag and level-id parameters are used to indicate
properties of a bitstream, they indicate the tier and the
highest level the bitstream complies with.
If the tier-flag and level-id parameters are used for
capability exchange, the following applies. If max-recv-
level-id is not present, the default level defined by level-id
indicates the highest level the codec wishes to support.
Otherwise, max-recv-level-id indicates the highest level the
codec supports for receiving. For either receiving or
sending, all levels that are lower than the highest level
supported MUST also be supported.
If no tier-flag is present, a value of 0 MUST be inferred and
if no level-id is present, a value of 93 (i.e. level 3.1) MUST
be inferred.
When used to indicate properties of a bitstream, the tier-flag
and level-id parameters are derived from the profile, tier,
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
and level syntax elements in SPS or VPS NAL units as follows,
where general_tier_flag, general_level_idc,
sub_layer_tier_flag[j], and sub_layer_level_idc[j] are
specified in [HEVC]:
If the RTP stream is the highest RTP stream, the following
applies:
o tier-flag = general_tier_flag
o level-id = general_level_idc
Otherwise (the RTP stream is a dependee RTP stream), the
following applies, with j being the value of the sprop-sub-
layer-id parameter:
o tier-flag = sub_layer_tier_flag[j]
o level-id = sub_layer_level_idc[j]
interop-constraints:
A base16 [RFC4648] (hexadecimal) representation of six bytes
of data, consisting of progressive_source_flag,
interlaced_source_flag, non_packed_constraint_flag,
frame_only_constraint_flag, and reserved_zero_44bits.
If the interop-constraints parameter is not present, the
following MUST be inferred:
o progressive_source_flag = 1
o interlaced_source_flag = 0
o non_packed_constraint_flag = 1
o frame_only_constraint_flag = 1
o reserved_zero_44bits = 0
When the interop-constraints parameter is used to indicate
properties of a bitstream, the following applies, where
general_progressive_source_flag,
general_interlaced_source_flag,
general_non_packed_constraint_flag,
general_non_packed_constraint_flag,
general_frame_only_constraint_flag,
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
general_reserved_zero_44bits,
sub_layer_progressive_source_flag[j],
sub_layer_interlaced_source_flag[j],
sub_layer_non_packed_constraint_flag[j],
sub_layer_frame_only_constraint_flag[j], and
sub_layer_reserved_zero_44bits[j] are specified in [HEVC]:
If the RTP stream is the highest RTP stream, the following
applies:
o progressive_source_flag = general_progressive_source_flag
o interlaced_source_flag = general_interlaced_source_flag
o non_packed_constraint_flag =
general_non_packed_constraint_flag
o frame_only_constraint_flag =
general_frame_only_constraint_flag
o reserved_zero_44bits = general_reserved_zero_44bits
Otherwise (the RTP stream is a dependee RTP stream), the
following applies, with j being the value of the sprop-sub-
layer-id parameter:
o progressive_source_flag =
sub_layer_progressive_source_flag[j]
o interlaced_source_flag =
sub_layer_interlaced_source_flag[j]
o non_packed_constraint_flag =
sub_layer_non_packed_constraint_flag[j]
o frame_only_constraint_flag =
sub_layer_frame_only_constraint_flag[j]
o reserved_zero_44bits = sub_layer_reserved_zero_44bits[j]
Using interop-constraints for capability exchange results in a
requirement on any bitstream to be compliant with the interop-
constraints.
profile-compatibility-indicator:
A base16 [RFC4648] representation of four bytes of data.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
When profile-compatibility-indicator is used to indicate
properties of a bitstream, the following applies, where
general_profile_compatibility_flag[j] and
sub_layer_profile_compatibility_flag[i][j] are specified in
[HEVC]:
The profile-compatibility-indicator in this case indicates
additional profiles to the profile defined by
profile_space, profile_id, and interop-constraints the
bitstream conforms to. A decoder that conforms to any of
all the profiles the bitstream conforms to would be capable
of decoding the bitstream. These additional profiles are
defined by profile-space, each set bit of profile-
compatibility-indicator, and interop-constraints.
If the RTP stream is the highest RTP stream, the following
applies for each value of j in the range of 0 to 31,
inclusive:
o bit j of profile-compatibility-indicator =
general_profile_compatibility_flag[j]
Otherwise (the RTP stream is a dependee RTP stream), the
following applies for i equal to sprop-sub-layer-id and for
each value of j in the range of 0 to 31, inclusive:
o bit j of profile-compatibility-indicator =
sub_layer_profile_compatibility_flag[i][j]
Using profile-compatibility-indicator for capability exchange
results in a requirement on any bitstream to be compliant with
the profile-compatibility-indicator. This is intended to
handle cases where any future HEVC profile is defined as an
intersection of two or more profiles.
If this parameter is not present, this parameter defaults to
the following: bit j, with j equal to profile-id, of profile-
compatibility-indicator is inferred to be equal to 1, and all
other bits are inferred to be equal to 0.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
sprop-sub-layer-id:
This parameter MAY be used to indicate the highest allowed
value of TID in the bitstream. When not present, the value of
sprop-sub-layer-id is inferred to be equal to 6.
The value of sprop-sub-layer-id MUST be in the range of 0
to 6, inclusive.
recv-sub-layer-id:
This parameter MAY be used to signal a receiver's choice of
the offered or declared sub-layer representations in the
sprop-vps. The value of recv-sub-layer-id indicates the TID
of the highest sub-layer of the bitstream that a receiver
supports. When not present, the value of recv-sub-layer-id is
inferred to be equal to the value of the sprop-sub-layer-id
parameter in the SDP offer.
The value of recv-sub-layer-id MUST be in the range of 0 to 6,
inclusive.
max-recv-level-id:
This parameter MAY be used to indicate the highest level a
receiver supports. The highest level the receiver supports is
equal to the value of max-recv-level-id divided by 30.
The value of max-recv-level-id MUST be in the range of 0
to 255, inclusive.
When max-recv-level-id is not present, the value is inferred
to be equal to level-id.
max-recv-level-id MUST NOT be present when the highest level
the receiver supports is not higher than the default level.
tx-mode:
This parameter indicates whether the transmission mode is SSM
or MSM.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The value of tx-mode MUST be equal to either "MSM" or "SSM".
When not present, the value of tx-mode is inferred to be equal
to "SSM".
If the value is equal to "MSM", MSM MUST be in use. Otherwise
(the value is equal to "SSM"), SSM MUST be in use.
The value of tx-mode MUST be equal to "MSM" for all RTP
sessions in an MSM.
sprop-vps:
This parameter MAY be used to convey any video parameter set
NAL unit of the bitstream for out-of-band transmission of
video parameter sets. The parameter MAY also be used for
capability exchange and to indicate sub-stream characteristics
(i.e. properties of sub-layer representations as defined in
[HEVC]). The value of the parameter is a comma-separated
(',') list of base64 [RFC4648] representations of the video
parameter set NAL units as specified in Section 7.3.2.1 of
[HEVC].
The sprop-vps parameter MAY contain one or more than one video
parameter set NAL unit. However, all other video parameter
sets contained in the sprop-vps parameter MUST be consistent
with the first video parameter set in the sprop-vps parameter.
A video parameter set vpsB is said to be consistent with
another video parameter set vpsA if any decoder that conforms
to the profile, tier, level, and constraints indicated by the
12 bytes of data starting from the syntax element
general_profile_space to the syntax element general_level_id,
inclusive, in the first profile_tier_level( ) syntax structure
in vpsA can decode any bitstream that conforms to the profile,
tier, level, and constraints indicated by the 12 bytes of data
starting from the syntax element general_profile_space to the
syntax element general_level_id, inclusive, in the first
profile_tier_level( ) syntax structure in vpsB.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
sprop-sps:
This parameter MAY be used to convey sequence parameter set
NAL units of the bitstream for out-of-band transmission of
sequence parameter sets. The value of the parameter is a
comma-separated (',') list of base64 [RFC4648] representations
of the sequence parameter set NAL units as specified in
Section 7.3.2.2 of [HEVC].
sprop-pps:
This parameter MAY be used to convey picture parameter set NAL
units of the bitstream for out-of-band transmission of picture
parameter sets. The value of the parameter is a comma-
separated (',') list of base64 [RFC4648] representations of
the picture parameter set NAL units as specified in Section
7.3.2.3 of [HEVC].
sprop-sei:
This parameter MAY be used to convey one or more SEI messages
that describe bitstream characteristics. When present, a
decoder can rely on the bitstream characteristics that are
described in the SEI messages for the entire duration of the
session, independently from the persistence scopes of the SEI
messages as specified in [HEVC].
The value of the parameter is a comma-separated (',') list of
base64 [RFC4648] representations of SEI NAL units as specified
in Section 7.3.2.4 of [HEVC].
Informative note: Intentionally, no list of applicable or
inapplicable SEI messages is specified here. Conveying
certain SEI messages in sprop-sei may be sensible in some
application scenarios and meaningless in others. However,
a few examples are described below:
1) In an environment where the bitstream was created from
film-based source material, and no splicing is going to
occur during the lifetime of the session, the film grain
characteristics SEI message or the tone mapping
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
information SEI message are likely meaningful, and
sending them in sprop-sei rather than in the bitstream
at each entry point may help saving bits and allows to
configure the renderer only once, avoiding unwanted
artifacts.
2) The structure of pictures information SEI message in
sprop-sei can be used to inform a decoder of information
on the NAL unit types, picture order count values, and
prediction dependencies of a sequence of pictures.
Having such knowledge can be helpful for error recovery.
3) Examples for SEI messages that would be meaningless to
be conveyed in sprop-sei include the decoded picture
hash SEI message (it is close to impossible that all
decoded pictures have the same hash-tag), the display
orientation SEI message when the device is a handheld
device (as the display orientation may change when the
handheld device is turned around), or the filler payload
SEI message (as there is no point in just having more
bits in SDP).
max-lsr, max-lps, max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br, max-tr, max-tc:
These parameters MAY be used to signal the capabilities of a
receiver implementation. These parameters MUST NOT be used
for any other purpose. The highest level (specified by max-
recv-level-id) MUST be such that the receiver is fully capable
of supporting. max-lsr, max-lps, max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br,
max-tr, and max-tc MAY be used to indicate capabilities of the
receiver that extend the required capabilities of the highest
level, as specified below.
When more than one parameter from the set (max-lsr, max-lps,
max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br, max-tr, max-tc) is present, the
receiver MUST support all signaled capabilities
simultaneously. For example, if both max-lsr and max-br are
present, the highest level with the extension of both the
picture rate and bitrate is supported. That is, the receiver
is able to decode bitstreams in which the luma sample rate is
up to max-lsr (inclusive), the bitrate is up to max-br
(inclusive), the coded picture buffer size is derived as
specified in the semantics of the max-br parameter below, and
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
the other properties comply with the highest level specified
by max-recv-level-id.
Informative note: When the OPTIONAL media type parameters
are used to signal the properties of a bitstream, and max-
lsr, max-lps, max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br, max-tr, and max-tc
are not present, the values of profile-space, tier-flag,
profile-id, profile-compatibility-indicator, interop-
constraints, and level-id must always be such that the
bitstream complies fully with the specified profile, tier,
and level.
max-lsr:
The value of max-lsr is an integer indicating the maximum
processing rate in units of luma samples per second. The max-
lsr parameter signals that the receiver is capable of decoding
video at a higher rate than is required by the highest level.
When max-lsr is signaled, the receiver MUST be able to decode
bitstreams that conform to the highest level, with the
exception that the MaxLumaSR value in Table A-2 of [HEVC] for
the highest level is replaced with the value of max-lsr.
Senders MAY use this knowledge to send pictures of a given
size at a higher picture rate than is indicated in the highest
level.
When not present, the value of max-lsr is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxLumaSR given in Table A-2 of [HEVC] for the
highest level.
The value of max-lsr MUST be in the range of MaxLumaSR to
16 * MaxLumaSR, inclusive, where MaxLumaSR is given in Table
A-2 of [HEVC] for the highest level.
max-lps:
The value of max-lps is an integer indicating the maximum
picture size in units of luma samples. The max-lps parameter
signals that the receiver is capable of decoding larger
picture sizes than are required by the highest level. When
max-lps is signaled, the receiver MUST be able to decode
bitstreams that conform to the highest level, with the
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
exception that the MaxLumaPS value in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for
the highest level is replaced with the value of max-lps.
Senders MAY use this knowledge to send larger pictures at a
proportionally lower picture rate than is indicated in the
highest level.
When not present, the value of max-lps is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxLumaPS given in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for the
highest level.
The value of max-lps MUST be in the range of MaxLumaPS to
16 * MaxLumaPS, inclusive, where MaxLumaPS is given in Table
A-1 of [HEVC] for the highest level.
max-cpb:
The value of max-cpb is an integer indicating the maximum
coded picture buffer size in units of CpbBrVclFactor bits for
the VCL HRD parameters and in units of CpbBrNalFactor bits for
the NAL HRD parameters, where CpbBrVclFactor and
CpbBrNalFactor are defined in Section A.4 of [HEVC]. The max-
cpb parameter signals that the receiver has more memory than
the minimum amount of coded picture buffer memory required by
the highest level. When max-cpb is signaled, the receiver
MUST be able to decode bitstreams that conform to the highest
level, with the exception that the MaxCPB value in Table A-1
of [HEVC] for the highest level is replaced with the value of
max-cpb. Senders MAY use this knowledge to construct coded
bitstreams with greater variation of bitrate than can be
achieved with the MaxCPB value in Table A-1 of [HEVC].
When not present, the value of max-cpb is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxCPB given in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for the
highest level.
The value of max-cpb MUST be in the range of MaxCPB to
16 * MaxCPB, inclusive, where MaxLumaCPB is given in Table A-1
of [HEVC] for the highest level.
Informative note: The coded picture buffer is used in the
hypothetical reference decoder (Annex C of HEVC). The use
of the hypothetical reference decoder is recommended in
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
HEVC encoders to verify that the produced bitstream
conforms to the standard and to control the output bitrate.
Thus, the coded picture buffer is conceptually independent
of any other potential buffers in the receiver, including
de-packetization and de-jitter buffers. The coded picture
buffer need not be implemented in decoders as specified in
Annex C of HEVC, but rather standard-compliant decoders can
have any buffering arrangements provided that they can
decode standard-compliant bitstreams. Thus, in practice,
the input buffer for a video decoder can be integrated with
de-packetization and de-jitter buffers of the receiver.
max-dpb:
The value of max-dpb is an integer indicating the maximum
decoded picture buffer size in units decoded pictures at the
MaxLumaPS for the highest level, i.e. the number of decoded
pictures at the maximum picture size defined by the highest
level. The value of max-dpb MUST be in the range of 1 to 16,
respectively. The max-dpb parameter signals that the receiver
has more memory than the minimum amount of decoded picture
buffer memory required by default, which is MaxDpbPicBuf as
defined in [HEVC] (equal to 6). When max-dpb is signaled, the
receiver MUST be able to decode bitstreams that conform to the
highest level, with the exception that the MaxDpbPicBuff value
defined in [HEVC] as 6 is replaced with the value of max-dpb.
Consequently, a receiver that signals max-dpb MUST be capable
of storing the following number of decoded pictures
(MaxDpbSize) in its decoded picture buffer:
if( PicSizeInSamplesY <= ( MaxLumaPS >> 2 ) )
MaxDpbSize = Min( 4 * max-dpb, 16 )
else if ( PicSizeInSamplesY <= ( MaxLumaPS >> 1 ) )
MaxDpbSize = Min( 2 * max-dpb, 16 )
else if ( PicSizeInSamplesY <= ( ( 3 * MaxLumaPS ) >> 2 ) )
MaxDpbSize = Min( (4 * max-dpb) / 3, 16 )
else
MaxDpbSize = max-dpb
Wherein MaxLumaPS given in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for the highest
level and PicSizeInSamplesY is the current size of each
decoded picture in units of luma samples as defined in [HEVC].
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
The value of max-dpb MUST be greater than or equal to the
value of MaxDpbPicBuf (i.e. 6) as defined in [HEVC]. Senders
MAY use this knowledge to construct coded bitstreams with
improved compression.
When not present, the value of max-dpb is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxDpbPicBuf (i.e. 6) as defined in [HEVC].
Informative note: This parameter was added primarily to
complement a similar codepoint in the ITU-T Recommendation
H.245, so as to facilitate signaling gateway designs. The
decoded picture buffer stores reconstructed samples. There
is no relationship between the size of the decoded picture
buffer and the buffers used in RTP, especially de-
packetization and de-jitter buffers.
max-br:
The value of max-br is an integer indicating the maximum video
bitrate in units of CpbBrVclFactor bits per second for the VCL
HRD parameters and in units of CpbBrNalFactor bits per second
for the NAL HRD parameters, where CpbBrVclFactor and
CpbBrNalFactor are defined in Section A.4 of [HEVC].
The max-br parameter signals that the video decoder of the
receiver is capable of decoding video at a higher bitrate than
is required by the highest level.
When max-br is signaled, the video codec of the receiver MUST
be able to decode bitstreams that conform to the highest
level, with the following exceptions in the limits specified
by the highest level:
o The value of max-br replaces the MaxBR value in Table A-2
of [HEVC] for the highest level.
o When the max-cpb parameter is not present, the result of
the following formula replaces the value of MaxCPB in Table
A-1 of [HEVC]:
(MaxCPB of the highest level) * max-br / (MaxBR of the
highest level)
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
For example, if a receiver signals capability for Main profile
Level 2 with max-br equal to 2000, this indicates a maximum
video bitrate of 2000 kbits/sec for VCL HRD parameters, a
maximum video bitrate of 2200 kbits/sec for NAL HRD
parameters, and a CPB size of 2000000 bits (2000000 / 1500000
* 1500000).
Senders MAY use this knowledge to send higher bitrate video as
allowed in the level definition of Annex A of HEVC to achieve
improved video quality.
When not present, the value of max-br is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxBR given in Table A-2 of [HEVC] for the
highest level.
The value of max-br MUST be in the range of MaxBR to
16 * MaxBR, inclusive, where MaxBR is given in Table A-2 of
[HEVC] for the highest level.
Informative note: This parameter was added primarily to
complement a similar codepoint in the ITU-T Recommendation
H.245, so as to facilitate signaling gateway designs. The
assumption that the network is capable of handling such
bitrates at any given time cannot be made from the value of
this parameter. In particular, no conclusion can be drawn
that the signaled bitrate is possible under congestion
control constraints.
max-tr:
The value of max-tr is an integer indication the maximum
number of tile rows. The max-tr parameter signals that the
receiver is capable of decoding video with a larger number of
tile rows than the value allowed by the highest level.
When max-tr is signaled, the receiver MUST be able to decode
bitstreams that conform to the highest level, with the
exception that the MaxTileRows value in Table A-1 of [HEVC]
for the highest level is replaced with the value of max-tr.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Senders MAY use this knowledge to send pictures utilizing a
larger number of tile rows than the value allowed by the
highest level.
When not present, the value of max-tr is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxTileRows given in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for
the highest level.
The value of max-tr MUST be in the range of MaxTileRows to
16 * MaxTileRows, inclusive, where MaxTileRows is given in
Table A-1 of [HEVC] for the highest level.
max-tc:
The value of max-tc is an integer indication the maximum
number of tile columns. The max-tc parameter signals that the
receiver is capable of decoding video with a larger number of
tile columns than the value allowed by the highest level.
When max-tc is signaled, the receiver MUST be able to decode
bitstreams that conform to the highest level, with the
exception that the MaxTileCols value in Table A-1 of [HEVC]
for the highest level is replaced with the value of max-tc.
Senders MAY use this knowledge to send pictures utilizing a
larger number of tile columns than the value allowed by the
highest level.
When not present, the value of max-tc is inferred to be equal
to the value of MaxTileCols given in Table A-1 of [HEVC] for
the highest level.
The value of max-tc MUST be in the range of MaxTileCols to
16 * MaxTileCols, inclusive, where MaxTileCols is given in
Table A-1 of [HEVC] for the highest level.
max-fps:
The value of max-fps is an integer indicating the maximum
picture rate in units of pictures per 100 seconds that can be
effectively processed by the receiver. The max-fps parameter
MAY be used to signal that the receiver has a constraint in
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
that it is not capable of processing video effectively at the
full picture rate that is implied by the highest level and,
when present, one or more of the parameters max-lsr, max-lps,
and max-br.
The value of max-fps is not necessarily the picture rate at
which the maximum picture size can be sent, it constitutes a
constraint on maximum picture rate for all resolutions.
Informative note: The max-fps parameter is semantically
different from max-lsr, max-lps, max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br,
max-tr, and max-tc in that max-fps is used to signal a
constraint, lowering the maximum picture rate from what is
implied by other parameters.
The encoder MUST use a picture rate equal to or less than this
value. In cases where the max-fps parameter is absent the
encoder is free to choose any picture rate according to the
highest level and any signaled optional parameters.
The value of max-fps MUST be smaller than or equal to the full
picture rate that is implied by the highest level and, when
present, one or more of the parameters max-lsr, max-lps, and
max-br.
sprop-max-don-diff:
The value of this parameter MUST be equal to 0, if the RTP
stream does not depend on other RTP streams and there is no
NAL unit naluA that is followed in transmission order by any
NAL unit preceding naluA in decoding order. Otherwise, this
parameter specifies the maximum absolute difference between
the decoding order number (i.e., AbsDon) values of any two NAL
units naluA and naluB, where naluA follows naluB in decoding
order and precedes naluB in transmission order.
The value of sprop-max-don-diff MUST be an integer in the
range of 0 to 32767, inclusive.
When not present, the value of sprop-max-don-diff is inferred
to be equal to 0.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
When the RTP stream depends on one or more other RTP streams
(in this case tx-mode MUST be equal to "MSM" and MSM is in
use), this parameter MUST be present and the value MUST be
greater than 0.
Informative note: When the RTP stream does not depend on
other RTP streams, either MSM or SSM may be in use.
sprop-depack-buf-nalus:
This parameter specifies the maximum number of NAL units that
precede a NAL unit in transmission order and follow the NAL
unit in decoding order.
The value of sprop-depack-buf-nalus MUST be an integer in the
range of 0 to 32767, inclusive.
When not present, the value of sprop-depack-buf-nalus is
inferred to be equal to 0.
When the RTP stream depends on one or more other RTP streams
(in this case tx-mode MUST be equal to "MSM" and MSM is in
use), this parameter MUST be present and the value MUST be
greater than 0.
sprop-depack-buf-bytes:
This parameter signals the required size of the de-
packetization buffer in units of bytes. The value of the
parameter MUST be greater than or equal to the maximum buffer
occupancy (in units of bytes) of the de-packetization buffer
as specified in section 6.
The value of sprop-depack-buf-bytes MUST be an integer in the
range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.
When the RTP stream depends on one or more other RTP streams
(in this case tx-mode MUST be equal to "MSM" and MSM is in
use) or sprop-max-don-diff is present and greater than 0, this
parameter MUST be present and the value MUST be greater than
0.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Informative note: The value of sprop-depack-buf-bytes
indicates the required size of the de-packetization buffer
only. When network jitter can occur, an appropriately
sized jitter buffer has to be available as well.
depack-buf-cap:
This parameter signals the capabilities of a receiver
implementation and indicates the amount of de-packetization
buffer space in units of bytes that the receiver has available
for reconstructing the NAL unit decoding order from NAL units
carried in one or more RTP streams. A receiver is able to
handle any RTP stream, and all RTP streams the RTP stream
depends on, when present, for which the value of the sprop-
depack-buf-bytes parameter is smaller than or equal to this
parameter.
When not present, the value of depack-buf-cap is inferred to
be equal to 4294967295. The value of depack-buf-cap MUST be
an integer in the range of 1 to 4294967295, inclusive.
Informative note: depack-buf-cap indicates the maximum
possible size of the de-packetization buffer of the
receiver only. When network jitter can occur, an
appropriately sized jitter buffer has to be available as
well.
sprop-segmentation-id:
This parameter MAY be used to signal the segmentation tools
present in the bitstream and that can be used for
parallelization. The value of sprop-segmentation-id MUST be
an integer in the range of 0 to 3, inclusive. When not
present, the value of sprop-segmentation-id is inferred to be
equal to 0.
When sprop-segmentation-id is equal to 0, no information about
the segmentation tools is provided. When sprop-segmentation-
id is equal to 1, it indicates that slices are present in the
bitstream. When sprop-segmentation-id is equal to 2, it
indicates that tiles are present in the bitstream. When
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
sprop-segmentation-id is equal to 3, it indicates that WPP is
used in the bitstream.
sprop-spatial-segmentation-idc:
A base16 [RFC4648] representation of the syntax element
min_spatial_segmentation_idc as specified in [HEVC]. This
parameter MAY be used to describe parallelization capabilities
of the bitstream.
dec-parallel-cap:
This parameter MAY be used to indicate the decoder's
additional decoding capabilities given the presence of tools
enabling parallel decoding, such as slices, tiles, and WPP, in
the bitstream. The decoding capability of the decoder may
vary with the setting of the parallel decoding tools present
in the bitstream, e.g. the size of the tiles that are present
in a bitstream. Therefore, multiple capability points may be
provided, each indicating the minimum required decoding
capability that is associated with a parallelism requirement,
which is a requirement on the bitstream that enables parallel
decoding.
Each capability point is defined as a combination of 1) a
parallelism requirement, 2) a profile (determined by profile-
space and profile-id), 3) a highest level, and 4) a maximum
processing rate, a maximum picture size, and a maximum video
bitrate that may be equal to or greater than that determined
by the highest level. The parameter's syntax in ABNF
[RFC5234] is as follows:
dec-parallel-cap = "dec-parallel-cap={" cap-point *(","
cap-point) "}"
cap-point = ("w" / "t") ":" spatial-seg-idc 1*(";"
cap-parameter)
spatial-seg-idc = 1*4DIGIT ; (1-4095)
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
cap-parameter = tier-flag / level-id / max-lsr
/ max-lps / max-br
tier-flag = "tier-flag" EQ ("0" / "1")
level-id = "level-id" EQ 1*3DIGIT ; (0-255)
max-lsr = "max-lsr" EQ 1*20DIGIT ; (0-
18,446,744,073,709,551,615)
max-lps = "max-lps" EQ 1*10DIGIT ; (0-4,294,967,295)
max-br = "max-br" EQ 1*20DIGIT ; (0-
18,446,744,073,709,551,615)
EQ = "="
The set of capability points expressed by the dec-parallel-cap
parameter is enclosed in a pair of curly braces ("{}"). Each
set of two consecutive capability points is separated by a
comma (','). Within each capability point, each set of two
consecutive parameters, and when present, their values, is
separated by a semicolon (';').
The profile of all capability points is determined by profile-
space and profile-id that are outside the dec-parallel-cap
parameter.
Each capability point starts with an indication of the
parallelism requirement, which consists of a parallel tool
type, which may be equal to 'w' or 't', and a decimal value of
the spatial-seg-idc parameter. When the type is 'w', the
capability point is valid only for H.265 bitstreams with WPP
in use, i.e. entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag equal to 1.
When the type is 't', the capability point is valid only for
H.265 bitstreams with WPP not in use (i.e.
entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag equal to 0). The capability-
point is valid only for H.265 bitstreams with
min_spatial_segmentation_idc equal to or greater than spatial-
seg-idc.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
After the parallelism requirement indication, each capability
point continues with one or more pairs of parameter and value
in any order for any of the following parameters:
o tier-flag
o level-id
o max-lsr
o max-lps
o max-br
At most one occurrence of each of the above five parameters is
allowed within each capability point.
The values of dec-parallel-cap.tier-flag and dec-parallel-
cap.level-id for a capability point indicate the highest level
of the capability point. The values of dec-parallel-cap.max-
lsr, dec-parallel-cap.max-lps, and dec-parallel-cap.max-br for
a capability point indicate the maximum processing rate in
units of luma samples per second, the maximum picture size in
units of luma samples, and the maximum video bitrate (in units
of CpbBrVclFactor bits per second for the VCL HRD parameters
and in units of CpbBrNalFactor bits per second for the NAL HRD
parameters where CpbBrVclFactor and CpbBrNalFactor are defined
in Section A.4 of [HEVC]).
When not present, the value of dec-parallel-cap.tier-flag is
inferred to be equal to the value of tier-flag outside the
dec-parallel-cap parameter. When not present, the value of
dec-parallel-cap.level-id is inferred to be equal to the value
of max-recv-level-id outside the dec-parallel-cap parameter.
When not present, the value of dec-parallel-cap.max-lsr, dec-
parallel-cap.max-lps, or dec-parallel-cap.max-br is inferred
to be equal to the value of max-lsr, max-lps, or max-br,
respectively, outside the dec-parallel-cap parameter.
The general decoding capability, expressed by the set of
parameters outside of dec-parallel-cap, is defined as the
capability point that is determined by the following
combination of parameters: 1) the parallelism requirement
corresponding to the value of sprop-segmentation-id equal to 0
for a bitstream, 2) the profile determined by profile-space,
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
profile-id, profile-compatibility-indicator, and interop-
constraints, 3) the tier and the highest level determined by
tier-flag and max-recv-level-id, and 4) the maximum processing
rate, the maximum picture size, and the maximum video bitrate
determined by the highest level. The general decoding
capability MUST NOT be included as one of the set of
capability points in the dec-parallel-cap parameter.
For example, the following parameters express the general
decoding capability of 720p30 (Level 3.1) plus an additional
decoding capability of 1080p30 (Level 4) given that the
spatially largest tile or slice used in the bitstream is equal
to or less than 1/3 of the picture size:
a=fmtp:98 level-id=93;dec-parallel-cap={t:8;level-id=120}
For another example, the following parameters express an
additional decoding capability of 1080p30, using dec-parallel-
cap.max-lsr and dec-parallel-cap.max-lps, given that WPP is
used in the bitstream:
a=fmtp:98 level-id=93;dec-parallel-cap={w:8;
max-lsr=62668800;max-lps=2088960}
Informative note: When min_spatial_segmentation_idc is
present in a bitstream and WPP is not used, [HEVC]
specifies that there is no slice or no tile in the
bitstream containing more than 4 * PicSizeInSamplesY /
( min_spatial_segmentation_idc + 4 ) luma samples.
include-dph:
This parameter is used to indicate the capability and
preference to utilize or include decoded picture hash (DPH)
SEI messages (See Section D.3.19 of [HEVC]) in the bitstream.
DPH SEI messages can be used to detect picture corruption so
the receiver can request picture repair, see Section 8. The
value is a comma separated list of hash types that is
supported or requested to be used, each hash type provided as
an unsigned integer value (0-255), with the hash types listed
from most preferred to the least preferred. Example:
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
"include-dph=0,2", which indicates the capability for MD5
(most preferred) and Checksum (less preferred). If the
parameter is not included or the value contains no hash types,
then no capability to utilize DPH SEI messages is assumed.
Note that DPH SEI messages MAY still be included in the
bitstream even when there is no declaration of capability to
use them, as in general SEI messages do not affect the
normative decoding process and decoders are allowed to ignore
SEI messages.
Encoding considerations:
This type is only defined for transfer via RTP (RFC 3550).
Security considerations:
See Section 9 of RFC XXXX.
Public specification:
Please refer to Section 13 of RFC XXXX.
Additional information: None
File extensions: none
Macintosh file type code: none
Object identifier or OID: none
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Intended usage: COMMON
Author: See Section 14 of RFC XXXX.
Change controller:
IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group delegated
from the IESG.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
7.2 SDP Parameters
The receiver MUST ignore any parameter unspecified in this memo.
7.2.1 Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP
The media type video/H265 string is mapped to fields in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] as follows:
o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.
o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be H265 (the
media subtype).
o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.
o The OPTIONAL parameters "profile-space", "profile-id", "tier-
flag", "level-id", "interop-constraints", "profile-compatibility-
indicator", "sprop-sub-layer-id", "recv-sub-layer-id", "max-recv-
level-id", "tx-mode", "max-lsr", "max-lps", "max-cpb", "max-dpb",
"max-br", "max-tr", "max-tc", "max-fps", "sprop-max-don-diff",
"sprop-depack-buf-nalus", "sprop-depack-buf-bytes", "depack-buf-
cap", "sprop-segmentation-id", "sprop-spatial-segmentation-idc",
"dec-parallel-cap", and "include-dph", when present, MUST be
included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP. This parameter is
expressed as a media type string, in the form of a semicolon
separated list of parameter=value pairs.
o The OPTIONAL parameters "sprop-vps", "sprop-sps", and "sprop-
pps", when present, MUST be included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP
or conveyed using the "fmtp" source attribute as specified in
section 6.3 of [RFC5576]. For a particular media format (i.e.
RTP payload type), "sprop-vps" "sprop-sps", or "sprop-pps" MUST
NOT be both included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP and conveyed
using the "fmtp" source attribute. When included in the "a=fmtp"
line of SDP, these parameters are expressed as a media type
string, in the form of a semicolon separated list of
parameter=value pairs. When conveyed in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP
for a particular payload type, the parameters "sprop-vps",
"sprop-sps", and "sprop-pps" MUST be applied to each SSRC with
the payload type. When conveyed using the "fmtp" source
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
attribute, these parameters are only associated with the given
source and payload type as parts of the "fmtp" source attribute.
Informative note: Conveyance of "sprop-vps", "sprop-sps", and
"sprop-pps" using the "fmtp" source attribute allows for out-
of-band transport of parameter sets in topologies like Topo-
Video-switch-MCU as specified in [RFC5117].
An example of media representation in SDP is as follows:
m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 H265/90000
a=fmtp:98 profile-id=1;
sprop-vps=<video parameter sets data>
7.2.2 Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model
When HEVC is offered over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model
[RFC3264] for negotiation for unicast usage, the following
limitations and rules apply:
o The parameters identifying a media format configuration for HEVC
are profile-space, profile-id, tier-flag, level-id, interop-
constraints, profile-compatibility-indicator, and tx-mode. These
media configuration parameters, except level-id, MUST be used
symmetrically when the answerer does not include recv-sub-layer-
id in the answer for the media format (payload type) or the
included recv-sub-layer-id is equal to sprop-sub-layer-id in the
offer. The answerer MUST
1) maintain all configuration parameters with the values
remaining the same as in the offer for the media format
(payload type), with the exception that the value of level-
id is changeable as long as the highest level indicated by
the answer is not higher than that indicated by the offer;
2) include in the answer the recv-sub-layer-id parameter, with
a value less than the sprop-sub-layer-id parameter in the
offer, for the media format (payload type), and maintain all
configuration parameters with the values being the same as
signalled in the sprop-vps for the chosen sub-layer
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
representation, with the exception that the value of level-
id is changeable as long as the highest level indicated by
the answer is not higher than the level indicated by the
sprop-vps in offer for the chosen sub-layer representation;
or
3) remove the media format (payload type) completely (when one
or more of the parameter values are not supported).
Informative note: The above requirement for symmetric use
does not apply for level-id, and does not apply for the other
bitstream or RTP stream properties and capability parameters.
o The profile-compatibility-indicator, when offered as sendonly,
describe bitstream properties. The answerer MAY accept an RTP
payload type even if the decoder is not capable of handling the
profile indicated by the profile-space, profile-id, and interop-
constraints parameters, but capable of any of the profiles
indicated by the profile-space, profile-compatibility-indicator,
and interop-constraints. However, when the profile-
compatibility-indicator is used in a recvonly or sendrecv media
description, the bitstream using this RTP payload type is
required to conform to all profiles indicated by profile-space,
profile-compatibility-indicator, and interop-constraints.
o To simplify handling and matching of these configurations, the
same RTP payload type number used in the offer SHOULD also be
used in the answer, as specified in [RFC3264].
o The same RTP payload type number used in the offer MUST be used
in the answer when the answer includes recv-sub-layer-id. When
the answer does not include recv-sub-layer-id, the answer MUST
NOT contain a payload type number used in the offer unless the
configuration is exactly the same as in the offer or the
configuration in the answer only differs from that in the offer
with a different value of level-id. The answer MAY contain the
recv-sub-layer-id parameter if an HEVC bitstream contains
multiple operation points (using temporal scalability and sub-
layers) and sprop-vps is included in the offer where information
of sub-layers are present in the first video parameter set
contained in sprop-vps. If the sprop-vps is provided in an
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
offer, an answerer MAY select a particular operation point
indicated in the first video parameter set contained in sprop-
vps. When the answer includes recv-sub-layer-id that is less
than sprop-sub-layer-id in the offer, all video parameter sets
contained in the sprop-vps parameter in the SDP answer and all
video parameter sets sent in-band for either the offerer-to-
answerer direction or the answerer-to-offerer direction MUST be
consistent with the first video parameter set in the sprop-vps
parameter of the offer (see the semantics of sprop-vps on one
video parameter set being consistent with another video parameter
set), and the bitstream sent in either direction MUST conform to
the profile, tier, level, and constraints of the chosen sub-layer
representation as indicated by the first profile_tier_level( )
syntax structure in the first video parameter set in the sprop-
vps parameter of the offer.
Informative note: When an offerer receives an answer that
does not include recv-sub-layer-id, it has to compare payload
types not declared in the offer based on the media type (i.e.
video/H265) and the above media configuration parameters with
any payload types it has already declared. This will enable
it to determine whether the configuration in question is new
or if it is equivalent to configuration already offered,
since a different payload type number may be used in the
answer. The ability to perform operation point selection
enables a receiver to utilize the temporal scalable nature of
an HEVC bitstream.
o The parameters sprop-max-don-diff, sprop-depack-buf-nalus, and
sprop-depack-buf-bytes describe the properties of an RTP stream,
and all RTP streams the RTP stream depends on, when present, that
the offerer or the answerer is sending for the media format
configuration. This differs from the normal usage of the
Offer/Answer parameters: normally such parameters declare the
properties of the bitstream or RTP stream that the offerer or the
answerer is able to receive. When dealing with HEVC, the offerer
assumes that the answerer will be able to receive media encoded
using the configuration being offered.
Informative note: The above parameters apply for any RTP
stream and all RTP streams the RTP stream depends on, when
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
present, sent by a declaring entity with the same
configuration; i.e. they are dependent on their source
endpoint. Rather than being bound to the payload type, the
values may have to be applied to another payload type when
being sent, as they apply for the configuration.
o The capability parameters max-lsr, max-lps, max-cpb, max-dpb,
max-br, max-tr, and max-tc MAY be used to declare further
capabilities of the offerer or answerer for receiving. These
parameters MUST NOT be present when the direction attribute is
"sendonly".
o The capability parameter max-fps MAY be used to declare lower
capabilities of the offerer or answerer for receiving. The
parameters MUST NOT be present when the direction attribute is
"sendonly".
o The capability parameter dec-parallel-cap MAY be used to declare
additional decoding capabilities of the offerer or answerer for
receiving. Upon receiving such a declaration of a receiver, a
sender MAY send a bitstream to the receiver utilizing those
capabilities under the assumption that the bitstream fulfills the
parallelism requirement. A bitstream that is sent based on
choosing a capability point with parallel tool type 'w' from dec-
parallel-cap MUST have entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag equal to
1 and min_spatial_segmentation_idc equal to or larger than dec-
parallel-cap.spatial-seg-idc of the capability point. A
bitstream that is sent based on choosing a capability point with
parallel tool type 't' from dec-parallel-cap MUST have
entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag equal to 0 and
min_spatial_segmentation_idc equal to or larger than dec-
parallel-cap.spatial-seg-idc of the capability point.
o An offerer has to include the size of the de-packetization
buffer, sprop-depack-buf-bytes, as well as sprop-max-don-diff and
sprop-depack-buf-nalus, in the offer for an interleaved HEVC
bitstream or for the MSM transmission mode. To enable the
offerer and answerer to inform each other about their
capabilities for de-packetization buffering in receiving RTP
streams, both parties are RECOMMENDED to include depack-buf-cap.
For interleaved RTP streams or in MSM, it is also RECOMMENDED to
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
consider offering multiple payload types with different buffering
requirements when the capabilities of the receiver are unknown.
o The sprop-vps, sprop-sps, or sprop-pps, when present (included in
the "a=fmtp" line of SDP or conveyed using the "fmtp" source
attribute as specified in section 6.3 of [RFC5576]), are used for
out-of-band transport of the parameter sets (VPS, SPS, or PPS
respectively).
o The answerer MAY use either out-of-band or in-band transport of
parameter sets for the bitstream it is sending, regardless of
whether out-of-band parameter sets transport has been used in the
offerer-to-answerer direction. Parameter sets included in an
answer are independent of those parameter sets included in the
offer, as they are used for decoding two different bitstreams,
one from the answerer to the offerer and the other in the
opposite direction.
o The capability parameter include-dph MAY be used to declare the
capability to utilize decoded picture hash SEI messages and which
types of hashes in any HEVC RTP streams received by the offerer
or answerer.
o The following rules apply to transport of parameter set in the
offerer-to-answerer direction.
o An offer MAY include sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and/or sprop-pps.
If none of these parameters is present in the offer, then
only in-band transport of parameter sets is used.
o If the level to use in the offerer-to-answerer direction is
equal to the default level in the offer, the answerer MUST be
prepared to use the parameter sets included in sprop-vps,
sprop-sps, and sprop-pps (either included in the "a=fmtp"
line of SDP or conveyed using the "fmtp" source attribute)
for decoding the incoming bitstream, e.g. by passing these
parameter set NAL units to the video decoder before passing
any NAL units carried in the RTP streams. Otherwise, the
answerer MUST ignore sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and sprop-pps
(either included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP or conveyed
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
using the "fmtp" source attribute) and the offerer MUST
transmit parameter sets in-band.
o In MSM, the answerer MUST be prepared to use the parameter
sets out-of-band transmitted for the RTP stream and all RTP
streams the RTP stream depends on, when present, for decoding
the incoming bitstream, e.g. by passing these parameter set
NAL units to the video decoder before passing any NAL units
carried in the RTP streams.
o The following rules apply to transport of parameter set in the
answerer-to-offerer direction.
o An answer MAY include sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and/or sprop-pps.
If none of these parameters is present in the answer, then
only in-band transport of parameter sets is used.
o The offerer MUST be prepared to use the parameter sets
included in sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and sprop-pps (either
included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP or conveyed using the
"fmtp" source attribute) for decoding the incoming bitstream,
e.g. by passing these parameter set NAL units to the video
decoder before passing any NAL units carried in the RTP
streams.
o In MSM, the offerer MUST be prepared to use the parameter
sets out-of-band transmitted for the RTP stream and all RTP
streams the RTP stream depends on, when present, for decoding
the incoming bitstream, e.g. by passing these parameter set
NAL units to the video decoder before passing any NAL units
carried in the RTP streams.
o When sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and/or sprop-pps are conveyed using
the "fmtp" source attribute as specified in section 6.3 of
[RFC5576], the receiver of the parameters MUST store the
parameter sets included in sprop-vps, sprop-sps, and/or sprop-pps
and associate them with the source given as part of the "fmtp"
source attribute. Parameter sets associated with one source
(given as part of the "fmtp" source attribute) MUST only be used
to decode NAL units conveyed in RTP packets from the same source
(given as part of the "fmtp" source attribute). When this
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
mechanism is in use, SSRC collision detection and resolution MUST
be performed as specified in [RFC5576].
For bitstreams being delivered over multicast, the following rules
apply:
o The media format configuration is identified by profile-space,
profile-id, tier-flag, level-id, interop-constraints, profile-
compatibility-indicator, and tx-mode. These media format
configuration parameters, including level-id, MUST be used
symmetrically; that is, the answerer MUST either maintain all
configuration parameters or remove the media format (payload
type) completely. Note that this implies that the level-id for
Offer/Answer in multicast is not changeable.
o To simplify the handling and matching of these configurations,
the same RTP payload type number used in the offer SHOULD also be
used in the answer, as specified in [RFC3264]. An answer MUST
NOT contain a payload type number used in the offer unless the
configuration is the same as in the offer.
o Parameter sets received MUST be associated with the originating
source and MUST only be used in decoding the incoming bitstream
from the same source.
o The rules for other parameters are the same as above for unicast
as long as the three above rules are obeyed.
Table 1 lists the interpretation of all the parameters that MUST be
used for the various combinations of offer, answer, and direction
attributes. Note that the two columns wherein the recv-sub-layer-id
parameter is used only apply to answers, whereas the other columns
apply to both offers and answers.
Table 1. Interpretation of parameters for various combinations of
offers, answers, direction attributes, with and without recv-sub-
layer-id. Columns that do not indicate offer or answer apply to
both.
sendonly --+
answer: recvonly, recv-sub-layer-id --+ |
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
recvonly w/o recv-sub-layer-id --+ | |
answer: sendrecv, recv-sub-layer-id --+ | | |
sendrecv w/o recv-sub-layer-id --+ | | | |
| | | | |
profile-space C D C D P
profile-id C D C D P
tier-flag C D C D P
level-id D D D D P
interop-constraints C D C D P
profile-compatibility-indicator C D C D P
tx-mode C C C C P
max-recv-level-id R R R R -
sprop-max-don-diff P P - - P
sprop- depack-buf-nalus P P - - P
sprop-depack-buf-bytes P P - - P
depack-buf-cap R R R R -
sprop-segmentation-id P P P P P
sprop-spatial-segmentation-idc P P P P P
max-br R R R R -
max-cpb R R R R -
max-dpb R R R R -
max-lsr R R R R -
max-lps R R R R -
max-tr R R R R -
max-tc R R R R -
max-fps R R R R -
sprop-vps P P - - P
sprop-sps P P - - P
sprop-pps P P - - P
sprop-sub-layer-id P P - - P
recv-sub-layer-id X O X O -
dec-parallel-cap R R R R -
include-dph R R R R -
Legend:
C: configuration for sending and receiving bitstreams
D: changable configuration, same as C except possible
to answer with a different but consistent value (see the
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
semantics of the six parameters related to profile, tier,
and level on these parameters being consistent)
P: properties of the bitstream to be sent
R: receiver capabilities
O: operation point selection
X: MUST NOT be present
-: not usable, when present SHOULD be ignored
Parameters used for declaring receiver capabilities are in general
downgradable; i.e. they express the upper limit for a sender's
possible behavior. Thus, a sender MAY select to set its encoder
using only lower/lesser or equal values of these parameters.
When the answer does not include recv-sub-layer-id that is less than
the sprop-sub-layer-id in the offer, parameters declaring a
configuration point are not changeable, with the exception of the
level-id parameter for unicast usage, and these parameters express
values a receiver expects to be used and MUST be used verbatim in
the answer as in the offer.
When a sender's capabilities are declared with the configuration
parameters, these parameters express a configuration that is
acceptable for the sender to receive bitstreams. In order to
achieve high interoperability levels, it is often advisable to offer
multiple alternative configurations. It is impossible to offer
multiple configurations in a single payload type. Thus, when
multiple configuration offers are made, each offer requires its own
RTP payload type associated with the offer. However, it is possible
to offer multiple operation points using one configuration in a
single payload type by including sprop-vps in the offer and recv-
sub-layer-id in the answer.
A receiver SHOULD understand all media type parameters, even if it
only supports a subset of the payload format's functionality. This
ensures that a receiver is capable of understanding when an offer to
receive media can be downgraded to what is supported by the receiver
of the offer.
An answerer MAY extend the offer with additional media format
configurations. However, to enable their usage, in most cases a
second offer is required from the offerer to provide the bitstream
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
property parameters that the media sender will use. This also has
the effect that the offerer has to be able to receive this media
format configuration, not only to send it.
7.2.3 Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions
When HEVC over RTP is offered with SDP in a declarative style, as in
Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [RFC2326] or Session
Announcement Protocol (SAP) [RFC2974], the following considerations
are necessary.
o All parameters capable of indicating both bitstream properties
and receiver capabilities are used to indicate only bitstream
properties. For example, in this case, the parameter profile-
tier-level-id declares the values used by the bitstream, not the
capabilities for receiving bitstreams. This results in that the
following interpretation of the parameters MUST be used:
Declaring actual configuration or bitstream properties:
- profile-space
- profile-id
- tier-flag
- level-id
- interop-constraints
- profile-compatibility-indicator
- tx-mode
- sprop-vps
- sprop-sps
- sprop-pps
- sprop-max-don-diff
- sprop-depack-buf-nalus
- sprop-depack-buf-bytes
- sprop-segmentation-id
- sprop-spatial-segmentation-idc
Not usable (when present, they SHOULD be ignored):
- max-lps
- max-lsr
- max-cpb
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
- max-dpb
- max-br
- max-tr
- max-tc
- max-fps
- max-recv-level-id
- depack-buf-cap
- sprop-sub-layer-id
- dec-parallel-cap
- include-dph
o A receiver of the SDP is required to support all parameters and
values of the parameters provided; otherwise, the receiver MUST
reject (RTSP) or not participate in (SAP) the session. It falls
on the creator of the session to use values that are expected to
be supported by the receiving application.
7.2.4 Parameter Sets Considerations
When out-of-band transport of parameter sets is used, parameter sets
MAY still be additionally transported in-band unless explicitly
disallowed by an application, and some of these additionally in-band
transported parameter sets may update some of the out-of-band
transported parameter sets. Update of a parameter set refers to
sending of a parameter set of the same type using the same parameter
set ID but with different values for at least one other parameter of
the parameter set.
If MSM is used, the rules on signaling media decoding dependency in
SDP as defined in [RFC5583] apply. The rules on "hierarchical or
layered encoding" with multicast in Section 5.7 of [RFC4566] do not
apply, i.e. the notation for Connection Data "c=" SHALL NOT be used
with more than one address. The order of session dependency is
given from the RTP stream containing the lowest temporal sub-layer
to the RTP stream containing the highest temporal sub-layer.
7.2.5 Dependency Signaling in Multi-Stream Mode
If MSM is used, the rules on signaling media decoding dependency in
SDP as defined in [RFC5583] apply. The rules on "hierarchical or
layered encoding" with multicast in Section 5.7 of [RFC4566] do not
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
apply, i.e. the notation for Connection Data "c=" SHALL NOT be used
with more than one address. The order of session dependency is
given from the RTP stream containing the lowest temporal sub-layer
to the RTP stream containing the highest temporal sub-layer.
8. Use with Feedback Messages
As specified in section 6.1 of RFC 4585 [RFC4585], payload Specific
Feedback messages are identified by the RTCP packet type value PSFB
(206). AVPF [RFC4585] defines three payload-specific feedback
messages and one application layer feedback message, and CCM
[RFC5104] specifies four payload-specific feedback messages.
These feedback messages are identified by means of the feedback
message type (FMT) parameter as follows:
Assigned in [RFC4585]:
1: Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
2: Slice Lost Indication (SLI)
3: Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI)
15: Application layer FB message
31: reserved for future expansion of the number space
Assigned in [RFC5104]:
4: Full Intra Request (FIR) Command
5: Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR)
6: Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Notification (TSTN)
7: Video Back Channel Message (VBCM)
Unassigned:
0: unassigned
8-14: unassigned
16-30: unassigned
The following subsections define the use of the PLI, SLI, RPSI, and
FIR feedback messages with HEVC.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
8.1 Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
As specified in RFC 4585 section 6.3.1, the reception of a picture
loss indication by a media sender indicates "the loss of an
undefined amount of coded video data belonging to one or more
pictures.". Without having any specific knowledge of the setup of
the bitstream (such as: use and location of in-band parameter sets,
non-IDR decoder refresh points, picture structures, and so forth) a
reaction to the reception of an PLI by an HEVC sender SHOULD be to
send an IDR picture and relevant parameter sets; potentially with
sufficient redundancy so to ensure correct reception. However,
sometimes information about the bitstream structure is known. For
example, state could have been established outside of the mechanisms
defined in this document that parameter sets are conveyed out of
band only, and stay static for the duration of the session. In that
case, it is obviously unnecessary to send them in-band as a result
of the reception of a PLI. Other examples could be devised based on
a priori knowledge of different aspects of the bitstream structure.
In all cases, the timing and congestion control mechanisms of RFC
4585 MUST be observed.
8.2 Slice Loss Indication
RFC 4585's Slice Loss Indication can be used to indicate, to a
sender, the loss of a number of Coded Tree Blocks (CTBs) in CTB
raster scan order of a picture. In the SLI's Feedback Control
Indication (FCI) field, the subfield "First" MUST be set to the CTB
address of the first lost CTB. Note that the CTB address is in CTB
raster scan order of a picture. For the first CTB of a slice
segment, the CTB address is the value of slice_segment_address when
present; or 0 when first_slice_segement_in_pic_flag is equal to 1;
both syntax elements are in the slice segment header. The subfield
"Number" MUST be set to the number of consecutive lost CTBs, again
in CTB raster scan order of a picture. Note that due to both the
"First" and "Number" are counted in CTBs in CTB raster scan order,
of a picture, not in tile scan order (which is the bitstream order
of CTBs), multiple SLI messages may be needed to report the loss of
one tile covering multiple CTB rows but less wide than the picture.
The subfield "PictureID" MUST be set to the 6 least significant bits
of a binary representation of the value of PicOrderCntVal, as
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
defined in [HEVC], of the picture for which the lost CTBs are
indicated. Note that for IDR pictures the syntax element
slice_pic_order_cnt_lsb is not present, but then the value is
inferred to be equal to 0.
As described in RFC 4585, an encoder in a media sender can use this
information to "clean up" the corrupted picture by sending intra
information, while observing the constraints described in RFC4585,
for example with respect to congestion control. In many cases,
error tracking is required to identify the corrupted region in the
receiver's state (reference pictures) because of error import in
uncorrupted regions of the picture through motion compensation.
Reference picture selection can also be used to "clean up" the
corrupted picture, which is usually more efficient and less likely
to generate congestion than sending intra information.
In contrast to the video codecs contemplated in RFC 4585 and RFC
5104, in HEVC, the "macroblock size" is not fixed to 16x16 luma
samples, but variable. That, however, does not create a conceptual
difficulty with SLI, because the setting of the CTB size is a
sequence-level functionality, and using a slice loss indication
across coded video sequence boundaries is meaningless as there is no
prediction across sequence boundaries. However, a proper use of SLI
messages is not as straightforward as it was with older, fixed-
macroblock-sized video codecs, as the state of the sequence
parameter set (where the CTB size is located) has to be taken into
account when interpreting the "First" subfield in the FCI.
8.3 Use of HEVC with the RPSI Feedback Message
Feedback based reference picture selection has been shown as a
powerful tool to stop temporal error propagation for improved error
resilience [Girod99][Wang05]. In one approach, the decoder side
tracks errors in the decoded pictures and informs to the encoder
side that a particular picture that has been decoded relatively
earlier is correct and still present in the decoded picture buffer
and requests the encoder to use that correct picture for reference
when encoding the next picture, so to stop further temporal error
propagation. For this approach, the decoder side should use the
RPSI feedback message.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Encoders can encode some long-term reference pictures as specified
in H.264 or HEVC for purposes described in the previous paragraph
without the need of a huge decoded picture buffer. As shown in
[Wang05], with a flexible reference picture management scheme as in
H.264 and HEVC, even a decoded picture buffer size of two would work
for the approach described in the previous paragraph.
The field "Native RPSI bit string defined per codec" is a base16
[RFC4648] representation of the 8 bits consisting of 2 most
significant bits equal to 0 and 6 bits of nuh_layer_id, as defined
in [HEVC], followed by the 32 bits representing the value of the
PicOrderCntVal (in network byte order), as defined in [HEVC], for
the picture that is requested to be used for reference when encoding
the next picture.
The use of the RPSI feedback message as positive acknowledgement
with HEVC is deprecated. In other words, the RPSI feedback message
MUST only be used as a reference picture selection request, such
that it can also be used in multicast.
8.4 Full Intra Request (FIR)
The purpose of the FIR message is to force an encoder to send an
independent decoder refresh point as soon as possible (observing,
for example, the congestion control related constraints set out in
RFC 5104).
Upon reception of a FIR, a sender MUST send an IDR picture.
Parameter sets MUST also be sent, except when there is a priori
knowledge that the parameter sets have been correctly established.
(A typical example for that is an understanding between sender and
receiver, established by means outside this document, that parameter
sets are exclusively sent out of band.)
9. Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC3550], and in any applicable RTP profile such as
RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711] or
RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security
Solution" [I-D.ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory] discusses it is not an
RTP payload format's responsibility to discuss or mandate what
solutions are used to meet the basic security goals like
confidentiality, integrity, and source authenticity for RTP in
general. This responsibility lays on anyone using RTP in an
application. They can find guidance on available security
mechanisms and important considerations as discussed in "Options for
Securing RTP Sessions" [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options].
The rest of this section discusses the security impacting properties
of the payload format itself.
Because the data compression used with this payload format is
applied end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after
compression. A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data
encodings using compression techniques that have non-uniform
receiver-end computational load. The attacker can inject
pathological datagrams into the bitstream that are complex to decode
and that cause the receiver to be overloaded. H.265 is particularly
vulnerable to such attacks, as it is extremely simple to generate
datagrams containing NAL units that affect the decoding process of
many future NAL units. Therefore, the usage of data origin
authentication and data integrity protection of at least the RTP
packet is RECOMMENDED, for example, with SRTP [RFC 3711].
Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and
integrity of RTP packets and their payloads is very dependent on the
application and on the transport and signaling protocols employed.
Thus, although SRTP is given as an example above, other possible
choices exist.
Decoders MUST exercise caution with respect to the handling of user
data SEI messages, particularly if they contain active elements, and
MUST restrict their domain of applicability to the presentation
containing the bitstream.
End-to-end security with authentication, integrity, or
confidentiality protection will prevent a MANE from performing
media-aware operations other than discarding complete packets. In
the case of confidentiality protection, it will even be prevented
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
from discarding packets in a media-aware way. To be allowed to
perform such operations, a MANE is required to be a trusted entity
that is included in the security context establishment.
10. Congestion Control
Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RTP
[RFC3550] and with any applicable RTP profile, e.g. AVP [RFC 3551].
If best-effort service is being used, an additional requirement is
that users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure
that the packet loss rate is within an acceptable range. Packet
loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network
path, and experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an
average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not
less than all RTP streams combined is achieving. This condition can
be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt
the transmission rate, the number of layers subscribed for a layered
multicast session, or by arranging for a receiver to leave the
session if the loss rate is unacceptably high.
The bitrate adaptation necessary for obeying the congestion control
principle is easily achievable when real-time encoding is used, for
example by adequately tuning the quantization parameter.
However, when pre-encoded content is being transmitted, bandwidth
adaptation requires the pre-coded bitstream to be tailored for such
adaptivity. The key mechanism available in HEVC is temporal
scalability. A media sender can remove NAL units belonging to
higher temporal sub-layers (i.e. those NAL units with a high value
of TID) until the sending bitrate drops to an acceptable range.
HEVC contains mechanisms that allow the lightweight identification
of switching points in temporal enhancement layers, as discussed in
Section 1.1.2 of this memo. An HEVC media sender can send packets
belonging to NAL units of temporal enhancement layers starting from
these switching points to probe for available bandwidth and to
utilized bandwidth that has been shown to be available.
Above mechanisms generally work within a defined profile and level
and, therefore, no renegotiation of the channel is required. Only
when non-downgradable parameters (such as profile) are required to
be changed does it become necessary to terminate and restart the RTP
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
stream(s). This may be accomplished by using different RTP payload
types.
MANEs MAY remove certain unusable packets from the RTP stream when
that RTP stream was damaged due to previous packet losses. This can
help reduce the network load in certain special cases. For example,
MANES can remove those FUs where the leading FUs belonging to the
same NAL unit have been lost or those dependent slice segments when
the leading slice segments belonging to the same slice have been
lost, because the trailing FUs or dependent slice segments are
meaningless to most decoders. MANES can also remove higher temporal
scalable layers if the outbound transmission (from the MANE's
viewpoint) experiences congestion.
11. IANA Consideration
A new media type, as specified in Section 7.1 of this memo, should
be registered with IANA.
12. Acknowledgements
Muhammed Coban and Marta Karczewicz are thanked for discussions on
the specification of the use with feedback messages and other
aspects in this memo. Jonathan Lennox and Jill Boyce are thanked
for their contributions to the PACI design included in this memo.
Rickard Sjoberg, Arild Fuldseth, Bo Burman, Magnus Westerlund, and
Tom Kristensen are thanked for their contributions to parallel
processing related signalling. Magnus Westerlund, Jonathan Lennox,
Bernard Aboba, Jonatan Samuelsson, Roni Even, Rickard Sjoberg,
Sachin Deshpande, Woo Johnman, Mo Zanaty, and Ross Finlayson made
valuable reviewing comments that led to improvements.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
13. References
13.1 Normative References
[HEVC] ITU-T Recommendation H.265, "High efficiency video
coding", April 2013.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
[H.264] ITU-T Recommendation H.264, "Advanced video coding for
generic audiovisual services", April 2013.
[RFC5583] Schierl, T. and Wenger, S., "Signaling Media Decoding
Dependency in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC
5583, July 2009.
[RFC6184] Wang, Y.-K., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184, May 2011.
[RFC6190] Wenger, S., Wang, Y.-K., Schierl, T., and A.
Eleftheriadis, "RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video
Coding", RFC 6190, May 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
2002.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and Jacobson,
V., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and Perkins, C., "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and Schierl, T., "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol", RFC
5576, June 2009.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and Rey,
J., "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July
2006.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
[RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and Burman, B.,
"Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.
13.2 Informative References
[3GPDASH] 3GPP TS 26.247, "Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched
Streaming Service (PSS); Progressive Download and Dynamic
Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (3GP-DASH)", v12.1.0,
December 2013.
[3GPPFF] 3GPP TS 26.244, "Transparent end-to-end packet switched
streaming service (PSS); 3GPP file format (3GP)", v12.20,
December 2013.
[Girod99] Girod, B. and Faerber, F., "Feedback-based error control
for mobile video transmission", Proceedings IEEE, Vol. 87,
No. 10, pp. 1707-1723, October 1999.
[HEVC draft v2]
Draft version 2 of HEVC, "High Efficiency Video Coding
(HEVC) Range Extensions text specification: Draft 7", JCT-
VC document JCTVC-Q1005, 17th JCT-VC meeting, 27 March - 4
April 2014, Valencia, Spain.
[I-D.ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory]
Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
ProtocolFramework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single
MediaSecurity Solution", draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-
mandatory-16 (work in progress), January 2014.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options]
Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options-10
(work in progress), January 2014.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream]
Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, W., and C. Perkins,
"Sending Multiple Media Streams in a Single RTP Session",
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-01 (work in progress),
July 2013.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Multiplexing Negotiation Using Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Port Numbers", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-
bundle-negotiation-05 (work in progress), October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy]
Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
Burman, B. "A Taxonomy of Grouping Semantics and
Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport", draft-ietf-avtext-
rtp-grouping-taxonomy-01 (work in progress), February
2014.
[ISOBMFF] IS0/IEC 14496-12 | 15444-12: "Information technology -
Coding of audio-visual objects - Part 12: ISO base media
file format" | "Information technology - JPEG 2000 image
coding system - Part 12: ISO base media file format",
2012.
[JCTVC-J0107]
Wang, Y.-K., Chen, Y., Joshi, R., and Ramasubramonian, K.,
"AHG9: On RAP pictures", JCT-VC document JCTVC-L0107, 10th
JCT-VC meeting, July 2012, Stockholm, Sweden.
[MPEG2S] ISO/IEC 13818-1, "Information technology - Generic coding
of moving pictures and associated audio information:
Systems", 2013.
[MPEGDASH] ISO/IEC 23009-1, "Information technology - Dynamic
adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media
presentation description and segment formats", 2012.
[RFC5109] Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007.
[Wang05] Wang, Y.-K., Zhu, C., and Li, H., "Error resilient video
coding using flexible reference fames", Visual
Communications and Image Processing 2005 (VCIP 2005), July
2005, Beijing, China.
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
14. Authors' Addresses
Ye-Kui Wang
Qualcomm Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
USA
Phone: +1-858-651-8345
EMail: yekuiw@qti.qualcomm.com
Yago Sanchez
Fraunhofer HHI
Einsteinufer 37
D-10587 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49-30-31002-227
Email: yago.sanchez@hhi.fraunhofer.de
Thomas Schierl
Fraunhofer HHI
Einsteinufer 37
D-10587 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49-30-31002-227
Email: ts@thomas-schierl.de
Stephan Wenger
Vidyo, Inc.
433 Hackensack Ave., 7th floor
Hackensack, N.J. 07601
USA
Phone: +1-415-713-5473
EMail: stewe@stewe.org
Miska M. Hannuksela
Nokia Corporation
P.O. Box 1000
33721 Tampere
Finland
Phone: +358-7180-08000
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for HEVC May 28, 2014
EMail: miska.hannuksela@nokia.com
Wang, et al Expires November 28, 2014 [Page 96]