RTP Payload for Text Conversation
RFC 4103
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(June 2005; Errata)
Obsoletes RFC 2793
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paul Jones , Gunnar Hellstrom | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4103 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Allison Mankin | ||
| Send notices to | csp@csperkins.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com | ||
Network Working Group G. Hellstrom
Request for Comments: 4103 Omnitor AB
Obsoletes: 2793 P. Jones
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 2005
RTP Payload for Text Conversation
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This memo obsoletes RFC 2793; it describes how to carry real-time
text conversation session contents in RTP packets. Text conversation
session contents are specified in ITU-T Recommendation T.140.
One payload format is described for transmitting text on a separate
RTP session dedicated for the transmission of text.
This RTP payload description recommends a method to include redundant
text from already transmitted packets in order to reduce the risk of
text loss caused by packet loss.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document ..............................4
3. Usage of RTP ...................................................4
3.1. Motivations and Rationale .................................4
3.2. Payload Format for Transmission of text/t140 Data .........4
3.3. The "T140block" ...........................................5
3.4. Synchronization of Text with Other Media ..................5
3.5. RTP Packet Header .........................................5
4. Protection against Loss of Data ................................6
4.1. Payload Format When Using Redundancy ......................6
4.2. Using Redundancy with the text/t140 Format ................7
5. Recommended Procedure ..........................................8
5.1. Recommended Basic Procedure ...............................8
5.2. Transmission before and after "Idle Periods" ..............8
5.3. Detection of Lost Text Packets ............................9
5.4. Compensation for Packets Out of Order ....................10
6. Parameter for Character Transmission Rate .....................10
7. Examples ......................................................11
7.1. RTP Packetization Examples for the text/t140 Format ......11
7.2. SDP Examples .............................................13
8. Security Considerations .......................................14
8.1. Confidentiality ..........................................14
8.2. Integrity ................................................14
8.3. Source Authentication ....................................14
9. Congestion Considerations .....................................14
10. IANA Considerations ...........................................16
10.1. Registration of MIME Media Type text/t140 ...............16
10.2. SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters ..........................17
10.3. Offer/Answer Consideration ..............................17
11. Acknowledgements ..............................................18
12. Normative References ..........................................18
13. Informative References ........................................19
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
1. Introduction
This document defines a payload type for carrying text conversation
session contents in RTP [2] packets. Text conversation session
contents are specified in ITU-T Recommendation T.140 [1]. Text
conversation is used alone or in connection with other conversational
facilities, such as video and voice, to form multimedia conversation
services. Text in multimedia conversation sessions is sent
character-by-character as soon as it is available, or with a small
delay for buffering.
The text is intended to be entered by human users from a keyboard,
handwriting recognition, voice recognition or any other input method.
The rate of character entry is usually at a level of a few characters
per second or less. In general, only one or a few new characters are
expected to be transmitted with each packet. Small blocks of text
may be prepared by the user and pasted into the user interface for
transmission during the conversation, occasionally causing packets to
carry more payload.
T.140 specifies that text and other T.140 elements must be
transmitted in ISO 10646-1 [5] code with UTF-8 [6] transformation.
This makes it easy to implement internationally useful applications
and to handle the text in modern information technology environments.
The payload of an RTP packet that follows this specification consists
of text encoded according to T.140, without any additional framing.
A common case will be a single ISO 10646 character, UTF-8 encoded.
T.140 requires the transport channel to provide characters without
duplication and in original order. Text conversation users expect
that text will be delivered with no, or a low level, of lost
information.
Therefore, a mechanism based on RTP is specified here. It gives text
arrival in correct order, without duplication, and with detection and
indication of loss. It also includes an optional possibility to
repeat data for redundancy in order to lower the risk of loss.
Because packet overhead is usually much larger than the T.140
contents, the increase in bandwidth, with the use of redundancy, is
minimal.
By using RTP for text transmission in a multimedia conversation
application, uniform handling of text and other media can be achieved
in, for example, conferencing systems, firewalls, and network
translation devices. This, in turn, eases the design and increases
the possibility for prompt and proper media delivery.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
This document obsoletes RFC 2793 [16]. The text clarifies
ambiguities in RFC 2793, improves on the specific implementation
requirements learned through development experience and gives
explicit usage examples.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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 RFC 2119 [4].
3. Usage of RTP
The payload format for real-time text transmission with RTP [2]
described in this memo is intended for general text conversation use
and is called text/t140 after its MIME registration.
3.1. Motivations and Rationale
The text/t140 format is intended to be used for text transmitted on a
separate RTP session, dedicated for the transmission of text, and not
shared with other media.
The text/t140 format MAY be used for any non-gateway application, as
well as in gateways. It MAY be used simultaneously with other media
streams, transmitted as a separate RTP session, as required in real
time multimedia applications.
The text/t140 format specified in this memo is compatible with its
earlier definition in RFC 2793. It has been refined, with the main
intention to minimize interoperability problems and encourage good
reliability and functionality.
By specifying text transmission as a text medium, many good effects
are gained. Routing, device selection, invocation of transcoding,
selection of quality of service parameters, and other high and low
level functions depend on each medium being explicitly specified.
3.2. Payload Format for Transmission of text/t140 Data
A text/t140 conversation RTP payload format consists of one, and only
one, block of T.140 data, referred to as a "T140block" (see Section
3.3). There are no additional headers specific to this payload
format. The fields in the RTP header are set as defined in Section
3.5, carried in network byte order (see RFC 791 [12]).
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
3.3. The "T140block"
T.140 text is UTF-8 coded, as specified in T.140, with no extra
framing. The T140block contains one or more T.140 code elements as
specified in [1]. Most T.140 code elements are single ISO 10646 [5]
characters, but some are multiple character sequences. Each
character is UTF-8 encoded [6] into one or more octets. Each block
MUST contain an integral number of UTF-8 encoded characters
regardless of the number of octets per character. Any composite
character sequence (CCS) SHOULD be placed within one block.
3.4. Synchronization of Text with Other Media
Usually, each medium in a session utilizes a separate RTP stream. As
such, if synchronization of the text and other media packets is
important, the streams MUST be associated when the sessions are
established and the streams MUST share the same reference clock
(refer to the description of the timestamp field as it relates to
synchronization in Section 5.1 of RFC 3550 [2]). Association of RTP
streams can be done through the CNAME field of RTCP SDES function.
It is dependent on the particular application and is outside the
scope of this document.
3.5. RTP Packet Header
Each RTP packet starts with a fixed RTP header. The following fields
of the RTP fixed header are specified for T.140 text streams:
Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type is specific
to the RTP profile under which the payload format
is used. For profiles that use dynamic payload
type number assignment, this payload format can be
identified by the MIME type "text/t140" (see
Section 10). If redundancy is used per RFC 2198,
another payload type number needs to be provided
for the redundancy format. The MIME type for
identifying RFC 2198 is available in RFC 4102 [9].
Sequence number: The definition of sequence numbers is available in
RFC 3550 [2]. When transmitting text using the
payload format for text/t140, it is used for
detection of packet loss and out-of-order packets,
and can be used in the process of retrieval of
redundant text, reordering of text and marking
missing text.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
Timestamp: The RTP Timestamp encodes the approximate instance
of entry of the primary text in the packet. A
clock frequency of 1000 Hz MUST be used.
Sequential packets MUST NOT use the same
timestamp. Because packets do not represent any
constant duration, the timestamp cannot be used to
directly infer packet loss.
M-bit: The M-bit MUST be included. The first packet in a
session, and the first packet after an idle
period, SHOULD be distinguished by setting the
marker bit in the RTP data header to one. The
marker bit in all other packets MUST be set to
zero. The reception of the marker bit MAY be used
for refined methods for detection of loss.
4. Protection against Loss of Data
Consideration must be devoted to keeping loss of text due to packet
loss within acceptable limits. (See ITU-T F.703 [17])
The default method that MUST be used, when no other method is
explicitly selected, is redundancy in accordance with RFC 2198 [3].
When this method is used, the original text and two redundant
generations SHOULD be transmitted if the application or end-to-end
conditions do not call for other levels of redundancy to be used.
Forward Error Correction mechanisms, as per RFC 2733 [8], or any
other mechanism with the purpose of increasing the reliability of
text transmission, MAY be used as an alternative or complement to
redundancy. Text data MAY be sent without additional protection if
end-to-end network conditions allow the text quality requirements,
specified in ITU-T F.703 [17], to be met in all anticipated load
conditions.
4.1. Payload Format When Using Redundancy
When using the payload format with redundant data, the transmitter
may select a number of T140block generations to retransmit in each
packet. A higher number introduces better protection against loss of
text but marginally increases the data rate.
The RTP header is followed by one or more redundant data block
headers: one for each redundant data block to be included. Each of
these headers provides the timestamp offset and length of the
corresponding data block, in addition to a payload type number
(indicating the payload format text/t140).
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
The redundant data block headers are followed by the redundant data
fields carrying T140blocks from previous packets. Finally, the new
(primary) T140block for this packet follows.
Redundant data that would need a timestamp offset higher than 16383
(due to its age at transmission) MUST NOT be included in transmitted
packets.
4.2. Using Redundancy with the text/t140 Format
Because text is transmitted only when there is text to transmit, the
timestamp is not used to identify a lost packet. Rather, missing
sequence numbers are used to detect lost text packets at reception.
Also, because sequence numbers are not provided in the redundant
header, some additional rules must be followed to allow redundant
data that corresponds to missing primary data to be properly merged
into the stream of primary data T140blocks. They are:
- Each redundant data block MUST contain the same data as a T140block
previously transmitted as primary data.
- The redundant data MUST be placed in age order, with the most
recent redundant T140block last in the redundancy area.
- All T140blocks, from the oldest desired generation up through the
generation immediately preceding the new (primary) T140block, MUST
be included.
These rules allow the sequence numbers for the redundant T140blocks
to be inferred by counting backwards from the sequence number in the
RTP header. The result will be that all the text in the payload will
be contiguous and in order.
If there is a gap in the received RTP sequence numbers, and redundant
T140blocks are available in a subsequent packet, the sequence numbers
for the redundant T140blocks should be inferred by counting backwards
from the sequence number in the RTP header for that packet. If there
are redundant T140blocks with sequence numbers matching those that
are missing, the redundant T140blocks may be substituted for the
missing T140blocks.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
5. Recommended Procedure
This section contains RECOMMENDED procedures for usage of the payload
format. Based on the information in the received packets, the
receiver can:
- reorder text received out of order.
- mark where text is missing because of packet loss.
- compensate for lost packets by using redundant data.
5.1. Recommended Basic Procedure
Packets are transmitted when there is valid T.140 data to transmit.
T.140 specifies that T.140 data MAY be buffered for transmission with
a maximum buffering time of 500 ms. A buffering time of 300 ms is
RECOMMENDED when the application or end-to-end network conditions are
not known to require another value.
If no new data is available for a longer period than the buffering
time, the transmission process is in an idle period.
When new text is available for transmission after an idle period, it
is RECOMMENDED to send it as soon as possible. After this
transmission, it is RECOMMENDED to buffer T.140 data in buffering
time intervals, until the next idle period. This is done in order to
keep the maximum bit rate usage for text at a reasonable level. The
buffering time MUST be selected so that text users will perceive a
real-time text flow.
5.2. Transmission before and after "Idle Periods"
When valid T.140 data has been sent and no new T.140 data is
available for transmission after the selected buffering time, an
empty T140block SHOULD be transmitted. This situation is regarded as
the beginning of an idle period. The procedure is recommended in
order to more rapidly detect potentially missing text before an idle
period.
An empty T140block contains no data.
When redundancy is used, transmission continues with a packet at
every transmission timer expiration and insertion of an empty
T.140block as primary, until the last non-empty T140block has been
transmitted, as primary and as redundant data, with all intended
generations of redundancy. The last packet before an idle period
will contain only one non-empty T140block as redundant data, while
the remainder of the redundancy packet will contain empty T140blocks.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
Any empty T140block sent as primary data MUST be included as
redundant T140blocks in subsequent packets, just as normal text
T140blocks would be, unless the empty T140block is too old to be
transmitted. This is done so that sequence number inference for the
redundant T140blocks will be correct, as explained in Section 4.2.
After an idle period, the transmitter SHOULD set the M-bit to one in
the first packet with new text.
5.3. Detection of Lost Text Packets
Packet loss for text/t140 packets MAY be detected by observing gaps
in the sequence numbers of RTP packets received by the receiver.
With text/t140, the loss of packets is usually detected by comparison
of the sequence of RTP packets as they arrive. Any discrepancy MAY
be used to indicate loss. The highest RTP sequence number received
may also be compared with that in RTCP reports, as an additional
check for loss of the last packet before an idle period.
Missing data SHOULD be marked by insertion of a missing text marker
in the received stream for each missing T140block, as specified in
ITU-T T.140 Addendum 1 [1].
Because empty T140blocks are transmitted in the beginning of an idle
period, there is a slight risk of falsely marking loss of text, when
only an empty T140block was lost. Procedures based on detection of
the packet with the M-bit set to one MAY be used to reduce the risk
of introducing false markers of loss.
If redundancy is used with the text/t140 format, and a packet is
received with fewer redundancy levels than normally in the session,
it SHOULD be treated as if one empty T140block has been received for
each excluded level in the received packet. This is because the only
occasion when a T140block is excluded from transmission is when it is
an empty T140block that has become too old to be transmitted.
If two successive packets have the same number of redundant
generations, it SHOULD be treated as the general redundancy level for
the session. Change of the general redundancy level SHOULD only be
done after an idle period.
The text/t140 format relies on use of the sequence number in the RTP
packet header for detection of loss and, therefore, is not suitable
for applications where it needs to be alternating with other payloads
in the same RTP stream. It would be complicated and unreliable to
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
try to detect loss of data at the edges of the shifts between t140
text and other stream contents. Therefore, text/t140 is RECOMMENDED
to be the only payload type in the RTP stream.
5.4. Compensation for Packets Out of Order
For protection against packets arriving out of order, the following
procedure MAY be implemented in the receiver. If analysis of a
received packet reveals a gap in the sequence and no redundant data
is available to fill that gap, the received packet SHOULD be kept in
a buffer to allow time for the missing packet(s) to arrive. It is
RECOMMENDED that the waiting time be limited to 1 second.
If a packet with a T140block belonging to the gap arrives before the
waiting time expires, this T140block is inserted into the gap and
then consecutive T140blocks from the leading edge of the gap may be
consumed. Any T140block that does not arrive before the time limit
expires should be treated as lost and a missing text marker should be
inserted (see Section 5.3).
6. Parameter for Character Transmission Rate
In some cases, it is necessary to limit the rate at which characters
are transmitted. For example, when a Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN) gateway is interworking between an IP device and a
PSTN textphone, it may be necessary to limit the character rate from
the IP device in order to avoid throwing away characters (in case of
buffer overflow at the PSTN gateway).
To control the character transmission rate, the MIME parameter "cps"
in the "fmtp" attribute [7] is defined (see Section 10 ). It is used
in SDP with the following syntax:
a=fmtp:<format> cps=<integer>
The <format> field is populated with the payload type that is used
for text. The <integer> field contains an integer representing the
maximum number of characters that may be received per second. The
value shall be used as a mean value over any 10-second interval. The
default value is 30.
Examples of use in SDP are found in Section 7.2.
In receipt of this parameter, devices MUST adhere to the request by
transmitting characters at a rate at or below the specified <integer>
value. Note that this parameter was not defined in RFC 2793 [16].
Therefore implementations of the text/t140 format may be in use that
do not recognize and act according to this parameter. Therefore,
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
receivers of text/t140 MUST be designed so they can handle temporary
reception of characters at a higher rate than this parameter
specifies. As a result malfunction due to buffer overflow is avoided
for text conversation with human input.
7. Examples
7.1. RTP Packetization Examples for the text/t140 Format
Below is an example of a text/t140 RTP packet without redundancy.
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=0 |M| T140 PT | sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp (1000Hz) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T.140 encoded data |
+ +---------------+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Below is an example of a text/t140 RTP packet with one redundant
T140block.
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=0 |M| "RED" PT | sequence number of primary |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp of primary encoding "P" |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| T140 PT | timestamp offset of "R" | "R" block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| T140 PT | "R" T.140 encoded redundant data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+
+ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+
| "P" T.140 encoded primary data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
Below is an example of an RTP packet with one redundant T140block
using text/t140 payload format. The primary data block is empty,
which is the case when transmitting a packet for the sole purpose of
forcing the redundant data to be transmitted in the absence of any
new data.
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=0 |M| "RED" PT | sequence number of primary |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp of primary encoding "P" |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| T140 PT | timestamp offset of "R" | "R" block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| T140 PT | "R" T.140 encoded redundant data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
As a follow-on to the previous example, the example below shows the
next RTP packet in the sequence, which does contain a real T140block
when using the text/t140 payload format. Note that the empty block
is present in the redundant transmissions of the text/t140 payload
format. This example shows two levels of redundancy and one primary
data block. The value of the "R2 block length" would be set to zero
in order to represent the empty T140block.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
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=0 |M| "RED" PT | sequence number of primary |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp of primary encoding "P" |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| synchronization source (SSRC) identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| T140 PT | timestamp offset of "R2" | "R2" block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| T140 PT | timestamp offset of "R1" | "R1" block length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| T140 PT | "R1" T.140 encoded redundant data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+
| "P" T.140 encoded primary data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.2. SDP Examples
Below is an example of SDP, which describes RTP text transport on
port 11000:
m=text 11000 RTP/AVP 98
a=rtpmap:98 t140/1000
Below is an example of SDP that is similar to the above example, but
also utilizes RFC 2198 to provide the recommended two levels of
redundancy for the text packets:
m=text 11000 RTP/AVP 98 100
a=rtpmap:98 t140/1000
a=rtpmap:100 red/1000
a=fmtp:100 98/98/98
Note: Although these examples utilize the RTP/AVP profile, it is not
intended to limit the scope of this memo. Any appropriate profile
may be used in conjunction with this memo.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
8. Security Considerations
All of the security considerations from Section 14 of RFC 3550 [2]
apply.
8.1. Confidentiality
Because the intention of the described payload format is to carry
text in a text conversation, security measures in the form of
encryption are of importance. The amount of data in a text
conversation session is low. Therefore, any encryption method MAY be
selected and applied to T.140 session contents or to whole RTP
packets. Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [14] provides a
suitable method for ensuring confidentiality.
8.2. Integrity
It may be desirable to protect the text contents of an RTP stream
against manipulation. SRTP [14] provides methods for providing
integrity that MAY be applied.
8.3. Source Authentication
There are several methods of making sure the source of the text is
the intended one.
Text streams are usually used in a multimedia control environment.
Security measures for authentication are available and SHOULD be
applied in the registration and session establishment procedures, so
that the identity of the sender of the text stream is reliably
associated with the person or device setting up the session. Once
established, SRTP [14] mechanisms MAY be applied to ascertain that
the source is maintained the same during the session.
9. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations from Section 10 of RFC 3550 [2],
Section 6 of RFC 2198 [3], and any used profile (e.g., the section
about congestion in chapter 2 of RFC 3551 [11]) apply with the
following application-specific considerations.
Automated systems MUST NOT use this format to send large amounts of
text at rates significantly above those a human user could enter.
Even if the network load from users of text conversation is usually
very low, for best-effort networks an application MUST monitor the
packet loss rate and take appropriate actions to reduce its sending
rate (if this application sends at higher rate than what TCP would
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
achieve over the same path). The reason for this is that this
application, due to its recommended usage of two or more redundancy
levels, is very robust against packet loss. At the same time, due to
the low bit-rate of text conversations, if one considers the
discussion in RFC 3714 [13], this application will experience very
high packet loss rates before it needs to perform any reduction in
the sending rate.
If the application needs to reduce its sending rate, it SHOULD NOT
reduce the number of redundancy levels below the default amount
specified in Section 4. Instead, the following actions are
RECOMMENDED in order of priority:
- Increase the shortest time between transmissions (described in
Section 5.1) from the recommended 300 ms to 500 ms, which is the
highest value allowed according to T.140.
- Limit the maximum rate of characters transmitted.
- Increase the shortest time between transmissions to a higher value,
not higher than 5 seconds. This will cause unpleasant delays in
transmission, beyond what is allowed according to T.140, but text
will still be conveyed in the session with some usability.
- Exclude participants from the session.
Please note that if the reduction in bit-rate achieved through the
above measures is not sufficient, the only remaining action is to
terminate the session.
As guidance, some load figures are provided here as examples based on
use of IPv4, including the load from IP, UDP, and RTP headers without
compression .
- Experience tells that a common mean character transmission rate,
during a complete PSTN text telephony session, is around two
characters per second.
- A maximum performance of 20 characters per second is enough even
for voice-to-text applications.
- With the (unusually high) load of 20 characters per second, in a
language that makes use of three octets per UTF-8 character, two
redundant levels, and 300 ms between transmissions, the maximum
load of this application is 3300 bits/s.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
- When the restrictions mentioned above are applied, limiting
transmission to 10 characters per second, using 5 s between
transmissions, the maximum load of this application, in a language
that uses one octet per UTF-8 character, is 300 bits/s.
Note that this payload can be used in a congested situation as a last
resort to maintain some contact when audio and video media need to be
stopped. The availability of one low bit-rate stream for text in
such adverse situations may be crucial for maintaining some
communication in a critical situation.
10. IANA Considerations
This document updates the RTP payload format named "t140" and the
associated MIME type "text/t140", in the IANA RTP and Media Type
registries.
10.1. Registration of MIME Media Type text/t140
MIME media type name: text
MIME subtype name: t140
Required parameters: rate: The RTP timestamp clock rate, which is
equal to the sampling rate. The only valid value is 1000.
Optional parameters: cps: The maximum number of characters that may
be received per second. The default value is 30.
Encoding considerations: T.140 text can be transmitted with RTP as
specified in RFC 4103.
Security considerations: See Section 8 of RFC 4103.
Interoperability considerations: This format is the same as specified
in RFC2793. For RFC2793 the "cps=" parameter was not defined.
Therefore, there may be implementations that do not consider this
parameter. Receivers need to take that into account.
Published specification: ITU-T T.140 Recommendation. RFC 4103.
Applications which use this media type: Text communication terminals
and text conferencing tools.
Additional information: This type is only defined for transfer via
RTP.
Magic number(s): None
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
File extension(s): None
Macintosh File Type Code(s): None
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Gunnar Hellstrom
E-mail: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Intended usage: COMMON
Author / Change controller:
Gunnar Hellstrom | IETF avt WG
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se |
10.2. SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters
The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a
specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
[7], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP is
used to specify sessions employing the text/t140 format, the mapping
is as follows:
- The MIME type ("text") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
- The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as
the encoding name. The RTP clock rate in "a=rtpmap" MUST be 1000
for text/t140.
- The parameter "cps" goes in SDP "a=fmtp" attribute.
- When the payload type is used with redundancy according to RFC
2198, the level of redundancy is shown by the number of elements in
the slash-separated payload type list in the "fmtp" parameter of
the redundancy declaration as defined in RFC 4102 [9] and RFC 2198
[3].
10.3. Offer/Answer Consideration
In order to achieve interoperability within the framework of the
offer/answer model [10], the following consideration should be made:
- The "cps" parameter is declarative. Both sides may provide a
value, which is independent of the other side.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
11. Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Stephen Casner, Magnus Westerlund, and
Colin Perkins for valuable support with reviews and advice on
creation of this document, to Mickey Nasiri at Ericsson Mobile
Communication for providing the development environment, Michele
Mizarro for verification of the usability of the payload format for
its intended purpose, and Andreas Piirimets for editing support and
validation.
12. Normative References
[1] ITU-T Recommendation T.140 (1998) - Text conversation protocol
for multimedia application, with amendment 1, (2000).
[2] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
3550, July 2003.
[3] Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V., Handley, M.,
Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-Parisis, "RTP Payload
for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198, September 1997.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] ISO/IEC 10646-1: (1993), Universal Multiple Octet Coded
Character Set.
[6] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD
63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[7] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[8] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format for
Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733, December 1999.
[9] Jones, P., "Registration of the text/red MIME Sub-Type", RFC
4102, June 2005.
[10] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[11] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conference with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.
[12] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
13. Informative References
[13] Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion
Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet", RFC 3714, March
2004.
[14] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC
3711, March 2004.
[15] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits,
Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833, May 2000.
[16] Hellstrom, G., "RTP Payload for Text Conversation", RFC 2793,
May 2000.
[17] ITU-T Recommendation F.703, Multimedia Conversational Services,
November 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Gunnar Hellstrom
Omnitor AB
Renathvagen 2
SE-121 37 Johanneshov
Sweden
Phone: +46 708 204 288 / +46 8 556 002 03
Fax: +46 8 556 002 06
EMail: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Paul E. Jones
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Phone: +1 919 392 6948
EMail: paulej@packetizer.com
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4103 RTP Payload for Text Conversation June 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Hellstrom & Jones Standards Track [Page 20]