A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
RFC 5285
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(July 2008; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 8285
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | HariKishan Desineni , David Singer | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5285 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Cullen Jennings | ||
| Send notices to | mmusic-chairs@ietf.org | ||
Network Working Group D. Singer
Request for Comments: 5285 Apple, Inc.
Category: Standards Track H. Desineni
Qualcomm
July 2008
A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
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.
Abstract
This document provides a general mechanism to use the header
extension feature of RTP (the Real-Time Transport Protocol). It
provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each
RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and
registration is de-centralized. The actual extensions in use in a
session are signaled in the setup information for that session.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Packet Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. One-Byte Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Two-Byte Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. SDP Signaling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Offer/Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. BNF Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Identifier Space for IANA to Manage . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Registration of the SDP extmap Attribute . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
1. Introduction
The RTP specification [RFC3550] provides a capability to extend the
RTP header. It defines the header extension format and rules for its
use in Section 5.3.1. The existing header extension method permits
at most one extension per RTP packet, identified by a 16-bit
identifier and a 16-bit length field specifying the length of the
header extension in 32-bit words.
This mechanism has two conspicuous drawbacks. First, it permits only
one header extension in a single RTP packet. Second, the
specification gives no guidance as to how the 16-bit header extension
identifiers are allocated to avoid collisions.
This specification removes the first drawback by defining a backward-
compatible and extensible means to carry multiple header extension
elements in a single RTP packet. It removes the second drawback by
defining that these extension elements are named by URIs, defining an
IANA registry for extension elements defined in IETF specifications,
and a Session Description Protocol (SDP) method for mapping between
the naming URIs and the identifier values carried in the RTP packets.
This header extension applies to RTP/AVP (the Audio/Visual Profile)
and its extensions.
2. Requirements Notation
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 [RFC2119].
3. Design Goals
The goal of this design is to provide a simple mechanism whereby
multiple identified extensions can be used in RTP packets, without
the need for formal registration of those extensions but nonetheless
avoiding collision.
This mechanism provides an alternative to the practice of burying
associated metadata into the media format bit stream. This has often
been done in media data sent over fixed-bandwidth channels. Once
this is done, a decoder for the specific media format is required to
extract the metadata. Also, depending on the media format, the
metadata may need to be added at the time of encoding the media so
that the bit-rate required for the metadata is taken into account.
But the metadata may not be known at that time. Inserting metadata
at a later time can require a decode and re-encode to meet bit-rate
requirements.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
In some cases, a more appropriate, higher-level mechanism may be
available, and if so, it should be used. For cases where a higher-
level mechanism is not available, it is better to provide a mechanism
at the RTP level than have the metadata be tied to a specific form of
media data.
4. Packet Design
4.1. General
The following design is fit into the "header extension" of the RTP
extension, as described above.
The presence and format of this header extension and its contents are
negotiated or defined out-of-band, such as through signaling (see
below for SDP signaling). The value defined for an RTP extension
(defined below for the one-byte and two-byte header forms) is only an
architectural constant (e.g., for use by network analyzers); it is
the negotiation/definition (e.g., in SDP) that is the definitive
indication that this header extension is present.
This specification inherits the requirement from the RTP
specification that the header extension "is designed so that the
header extension may be ignored". To be specific, header extensions
using this specification MUST only be used for data that can safely
be ignored by the recipient without affecting interoperability, and
MUST NOT be used when the presence of the extension has changed the
form or nature of the rest of the packet in a way that is not
compatible with the way the stream is signaled (e.g., as defined by
the payload type). Valid examples might include metadata that is
additional to the usual RTP information.
The RTP header extension is formed as a sequence of extension
elements, with possible padding. Each extension element has a local
identifier and a length. The local identifiers may be mapped to a
larger namespace in the negotiation (e.g., session signaling).
As is good network practice, data should only be transmitted when
needed. The RTP header extension should only be present in a packet
if that packet also contains one or more extension elements, as
defined here. An extension element should only be present in a
packet when needed; the signaling setup of extension elements
indicates only that those elements may be present in some packets,
not that they are in fact present in all (or indeed, any) packets.
Each extension element in a packet has a local identifier (ID) and a
length. The local identifiers present in the stream MUST have been
negotiated or defined out-of-band. There are no static allocations
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
of local identifiers. Each distinct extension MUST have a unique ID.
The value 0 is reserved for padding and MUST NOT be used as a local
identifier.
There are two variants of the extension: one-byte and two-byte
headers. Since it is expected that (a) the number of extensions in
any given RTP session is small and (b) the extensions themselves are
small, the one-byte header form is preferred and MUST be supported by
all receivers. A stream MUST contain only one-byte or two-byte
headers: they MUST NOT be mixed within a stream. Transmitters SHOULD
NOT use the two-byte form when all extensions are small enough for
the one-byte header form.
A sequence of extension elements, possibly with padding, forms the
header extension defined in the RTP specification. There are as many
extension elements as fit into the length as indicated in the RTP
header extension length. Since this length is signaled in full 32-
bit words, padding bytes are used to pad to a 32-bit boundary. The
entire extension is parsed byte-by-byte to find each extension
element (no alignment is required), and parsing stops at the earlier
of the end of the entire header extension, or, in one-byte headers,
on encountering an identifier with the reserved value of 15.
In both forms, padding bytes have the value of 0 (zero). They may be
placed between extension elements, if desired for alignment, or after
the last extension element, if needed for padding. A padding byte
does not supply the ID of an element, nor the length field. When a
padding byte is found, it is ignored and the parser moves on to
interpreting the next byte.
Note carefully that the one-byte header form allows for data lengths
between 1 and 16 bytes, by adding 1 to the signaled length value
(thus, 0 in the length field indicates 1 byte of data follows). This
allows for the important case of 16-byte payloads. This addition is
not performed for the two-byte headers, where the length field
signals data lengths between 0 and 255 bytes.
Use of RTP header extensions will reduce the efficiency of RTP header
compression, since the header extension will be sent uncompressed
unless the RTP header compression module is updated to recognize the
extension header. If header extensions are present in some packets,
but not in others, this can also reduce compression efficiency by
requiring an update to the fixed header to be conveyed when header
extensions start or stop being sent. The interactions of the RTP
header extension and header compression is explored further in
[RFC2508] and [RFC3095].
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
4.2. One-Byte Header
In the one-byte header form of extensions, the 16-bit value required
by the RTP specification for a header extension, labeled in the RTP
specification as "defined by profile", takes the fixed bit pattern
0xBEDE (the first version of this specification was written on the
feast day of the Venerable Bede).
Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a
length:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 4-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
1-14 inclusive. In the signaling section, this is referred to as the
valid range.
The local identifier value 15 is reserved for future extension and
MUST NOT be used as an identifier. If the ID value 15 is
encountered, its length field should be ignored, processing of the
entire extension should terminate at that point, and only the
extension elements present prior to the element with ID 15
considered.
The 4-bit length is the number minus one of data bytes of this header
extension element following the one-byte header. Therefore, the
value zero in this field indicates that one byte of data follows, and
a value of 15 (the maximum) indicates element data of 16 bytes.
(This permits carriage of 16-byte values, which is a common length of
labels and identifiers, while losing the possibility of zero-length
values -- which would often be padded anyway.)
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
padding, and including the required RTP fields, 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0xBE | 0xDE | length=3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | L=0 | data | ID | L=1 | data...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...data | 0 (pad) | 0 (pad) | ID | L=3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.3. Two-Byte Header
In the two-byte header form, the 16-bit value required by the RTP
specification for a header extension, labeled in the RTP
specification as "defined by profile", is defined as shown below.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x100 |appbits|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The appbits field is 4 bits that are application-dependent and may be
defined to be any value or meaning, and are outside the scope of this
specification. For the purposes of signaling, this field is treated
as a special extension value assigned to the local identifier 256.
If no extension has been specified through configuration or signaling
for this local identifier value 256, the appbits field SHOULD be set
to all 0s by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a byte
containing a length:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
The 8-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
1-255 inclusive. In the signaling section, the range 1-256 is
referred to as the valid range, with the values 1-255 referring to
extension elements, and the value 256 referring to the 4-bit field
'appbits' (above).
The 8-bit length field is the length of extension data in bytes not
including the ID and length fields. The value zero indicates there
is no data following.
An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
padding, and including the required RTP fields, 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x10 | 0x00 | length=3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | L=0 | ID | L=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data | 0 (pad) | ID | L=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5. SDP Signaling Design
The indication of the presence of this extension, and the mapping of
local identifiers used in the header extension to a larger namespace,
MUST be performed out-of-band, for example, as part of a SIP offer/
answer exchange using SDP. This section defines such signaling in
SDP.
A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the valid range, and each ID in this
range MUST be used only once for each media (or only once if the
mappings are session level). Mappings that do not conform to these
rules MAY be presented, for instance, during offer/answer negotiation
as described in the next section, but remapping to conformant values
is necessary before they can be applied.
Each extension is named by a URI. That URI MUST be absolute, and
precisely identifies the format and meaning of the extension. URIs
that contain a domain name SHOULD also contain a month-date in the
form mmyyyy. The definition of the element and assignment of the URI
MUST have been authorized by the owner of the domain name on or very
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
close to that date. (This avoids problems when domain names change
ownership.) If the resource or document defines several extensions,
then the URI MUST identify the actual extension in use, e.g., using a
fragment or query identifier (characters after a '#' or '?' in the
URI).
Rationale: the use of URIs provides for a large, unallocated space,
and gives documentation on the extension. The URIs are not required
to be de-referencable, in order to permit confidential or
experimental use, and to cover the case when extensions continue to
be used after the organization that defined them ceases to exist.
An extension URI with the same attributes MUST NOT appear more than
once applying to the same stream, i.e., at session level or in the
declarations for a single stream at media level. (The same extension
may, of course, be used for several streams, and may appear
differently parameterized for the same stream.)
For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI used SHOULD be a URN starting
"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:" and followed by a registered,
descriptive name.
The registration requirements are detailed in the IANA Considerations
section, below.
An example (this is only an example), where 'avt-example-metadata' is
the hypothetical name of a header extension, might be:
urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:avt-example-metadata
An example name not from the IETF (this is only an example) might be:
http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#example-metadata
The mapping may be provided per media stream (in the media-level
section(s) of SDP, i.e., after an "m=" line) or globally for all
streams (i.e., before the first "m=" line, at session level). The
definitions MUST be either all session level or all media level; it
is not permitted to mix the two styles. In addition, as noted above,
the IDs used MUST be unique for each stream type for a given media,
or for the session for session-level declarations.
Each local identifier potentially used in the stream is mapped to a
string using an attribute of the form:
a=extmap:<value>["/"<direction>] <URI> <extensionattributes>
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
where <URI> is a URI, as above, <value> is the local identifier (ID)
of this extension and is an integer in the valid range inclusive (0
is reserved for padding in both forms, and 15 is reserved in the one-
byte header form, as noted above), and <direction> is one of
"sendonly", "recvonly", "sendrecv", or "inactive" (without the
quotes).
The formal BNF syntax is presented in a later section of this
specification.
Example:
a=extmap:1 http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#ttime
a=extmap:2/sendrecv http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#xmeta short
When SDP signaling is used for the RTP session, it is the presence of
the 'extmap' attribute(s) that is diagnostic that this style of
header extensions is used, not the magic number indicated above.
6. Offer/Answer
The simple signaling described above may be enhanced in an offer/
answer context, to permit:
o asymmetric behavior (extensions sent in only one direction),
o the offer of mutually exclusive alternatives, or
o the offer of more extensions than can be sent in a single session.
A direction attribute MAY be included in an extmap; without it, the
direction implicitly inherits, of course, from the stream direction,
or is "sendrecv" for session-level attributes or extensions of
"inactive" streams. The direction MUST be one of "sendonly",
"recvonly", "sendrecv", or "inactive". A "sendonly" direction
indicates an ability to send; a "recvonly" direction indicates a
desire to receive; a "sendrecv" direction indicates both. An
"inactive" direction indicates neither, but later re-negotiation may
make an extension active.
Extensions, with their directions, may be signaled for an "inactive"
stream. It is an error to use an extension direction incompatible
with the stream direction (e.g., a "sendonly" attribute for a
"recvonly" stream).
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
If an offer or answer contains session-level mappings (and hence no
media-level mappings), and different behavior is desired for each
stream, then the entire set of extension map declarations may be
moved into the media-level section(s) of the SDP. (Note that this
specification does not permit mixing global and local declarations,
to make identifier management easier.)
If an extension map is offered as "sendrecv", explicitly or
implicitly, and asymmetric behavior is desired, the SDP may be
modified to modify or add direction qualifiers for that extension.
If an extension is marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to
receive it, the extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP
answer. An answerer that has no desire to receive the extension or
does not understand the extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP
answer.
If an extension is marked as "recvonly" and the answerer desires to
send it, the extension MUST be marked as "sendonly" in the SDP
answer. An answerer that has no desire to, or is unable to, send the
extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP answer.
Local identifiers in the valid range inclusive in an offer or answer
must not be used more than once per media section (including the
session-level section). A session update MAY change the direction
qualifiers of extensions under use. A session update MAY add or
remove extension(s). Identifiers values in the valid range MUST NOT
be altered (remapped).
Note that, under this rule, the same local identifier cannot be used
for two extensions for the same media, even when one is "sendonly"
and the other "recvonly", as it would then be impossible to make
either of them sendrecv (since re-numbering is not permitted either).
If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then
multiple extensions with the same identifier in the (unusable) range
4096-4351 may be offered; the answerer should select at most one of
the offered extensions with the same identifier, and remap it to a
free identifier in the valid range, for that extension to be usable.
Similarly, if more extensions are offered than can be fit in the
valid range, identifiers in the range 4096-4351 may be offered; the
answerer should choose those that are desired, and remap them to a
free identifier in the valid range.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
It is always allowed to place the offered identifier value "as is" in
the SDP answer (for example, due to lack of a free identifier value
in the valid range). Extensions with an identifier outside the valid
range cannot, of course, be used. If required, the offerer or
answerer can update the session to make space for such an extension.
Rationale: the range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is
deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid
identifiers in future.
Either party MAY include extensions in the stream other than those
negotiated, or those negotiated as "inactive", for example, for the
benefit of intermediate nodes. Only extensions that appeared with an
identifier in the valid range in SDP originated by the sender can be
sent.
Example (port numbers, RTP profiles, payload IDs and rtpmaps, etc.
all omitted for brevity):
The offer:
a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
a=extmap:14 URI-obscure
a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-string
a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-binary
a=extmap:4097 URI-frametype
m=video
a=sendrecv
m=audio
a=sendrecv
The answerer is interested in receiving GPS in string format only on
video, but cannot send GPS at all. It is not interested in
transmission offsets on audio, and does not understand the URI-
obscure extension. It therefore moves the extensions from session
level to media level, and adjusts the declarations:
m=video
a=sendrecv
a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
a=extmap:2/recvonly URI-gps-string
a=extmap:3 URI-frametype
m=audio
a=sendrecv
a=extmap:1/sendonly URI-toffset
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
7. BNF Syntax
The syntax definition below uses ABNF according to [RFC5234]. The
syntax element 'URI' is defined in [RFC3986] (only absolute URIs are
permitted here). The syntax element 'extmap' is an attribute as
defined in [RFC4566], i.e., "a=" precedes the extmap definition.
Specific extensionattributes are defined by the specification that
defines a specific extension name; there may be several.
extmap = mapentry SP extensionname [SP extensionattributes]
extensionname = URI
direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive"
mapentry = "extmap:" 1*5DIGIT ["/" direction]
extensionattributes = byte-string
URI = <Defined in RFC 3986>
byte-string = <Defined in RFC 4566>
SP = <Defined in RFC 5234>
DIGIT = <Defined in RFC 5234>
8. Security Considerations
This defines only a place to transmit information; the security
implications of the extensions must be discussed with those
extensions.
Care should be taken when defining extensions. Clearly, they should
be solely informative, but even when the information is extracted,
should not cause security concerns.
Header extensions have the same security coverage as the RTP header
itself. When Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] is
used to protect RTP sessions, the RTP payload may be both encrypted
and integrity protected, while the RTP header is either unprotected
or integrity protected. Therefore, it is inappropriate to place
information in header extensions that cause security problems if
disclosed, unless the entire RTP packet is protected by a lower-layer
security protocol providing both confidentiality and integrity
capability.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Identifier Space for IANA to Manage
The mapping from the naming URI form to a reference to a
specification is managed by IANA. Insertion into this registry is
under the requirements of "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226].
The IANA will also maintain a server that contains all of the
registered elements in a publicly accessible space.
Here is the formal declaration required by the IETF URN Sub-namespace
specification [RFC3553].
o Registry name: RTP Compact Header Extensions
o Specification: RFC 5285 and RFCs updating RFC 5285.
o Information required:
A. The desired extension naming URI
B. A formal reference to the publicly available specification
C. A short phrase describing the function of the extension
D. Contact information for the organization or person making the
registration
For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI is recommended to be of
the form urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:, and the formal reference is
the RFC number of the RFC documenting the extension.
o Review process: Expert review is required. The expert review
should check the following requirements:
1. that the specification is publicly available;
2. that the extension complies with the requirements of RTP and
this specification, for extensions (notably, that the stream
is still decodable if the extension is ignored or not
recognized);
3. that the extension specification is technically consistent (in
itself and with RTP), complete, and comprehensible;
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
4. that the extension does not duplicate functionality in
existing IETF specifications (including RTP itself), or other
extensions already registered;
5. that the specification contains a security analysis regarding
the content of the header extension;
6. that the extension is generally applicable, for example point-
to-multipoint safe, and the specification correctly describes
limitations if they exist; and
7. that the suggested naming URI form is appropriately chosen and
unique.
o Size and format of entries: a mapping from a naming URI string to
a formal reference to a publicly available specification, with a
descriptive phrase and contact information.
o Initial assignments: none.
9.2. Registration of the SDP extmap Attribute
This section contains the information required by [RFC4566] for an
SDP attribute.
o contact name, email address, and telephone number:
D. Singer
singer@apple.com
+1 408-974-3162
o attribute name (as it will appear in SDP): extmap
o long-form attribute name in English: generic header extension map
definition
o type of attribute (session level, media level, or both): both
o whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute:
not subject to the charset attribute
o a one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute: This
attribute defines the mapping from the extension numbers used in
packet headers into extension names as documented in
specifications and appropriately registered.
o a specification of appropriate attribute values for this
attribute: see RFC 5285.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
10. Acknowledgments
Both Brian Link and John Lazzaro provided helpful comments on an
initial draft of this document. Colin Perkins was helpful in
reviewing and dealing with the details. The use of URNs for IETF-
defined extensions was suggested by Jonathan Lennox, and Pete Cordell
was instrumental in improving the padding wording. Dave Oran
provided feedback and text in the review. Mike Dolan contributed the
two-byte header form. Magnus Westerlund and Tom Taylor were
instrumental in managing the registration text.
11. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2508] Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508,
February 1999.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
David Singer
Apple, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
USA
Phone: +1 408 996 1010
EMail: singer@apple.com
URI: http://www.apple.com/quicktime
Harikishan Desineni
Qualcomm
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
USA
Phone: +1 858 845 8996
EMail: hd@qualcomm.com
URI: http://www.qualcomm.com
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5285 RTP Header Extensions July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 17]