Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
RFC 7272
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (June 2014; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ray van Brandenburg , Hans Stokking , Oskar van Deventer , Fernando Boronat , Mario Montagud , Kevin Gross | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-brandenburg-avtcore-rtcp-for-idms | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Roni Even | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2013-05-28) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7272 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Richard Barnes | ||
| IESG note | Roni Even (roni.even@mail01.huawei.com) is the Document Shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. van Brandenburg
Request for Comments: 7272 H. Stokking
Category: Standards Track O. van Deventer
ISSN: 2070-1721 TNO
F. Boronat
M. Montagud
UPV
K. Gross
AVA Networks
June 2014
Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS)
Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Abstract
This document defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packet Type
and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block Type to be used for achieving
Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS). IDMS is the process
of synchronizing playout across multiple media receivers. Using the
RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this document, media playout
information from participants in a synchronization group can be
collected. Based on the collected information, an RTCP IDMS Settings
Packet can then be sent to distribute a common target playout point
to which all the distributed receivers, sharing a media experience,
can synchronize.
Typical use cases in which IDMS is useful are social TV, shared
service control (i.e., applications where two or more geographically
separated users are watching a media stream together), distance
learning, networked video walls, networked loudspeakers, etc.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7272.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
Copyright 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Applicability of RTCP to IDMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. IDMS and ETSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Use Cases . . 4
4. Overview of IDMS Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Architecture for Inter-Destination Media Synchronization . . 7
5.1. Media Synchronization Application Server (MSAS) . . . . . 7
5.2. Synchronization Client (SC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Communication between MSAS and SCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. RTCP Packet Type for IDMS (IDMS Settings Packet) . . . . . . 11
8. Timing and NTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. On the Use of Presentation Timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. SDP Signaling for RTCP IDMS Settings Packet . . . . . . . . . 15
11. SDP Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Offer/Answer Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Declarative Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13.1. RTCP IDMS Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13.2. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.3. RTCP-IDMS SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.4. IDMS XR Block SPST Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.5. Contact Information for Registrations . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
1. Introduction
IDMS refers to the playout of media streams at two or more
geographically distributed locations in a time-synchronized manner.
It can be applied to both unicast and multicast media streams and can
be applied to any type and/or combination of streaming media, such as
audio, video, and text (subtitles). [Ishibashi2006] and
[Boronat2009] provide an overview of technologies and algorithms for
IDMS.
Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) requires the exchange
of information on media arrival and presentation times among
participants in an IDMS session. It may also require signaling for
the initiation and maintenance of IDMS sessions and groups of
receivers.
The presented RTCP specification for IDMS is independent of the
synchronization algorithm employed, which is out of scope of this
document.
1.1. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
2. Rationale
2.1. Applicability of RTCP to IDMS
Currently, a large share of real-time applications make use of RTP
and RTCP [RFC3550]. RTP provides end-to-end network transport
functions suitable for applications requiring real-time data
transport, such as audio, video, or data, over multicast or unicast
network services. The timestamps, sequence numbers, and payload
(content) type identification mechanisms provided by RTP packets are
very useful for reconstructing the original media timing and the
original order of packets and for detecting packet loss at the
receiver.
The data transport is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow
monitoring of the data delivery in a manner that is scalable to large
groups and to provide minimal control and identification
functionality. RTP receivers and senders provide reception quality
feedback by sending out RTCP receiver report (RR) and sender report
(SR) packets [RFC3550], respectively, which may be augmented by
extended report (XR) blocks [RFC3611].
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
IDMS involves the collection, summarization, and distribution of RTP
packet arrival and presentation times. As information on RTP packet
arrival times and presentation times can be considered reception
quality feedback information, RTCP is well suited for carrying out
IDMS.
2.2. IDMS and ETSI
A first version of IDMS for use with RTP/RTCP was standardized by
ETSI Telecommunications and Internet converged Services and Protocols
for Advanced Networking (TISPAN) in [TS183063], resulting in an IANA
registration for an RTCP XR Block Type. This work was then brought
as input to the IETF AVTCORE WG for further standardization,
leveraging the RTP/RTCP expertise present in the AVTCORE WG. This
document is the result of that effort.
Although the IDMS protocol described in this document has evolved
significantly from the version that was originally specified by ETSI
TISPAN, it is still backwards compatible with the ETSI version. As
such, it had been decided in ETSI to update the TS 183 063 document
to reference this document as the normative specification of IDMS.
This update can be found in newer versions of TS 183 063 (i.e.,
versions higher than 3.5.2). In accordance, this document proposes
to update the IANA registration for the RTCP XR IDMS Report Block to
point to this document. Finally, this document proposes an IANA
registry for Synchronization Packet Sender Type (SPST) values,
allowing the registration of extensions to this document.
3. Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Use Cases
There is a large number of use cases in which IDMS might be useful.
This section will highlight some of them. It should be noted that
this section is in no way meant to be exhaustive.
A first usage scenario for IDMS is social TV. Social TV is the
combination of media content consumption by two or more users at
different devices and locations combined with real-time communication
between those users. An example of social TV is when two or more
users are watching the same television broadcast at different devices
and locations, while communicating with each other using text, audio,
and/or video. A skew in their media playout processes can have
adverse effects on their experience. A well-known use case here is
one friend experiencing a goal in a football match well before or
after another friend(s).
Another potential use case for IDMS is a networked video wall. A
video wall consists of multiple computer monitors, video projectors,
or television sets tiled together contiguously or overlapped in order
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
to form one large screen. Each of the screens reproduces a portion
of the larger picture. In some implementations, each screen may be
individually connected to the network and receive its portion of the
overall image from a network-connected video server or video scaler.
Screens are refreshed at 60 hertz (every 16-2/3 milliseconds) or
potentially faster. If the refresh is not synchronized, the effect
of multiple screens acting as one is broken, with users noticing
tearing effects and no longer perceiving a single image.
A third usage scenario is that of networked loudspeakers in which two
or more speakers are connected to the network individually. Such
situations can, for example, be found in large conference rooms,
legislative chambers, classrooms (especially those supporting
distance learning), and other large-scale environments such as
stadiums. Since humans are more sensitive to differences in audio
delay compared to video delay, this use case needs even more accuracy
than the video wall use case. Depending on the exact application,
the need for accuracy can then be in the range of microseconds.
4. Overview of IDMS Operation
This section provides a brief example of how the RTCP functionality
is used for achieving IDMS. The section is tutorial in nature and
does not contain any normative statements.
Alice's . . . . . . .tv:abc.com . . . . . . . Bob's
TV (Sync Client) (Sync Server) Laptop (Sync Client)
| | |
| Media Session | |
|<=====================>| |
| Invite(URL, SyncGroupId) |
|------------------------------------------------->|
| | Media Session Setup |
| |<========================>|
| | |
| Call Setup |
|<================================================>|
| | |
| RTP Packets | RTP Packets |
|<----------------------|------------------------->|
| RR + XR IDMS Report | |
|---------------------->| RR + XR IDMS Report |
| |<-------------------------|
| RTCP IDMS Settings | RTCP IDMS Settings |
|<----------------------|------------------------->|
| | |
Figure 1: Example of a Typical IDMS Session
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
Alice is watching TV in her living room. At some point, she sees
that Bob's favorite team is playing football. She sends him an
invite to watch the program together. Embedded in the invitation is
the link to the media server and a unique sync-group identifier.
Bob, who is also at home, receives the invite on his laptop. He
accepts Alice's invitation, and the RTP client on his laptop sets up
a session with the media server. A Voice over IP (VoIP) connection
to Alice's TV is also set up, so that Alice and Bob can talk while
watching the game together.
As is common with RTP, both the RTP client in Alice's TV as well as
the one in Bob's laptop send periodic RTCP RRs to the media server.
However, in order to make sure Alice and Bob see the events in the
football game at the same time, their clients also periodically send
an RTCP XR IDMS Report Block to the Sync Server function of the media
server. Included in the RTCP XR IDMS Report Blocks are timestamps on
when both Alice and Bob received (and, optionally, when they played
out) a particular RTP packet.
The Sync Server function in the media server calculates a reference
client from the received RTCP XR IDMS Report Blocks (e.g., by
selecting the most lagged client as the reference for IDMS). It then
sends an RTCP IDMS Settings Packet containing the playout information
of this reference client to the sync clients of both Alice and Bob.
In this case, Bob's connection has the longest delay and the
reference client, therefore, includes a delay similar to the one
experienced by Bob. Upon reception of this information, Alice's RTP
client can choose what to do with this information. In this case, it
decreases its playout rate temporarily until the playout time matches
with the reference client playout (and, thus, matches Bob's playout).
Another option for Alice's TV would be to simply pause playback until
it catches up. The exact implementation of the synchronization
algorithm is up to the client.
Upon reception of the RTCP IDMS Settings Packet, Bob's client does
not have to do anything since it is already synchronized to the
reference client (since it is based on Bob's delay). Note that other
synchronization algorithms may introduce even more delay than the one
experienced by the most delayed client, e.g., to account for delay
variations, for new clients joining an existing synchronization
group, etc.
For this functionality to work correctly, it is necessary that the
wallclocks of the receivers are synchronized with each other. While
Alice and Bob both report when they receive, and optionally when they
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
playout, certain RTP packets, in order to correlate their reports to
each other, it is necessary that their wallclocks are synchronized.
5. Architecture for Inter-Destination Media Synchronization
The architecture for IDMS, which is based on a sync-maestro
architecture [Boronat2009], is diagrammed below. In this particular
case, the Synchronization Client (SC) and Media Synchronization
Application Server (MSAS) entities are shown as additional
functionality for the RTP receiver and sender, respectively.
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| | SR + | |
| RTP Receiver | RTCP | RTP Sender |
| | IDMS | |
| +-----------------+ | <----- | +-----------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | Synchronization | | | | Media | |
| | Client | | | | Synchronization | |
| | (SC) | | | | Application | |
| | | | | | Server | |
| | | | RR+XR | | (MSAS) | |
| | | | -----> | | | |
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ |
| | | |
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
Figure 2: IDMS Architecture Diagram
5.1. Media Synchronization Application Server (MSAS)
An MSAS collects RTP packet arrival times and presentation times from
one or more SCs in a synchronization group by receiving RTCP XR IDMS
reports. The MSAS summarizes and distributes this information to the
SCs in the synchronization group as synchronization settings via the
RTCP IDMS Settings Packet messages, e.g., by determining the SC with
the most lagged playout and using its reported RTP packet arrival
time and presentation time as a summary.
It should be noted that while the diagram above shows the MSAS as
part of the RTP sender, this is not necessary. For example, an MSAS
might also be implemented as an independent function in the network
or in a master/slave type of architecture where one of the SC devices
also acts as an MSAS. Wherever the MSAS is implemented, it is
important that the MSAS has access to the RTP stream to which the XR
reports apply, so that it is able to correlate the RTCP XR IDMS
reports coming from different SCs.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
5.2. Synchronization Client (SC)
An SC reports on RTP packet arrival times and presentation times of a
media stream. It can receive IDMS Settings Packets containing
summaries of such information and use that to adjust its playout
buffer. The SC sends RTCP XR IDMS reports to the MSAS.
5.3. Communication between MSAS and SCs
Two different message types are used for the communication between
MSAS and SCs. For the SC->MSAS message containing the arrival and
playout information of a particular client, an RTCP XR IDMS Report
Block is used (see Section 6). For the MSAS->SC message containing
the synchronization settings instructions, a new RTCP IDMS Settings
Packet is defined (see Section 7).
6. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block
This section specifies a new RTCP XR Block Type, the RTCP XR IDMS
Report Block, for reporting IDMS information to an MSAS. In
particular, it is used to provide feedback information on arrival
times and presentation times of RTP packets. Its definition is based
on [RFC3550] and [RFC3611].
In most cases, a single RTP receiver will only be part of a single
IDMS session, i.e., it will report on arrival and presentation times
of RTP packets from a single RTP stream in a certain synchronization
group. In some cases, however, an RTP receiver may be a member of
multiple synchronization groups for the same RTP stream, e.g.,
watching a single television program simultaneously with different
groups. In even further cases, a receiver may wish to synchronize
different RTP streams at the same time, either as part of the same
synchronization group or as part of multiple synchronization groups.
These are all valid scenarios for IDMS and will require multiple
reports by an SC.
This document does not define new rules for when to send RTCP
reports, but uses the existing rules specified in [RFC3550] for
sending RTCP reports. When the RTCP reporting timer allows an SC to
send an IDMS report, the SC SHOULD report on an RTP packet received
during the period since the last RTCP XR IDMS Report Block was sent.
Because of RTP timestamp rollover, there is ambiguity in mapping RTP
timestamps to NTP timestamps. The recommendation to report on recent
RTP packets serves to manage this ambiguity. For more details on
which packet to report on, see below under "Packet Received RTP
timestamp".
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT=12 | SPST |Resrv|P| block length=7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PT | Resrv |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Media Stream Correlation Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received RTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The RTCP XR IDMS Report Block consists of 8 32-bit words, with the
following fields:
Block Type (BT): 8 bits. It identifies the block format. Its value
is set to 12.
Synchronization Packet Sender Type (SPST): 4 bits. This field
identifies the role of the packet sender for this specific Extended
Report. It can have the following values, as enumerated in a
registry maintained by IANA (see Section 13.4):
SPST=0 Reserved for future use.
SPST=1 The packet sender is an SC. It uses this XR to report
synchronization status information. Timestamps relate to the SC
input.
SPST=2-4 Values defined by ETSI TISPAN (see [TS183063]).
SPST=5-15 Unassigned.
Reserved bits (Resrv): 3 bits. These bits are reserved for future
definition. In the absence of such a definition, the bits in this
field MUST be set to zero at transmission and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
Packet Presented NTP timestamp flag (P): 1 bit. Bit set to 1 if the
Packet Presented NTP timestamp field contains a value, 0 if it is
empty. If this flag is set to 0, then the Packet Presented NTP
timestamp SHALL be ignored by the receiver.
Block Length: 16 bits. This field indicates the length of the block
in 32-bit words minus one and is set to 7, as this RTCP XR IDMS Block
Report has a fixed length.
Payload Type (PT): 7 bits. This field identifies the format of the
media payload, according to [RFC3551]. This is the payload type of
the RTP packet reported upon. The PT field is needed in the case
where the MSAS is neither the media server nor a receiver of the
media stream, i.e., it is implemented as a third-party entity. In
such cases, the MSAS needs the PT to determine the rate of
advancement of the timestamps of the RTP media stream to be able to
relate reports from different SCs on different RTP timestamp values.
Reserved bits (Resrv): 25 bits. These bits are reserved for future
use and SHALL be set to 0 at transmission and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
Media Stream Correlation Identifier: 32 bits. This identifier is
used to correlate synchronized media streams. The value 0 (all bits
are set "0") indicates that this field is empty. The value 2^32-1
(all bits are set "1") is reserved for future use. If the RTCP
Packet Sender is an SC (SPST=1), then the Media Stream Correlation
Identifier field contains the Synchronization Group Identifier
(SyncGroupId) to which the report applies.
Synchronization Source (SSRC): 32 bits. The SSRC of the media source
is set to the value of the SSRC identifier carried in the RTP header
[RFC3550] of the RTP packet to which the XR IDMS relates.
Packet Received NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wallclock time at the moment of arrival of the first octet of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates. It is formatted based on the
NTP timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905]. See Section 8 for
more information on how this field is used.
Packet Received RTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp has the value
of the RTP timestamp carried in the RTP header [RFC3550] of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates. Several consecutive RTP packets
will have equal timestamps if they are (logically) generated at once,
e.g., belong to the same video frame. It may well be the case that
one receiver reports on the first RTP packet that has a certain RTP
timestamp, and a second receiver reports on the last RTP packet that
has that same RTP timestamp. This would lead to an error in the
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
synchronization algorithm due to the faulty interpretation of
considering both reports to be on the same RTP packet. When
reporting on an RTP packet, which is one of several consecutive RTP
packets having equal timestamps, an SC SHOULD report on the RTP
packet it received with the lowest sequence number. Note that
'lowest sequence number' here is meant to be the first in the
sequence of RTP packets just received, not from an earlier time
before the last wrap around of RTP timestamps (unless this wrap
around occurs during the sequence with equal RTP timestamps).
Packet Presented NTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wallclock time at the moment the rendered media unit (e.g., video
frame or audio sample) contained in the first byte of the associated
RTP packet is presented to the user. It is based on the time format
used by NTP and consists of the least significant 16 bits of the NTP
seconds part and the most significant 16 bits of the NTP fractional
second part. If no Packet Presented NTP timestamp is available, this
field SHALL be set to 0 and be considered empty, and the Packet
Presented NTP timestamp flag (P) SHALL be set to 0. With regards to
NTP epoch and rollover, the value of the Packet Presented NTP
timestamp is considered to always be greater than the Packet Received
NTP timestamp and to be within 2^16 seconds of it. Presented in this
context means the moment the data is played out to the user of the
system, i.e., sound played out through speakers, video images being
displayed on some display, etc. The accuracy resulting from the
synchronization algorithm will only be as good as the accuracy with
which the SCs can determine the delay between receiving packets and
presenting them to the end user. If no presentation timestamps are
reported by SCs, the ability to accurately synchronize playout may be
limited.
7. RTCP Packet Type for IDMS (IDMS Settings Packet)
This section specifies the RTCP packet type for indicating
synchronization settings instructions to the receivers of the RTP
media stream. Its definition is based on [RFC3550]. Synchronization
settings take the form of a report referencing a real or hypothetical
RTP packet selected or contrived by the MSAS.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 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| Resrv | PT=211 | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of packet sender |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| SSRC of media source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Media Stream Correlation Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Received RTP timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp, most significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Presented NTP timestamp, least significant word |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The first 64 bits form the header of the RTCP packet type, as defined
in [RFC3550]. The SSRC of the packet sender identifies the sender of
the specific RTCP packet.
The RTCP IDMS Settings Packet consists of 7 32-bit words, with the
following fields:
PT: 211, as registered by IANA.
SSRC: 32 bits. The SSRC of the media source is set to the value of
the SSRC identifier of the media source carried in the RTP header
[RFC3550] of the RTP packet to which the RTCP IDMS Settings Packet
relates.
Media Stream Correlation Identifier: 32 bits. This identifier is
used to correlate synchronized media streams. The value 0 (all bits
are set "0") indicates that this field is empty. The value 2^32-1
(all bits are set "1") is reserved for future use. The Media Stream
Correlation Identifier contains the SyncGroupId of the group to which
this packet is sent.
Packet Received NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wallclock time at the reference client at the moment it received the
first octet of the RTP packet to which this packet relates. It can
be used by the synchronization algorithm on the receiving SC to
adjust its playout timing in order to achieve synchronization, e.g.,
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
to set the required playout delay. The timestamp is formatted based
on the NTP timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905]. See Section 8
for more information on how this field is used. Because RTP
timestamps do wrap around, the sender of this packet MUST use recent
values, i.e., choose NTP timestamps that reflect current time and not
too far in the future or in the past so as to create ambiguity with
regards to RTP timestamp wrap around.
Packet Received RTP timestamp: 32 bits. This timestamp has the value
of the RTP timestamp carried in the RTP header [RFC3550] of the RTP
packet to which the XR IDMS relates. This SHOULD relate to the first
arriving RTP packet containing this particular RTP timestamp, in case
multiple consecutive RTP packets contain the same RTP timestamp.
Packet Presented NTP timestamp: 64 bits. This timestamp reflects the
wallclock time at the reference client at the moment it presented the
rendered media unit (e.g., video frame or audio sample) contained in
the first octet of the associated RTP packet to the user. The
timestamp is formatted based on the NTP timestamp format as specified
in [RFC5905]. If no Packet Presented NTP timestamp is available,
this field SHALL be set to 0 and be considered empty. This field MAY
be left empty if none or only one of the receivers reported on
presentation timestamps. Presented here means the moment the data is
played out to the user of the system.
In some use cases (e.g., phased array transducers), the level of
control an MSAS might need to have over the exact moment of playout
is so precise that a 32-bit Presented timestamp will not suffice.
For this reason, this RTCP packet type for IDMS includes a 64-bit
Presented Timestamp field. Since an MSAS will in practice always add
some extra delay to the delay reported by the most lagged receiver
(to account for packet jitter), it suffices for the RTCP XR IDMS
Report Block with which the SCs report on their playout to have a
32-bit Presented Timestamp field.
8. Timing and NTP Considerations
To achieve IDMS, the different receivers involved need synchronized
wallclocks as a common timeline for synchronization. This
synchronized clock is used for reporting the Packet Received NTP
timestamp and the Packet Presented NTP timestamp, and for
interpretation of these fields in received IDMS Settings Packets.
Depending on the synchronization accuracy required, different clock
synchronization methods can be used. For social TV, synchronization
accuracy should be achieved on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.
In that case, correct use of NTP on receivers will in most situations
achieve the required accuracy. As a guideline, to deal with clock
drift of receivers, receivers should synchronize their clocks at the
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
beginning of a synchronized session. In case of high required
accuracy, the synchronized clocks of different receivers should not
drift beyond the accuracy required for the synchronization mechanism.
In practice, this can mean that receivers need to synchronize their
clocks repeatedly during a synchronization session.
Because of the stringent synchronization requirements for achieving
good audio quality in some use cases, a high accuracy will be needed.
In this case, use of the global NTP system may not be sufficient.
For improved accuracy, a local NTP server could be set up, or some
other more accurate clock synchronization mechanism can be used, such
as GPS time or the Precision Time Protocol [IEEE1588-2008].
[RFC7273] defines a set of Session Description Protocol (SDP)
parameters for signaling the clock synchronization source or sources
available to and used by the individual receivers. SCs MAY use
[RFC7273] to indicate their clock synchronization source or sources
in use and available. Using these parameters, an SC can indicate
which synchronization source is being used at the moment. An SC can
also indicate any other synchronization sources available to it.
This allows multiple SCs in an IDMS session to use the same or a
similar clock source for their session.
Applications performing IDMS may or may not be able to choose a
synchronization method for the system clock because this may be a
system-wide setting that the application cannot change. How
applications deal with this is up to the implementation. The
application might control the system clock, or it might use a
separate application clock or even a separate IDMS session clock. It
might also report on the system clock and the synchronization method
used, without being able to change it.
[RFC7164] presents some guidelines on how RTP senders and receivers
should deal with leap seconds. When relying on NTP for clock
synchronization, IDMS is particularly sensitive to
leap-second-induced timing discrepancies. It is RECOMMENDED to take
the guidelines specified in [RFC7164] into account when implementing
IDMS.
9. On the Use of Presentation Timestamps
A receiver can report on different timing events, i.e., on packet
arrival times and on playout or presentation times. A receiver SHALL
report on arrival times and a receiver MAY report on playout times.
RTP packet arrival times are relatively easy to report on. Normally,
the processing and playout of the same media stream by different
receivers will take roughly the same amount of time. Synchronizing
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
on packet arrival times may lead to some accuracy loss, but it will
be adequate for many applications, such as social TV.
Also, if the receivers are in some way controlled, e.g., having the
same buffer settings and decoding and rendering times, high accuracy
can be achieved. However, if all receivers in a synchronization
session have the ability to report on and, thus, synchronize on
actual presentation times, this will be more accurate. It is up to
the applications and implementations of this RTCP extension whether
to implement and use presentation timestamps.
10. SDP Signaling for RTCP IDMS Settings Packet
The SDP attribute rtcp-idms is used to signal the use of the RTCP
IDMS Settings Packet and the associated RTCP XR IDMS Report Block.
It is also used to carry an identifier of the synchronization group
to which clients belong or will belong. The SDP attribute is used as
a media-level attribute during session setup. This means that in
case of multiple related streams, IDMS is performed on one of them.
The other streams will be synchronized to this reference or master
stream using existing inter-stream synchronization (such as lip-sync)
solutions, i.e., using sender reports based on a common clock source.
Basic guidelines for choosing the media stream for IDMS is to choose
audio above video, as humans are most sensitive to degradation in
audio synchronization. When using multi-description or multi-view
codecs, the IDMS control should be performed on the base layer.
This SDP attribute is defined as follows, using Augmented Backus-Naur
Form [RFC5234].
rtcp-idms = "a=" "rtcp-idms" ":" sync-grp CRLF
sync-grp = "sync-group=" SyncGroupId
SyncGroupId = 1*10DIGIT ; Decimal value from 0 through 4294967294
DIGIT = %x30-39
SyncGroupId is a 32-bit unsigned integer and represented in decimal.
SyncGroupId identifies a group of SCs for IDMS. The value
SyncGroupId=0 represents an empty SyncGroupId. The value 4294967295
(2^32-1) is reserved for future use. For a description on the value
of SyncGroupId to include, see Section 11.
The following is an example of the SDP attribute for IDMS.
a=rtcp-idms:sync-group=42
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
11. SDP Rules
11.1. Offer/Answer Rules
The SDP usage for IDMS follows the rules defined in [RFC4566] and
Section 5 of [RFC3611] on SDP signaling with the exception of what is
stated here. The IDMS usage of RTCP is a loosely coupled
collaborative attribute, in the sense that receivers send their
status information and, in response, the MSAS asynchronously sends
synchronization setting instructions. The rtcp-idms attribute, thus,
indicates the ability to send and receive indicated RTCP messages.
This section defines how this SDP attribute should be used with
regard to an offer/answer context.
It is expected that, in most cases, the rtcp-idms attribute will be
used in an offer/answer context where receivers will have
predetermined, through some means outside the scope of this document,
a SyncGroupId before the media session is set up. However, A sender
that assigns a SyncGroupId is also supported for cases, for example,
where the MSAS contains group management functionality and is
co-located with or otherwise communicates with the sender. Thus,
both senders and receivers can insert the attribute and the
SyncGroupId. Furthermore, the attribute is allowed to be inserted
for more than one media stream, allowing an SC to become part of
multiple synchronization groups simultaneously. This effectively
couples two (or more) synchronization groups to each other. If the
rtcp-idms attribute is inserted more than once for a particular media
session, each SyncGroupId SHALL only be inserted once.
In order to join an IDMS session, the receiver (the SC) inserts the
rtcp-idms attribute as a media-level attribute in the SDP offer.
This SDP offer can be an initial offer if the media session is
starting as a synchronized session. The SDP offer can also be an
update to an existing media session, converting the session to an
IDMS session. If the receiver has a predetermined SyncGroupId value,
it SHOULD use this value for setting the SyncGroupId parameter in the
rtcp-idms attribute. If the receiver does not know the SyncGroupId
to be used, it MAY leave the SyncGroupId parameter empty by setting
its value to 0.
The sender SHALL include the rtcp-idms attribute in its answer. If
the value of the SyncGroupId parameter in the offer is not empty (not
equal to 0), the sender SHOULD NOT change the SyncGroupId in its
answer. If the SyncGroupId is empty, the sender SHALL include the
proper SyncGroupId in its answer. If the sender receives an offer
with the value of the SyncGroupId parameter set to 0, and cannot
determine the proper SyncGroupId, it SHALL remove the attribute from
its answer.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
A sender receiving an SDP offer without the rtcp-idms attribute can
also decide that IDMS is applicable to that media session. In such a
case, the sender MAY insert the rtcp-idms attribute, including a non-
empty SyncGroupId, as part of its answer.
A receiver receiving an rtcp-idms attribute as part of the SDP answer
from a sender SHALL start sending RTCP XR IDMS reports (following all
the normal RTCP rules for sending RTCP XR IDMS Report Blocks) and
SHALL be ready to start receiving IDMS Settings. As usual, if a
receiver does not support the attribute (e.g., in case of an MSAS-
inserted IDMS attribute), it SHALL ignore the attribute.
Different updates are applicable to such an IDMS session. Updates
can be sent omitting the rtcp-idms attribute, thereby ending
involvement in the synchronization session. Updates can also be sent
including the rtcp-idms attribute, but with a different SyncGroupId.
This indicates a switch in the synchronization group.
11.2. Declarative Cases
In certain situations, there is no offer/answer context, but only a
declarative modus. In this case, the MSAS just inserts the rtcp-idms
attribute and a valid SyncGroupId. Any receiver receiving the rtcp-
idms attribute in such a declarative case SHALL start sending RTCP XR
IDMS Report Blocks and SHALL be ready to start receiving RTCP IDMS
Settings Packets.
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC3611] apply to this
document as well.
The RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this document is used to
collect, summarize, and distribute information on packet reception
and playout times of streaming media. The information may be used to
orchestrate the media playout at multiple devices.
Errors in the information, either accidental or malicious, may lead
to undesired behavior. For example, if one device erroneously or
maliciously reports a two-hour delayed playout, then another device
in the same synchronization group could decide to delay its playout
by two hours as well, in order to keep its playout synchronized. A
user would likely interpret this two-hour delay as a malfunctioning
service.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
Therefore, the application logic of both SCs and MSASs should check
for out-of-bound information. Differences in playout time exceeding
configured limits (e.g., more than ten seconds) could be an
indication of such out-of-bound information.
Apart from checking for out-of-bound information in the endpoints, an
IDMS implementation can reduce its vulnerability to attacks by
including source authentication and message integrity measures,
reducing the potential for man-in-the-middle attacks. [RFC7201]
provides an overview of the security options in RTP environments and
includes a set of recommendations for message integrity and source
authentication that are applicable to IDMS. In addition to
preventing man-in-the-middle attacks from inserting erroneous IDMS
reports, the message confidentiality mechanisms outlined in [RFC7201]
also prevent third parties from determining that two or more end
hosts are receiving the same stream by looking at the Media Stream
Correlation Identifier.
Apart from attacking an IDMS session directly by sending incorrect
IDMS reports, and with it introducing delays for all devices in a
synchronization group, another potential vulnerability comes from the
clock synchronization method used. Should an attacker succeed in
adjusting an SC's wallclock, that SC will report incorrect IDMS
reports. In order to prevent such clock synchronization attacks, it
is recommended to use a secure time synchronization service.
13. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new RTCP packet type, the RTCP IDMS Packet
(IDMS Settings), within the existing Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) registry of RTCP Control Packet Types. This
document also defines a new RTCP XR Block Type, the RTCP XR IDMS
Report Block, within the existing IANA registry of RTCP Extended
Reports (RTCP XR) Block Types.
Further, this document defines a new SDP attribute "rtcp-idms" within
the existing IANA registry of SDP Parameters, which is part of the
"att-field (media level only)". Finally, this document defines a new
IANA registry subordinate to the IANA RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR)
Block Type Registry: the IDMS XR Block SPST Registry.
13.1. RTCP IDMS Packet Type
This document assigns the packet type value 211 in the IANA 'RTCP
Control Packet types (PT)' registry to the RTCP IDMS Packet (IDMS
Settings).
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
13.2. RTCP XR IDMS Report Block
This document updates the assignment of value 12 from the RTCP XR
Block Type for reporting IDMS information as per [TS183063] to the
RTCP XR IDMS Report Block defined in this document.
The RTCP XR IDMS Report Block contains an extensible SPST value
field; therefore, a new registry for this field is required. This
new registry is defined in Section 13.4.
13.3. RTCP-IDMS SDP Attribute
The SDP attribute "rtcp-idms" defined by this document is registered
with the IANA registry of SDP Parameters as follows:
SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
Attribute name: rtcp-idms
Long form: RTCP IDMS Parameters
Type of name: att-field
Type of attribute: media level
Subject to charset: no
Purpose: see Section 10 of this document
Reference: this document
Values: see this document
13.4. IDMS XR Block SPST Registry
This document defines a new IANA registry subordinate to the IANA
RTCP Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry: the IDMS XR
Block SPST Registry.
Initial values for the IDMS XR Block SPST Registry are given below;
future assignments are to be made through the Specification Required
policy [RFC5226]. The registry is limited to 16 entries (numbered
0-15), with 0 being Reserved. Values 5-15 are available for
assignment.
In accordance with [RFC5226], a Designated Expert will review any
applications made to IANA for the registry. Primary criteria for the
Designated Expert to use when reviewing new applications are clarity
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
of the specification and, due to the relatively small value range of
SPST values available, potential overlap in functionality with
existing SPST registrations.
Value Name Reference
----- ---- ---------
1 Synchronization Client This document, Section 7
2 MSAS [TS183063]
3 SC Prime Input [TS183063]
4 SC Prime Output [TS183063]
13.5. Contact Information for Registrations
The contact information for the registrations is:
Ray van Brandenburg (ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl)
Brassersplein 2
2612CT, Delft, The Netherlands
14. Contributors
The following people have provided substantial contributions to this
document: Omar Niamut, Fabian Walraven, Ishan Vaishnavi, and Rufael
Mekuria. In addition, the authors would like to thank Aidan
Williams, Colin Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Roni Even, Peter
Musgrave, Ali Begen, Qin Wu, and Rob Koenen for their review comments
and contributions to the text.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
July 2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November
2003.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[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.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC7273] Williams, A., Gross, K., van Brandenburg, R., and H.
Stokking, "RTP Clock Source Signalling", RFC 7273, June
2014.
15.2. Informative References
[Boronat2009]
Boronat, F., Lloret, J., and M. Garcia, "Multimedia group
and inter-stream synchronization techniques: a comparative
study", Elsevier Information Systems 34, Pages 108-131,
March 2009,
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0306437908000525>.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
[IEEE1588-2008]
IEEE, "1588-2008 - IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", July 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/1588-2008.html>.
[Ishibashi2006]
Ishibashi, Y., Nagasaka, M., and N. Fujiyoshi, "Subjective
assessment of fairness among users in multipoint
communications", Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI
international conference on Advances in computer
entertainment technology, Article No. 69, June 2006,
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1178905>.
[RFC7164] Gross, K. and R. Brandenburg, "RTP and Leap Seconds", RFC
7164, March 2014.
[RFC7201] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", RFC 7201, April 2014.
[TS183063] ETSI, "Telecommunications and Internet converged Services
and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); IMS-based
IPTV stage 3 specification", TS 183 063 v3.5.2, March
2011.
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7272 RTCP for IDMS June 2014
Authors' Addresses
Ray van Brandenburg
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
EMail: ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl
Hans Stokking
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
EMail: hans.stokking@tno.nl
M. Oskar van Deventer
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
EMail: oskar.vandeventer@tno.nl
Fernando Boronat
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV)
Valencia 46730
Spain
Phone: +34 962 849 341
EMail: fboronat@dcom.upv.es
Mario Montagud
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV)
Valencia 46730
Spain
Phone: +34 962 849 341
EMail: mamontor@posgrado.upv.es
Kevin Gross
AVA Networks
Phone: +1-303-447-0517
EMail: Kevin.Gross@AVAnw.com
van Brandenburg, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]