A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
RFC 8285
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(October 2017; No errata)
Obsoletes RFC 5285
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | David Singer , HariKishan Desineni , Roni Even | ||
| Last updated | 2017-10-25 | ||
| Replaces | draft-even-avtcore-rfc5285-bis | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Magnus Westerlund | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-03-07) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8285 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ben Campbell | ||
| Send notices to | "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Singer
Request for Comments: 8285 Apple, Inc.
Obsoletes: 5285 H. Desineni
Category: Standards Track Qualcomm
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Even, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
October 2017
A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
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 decentralized. The actual extensions in use in a
session are signaled in the setup information for that session. This
document obsoletes RFC 5285.
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 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8285.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(https://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
2. Requirements Notation ...........................................3
3. Design Goals ....................................................3
4. Packet Design ...................................................4
4.1. General ....................................................4
4.1.1. Transmission Considerations .........................5
4.1.2. Header Extension Type Considerations ................6
4.2. One-Byte Header ............................................8
4.3. Two-Byte Header ............................................9
5. SDP Signaling Design ...........................................10
6. SDP Signaling for Support of Mixed One-Byte and Two-Byte
Header Extensions ..........................................12
7. SDP Offer/Answer ...............................................13
8. BNF Syntax .....................................................17
9. Security Considerations ........................................17
10. IANA Considerations ...........................................18
10.1. Identifier Space for IANA to Manage ......................18
10.2. Registration of the SDP "extmap" Attribute ...............20
10.3. Registration of the SDP "extmap-allow-mixed" Attribute ...20
11. Changes from RFC 5285 .........................................21
12. References ....................................................21
12.1. Normative References .....................................21
12.2. Informative References ...................................23
Acknowledgments ...................................................24
Authors' Addresses ................................................25
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
1. Introduction
The RTP specification [RFC3550] provides a capability to extend the
RTP header. Section 5.3.1 of [RFC3550] defines the header extension
format and rules for its use. 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 providing 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.
This document obsoletes [RFC5285] and removes a limitation from
RFC 5285 that did not allow sending both one-byte and two-byte header
extensions in the same RTP stream.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 collisions.
This mechanism provides an alternative to the practice of burying
associated metadata into the media format bitstream. This has often
been done in media data sent over fixed-bandwidth channels. Once
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
this is done, a decoder for the specific media format needs to
extract the metadata. Also, depending on the media format, the
metadata can be added at the time of encoding the media so that the
bit-rate used for the metadata is taken into account. But the
metadata can be unknown at that time. Inserting metadata at a later
time can cause a decode and re-encode to meet bit-rate requirements.
In some cases, a more appropriate and higher-level mechanism may be
available, and if so, it can be used. For cases where a higher-level
mechanism is not available, it is better to provide a mechanism at
the RTP level than to 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 16-bit identifier for the two forms of
the RTP extension defined here 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.
The RTP specification [RFC3550] states that RTP "is designed so that
the header extension may be ignored by other interoperating
implementations that have not been extended." The intent of this
restriction is that RTP header extensions MUST NOT be used to extend
RTP itself in a manner that is backward incompatible with
non-extended implementations. For example, a header extension is not
allowed to change the meaning or interpretation of the standard RTP
header fields or of the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP). Header
extensions MAY carry metadata in addition to the usual RTP header
information, provided the RTP layer can function if that metadata is
missing. For example, RTP header extensions can be used to carry
data that's also sent in RTCP, as an optimization to lower latency,
since they'll fall back to the original non-optimized behavior if the
header extension is not present. The use of header extensions to
convey information that will, if missing, disrupt the behavior of a
higher-layer application that builds on top of RTP is only acceptable
if this doesn't affect interoperability at the RTP layer. For
example, applications that use the SDP BUNDLE extension with the
Media Identification (MID) RTP header extension [SDP-BUNDLE] to
correlate RTP streams with SDP "m=" lines likely won't work with full
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
functionality if the MID is missing, but the operation of the RTP
layer of those applications will be unaffected. Support for RTP
header extensions based on this memo is negotiated using, for
example, SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264]; intermediaries aware of the RTP
header extensions are advised to be cautious when removing or
generating RTP header extensions. See Section 4.7 of [RFC7667].
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).
4.1.1. Transmission Considerations
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 can be present in some packets,
not that they are in fact present in all (or indeed, any) packets.
Some general considerations for getting the header extensions
delivered to the receiver are as follows:
1. The probability for packet loss and burst loss determines how
many repetitions of the header extensions will be required to
reach a targeted delivery probability, and if burst loss is
likely, what distribution would be needed to avoid losing all
repetitions of the header extensions in a single burst.
2. If a set of packets are all needed to enable decoding, there is
commonly no reason for including the header extension in all of
these packets, as they share fate. Instead, at most one instance
of the header extension per independently decodable set of media
data would be a more efficient use of the bandwidth.
3. How early the header extension item information is needed, from
the first received RTP data or only after some set of packets are
received, can guide whether the header extension(s) should be
(1) in all of the first N packets or (2) included only once per
set of packets -- for example, once per video frame.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
4. The use of RTP-level robustness mechanisms, such as RTP
retransmission [RFC4588] or Forward Error Correction (e.g.,
[RFC5109]) may treat packets differently from a robustness
perspective, and header extensions should be added to packets
that get a treatment corresponding to the relative importance of
receiving the information.
As a summary, the number of header extension transmissions should be
tailored to a desired probability of delivery, taking the receiver
population size into account. For the very basic case, N repetitions
of the header extensions should be sufficient but may not be optimal.
N is selected so that the header extension target delivery
probability reaches 1-P^N, where P is the probability of packet loss.
For point-to-point or small receiver populations, it might also be
possible to use feedback, such as RTCP, to determine when the
information in the header extensions has reached all receivers and
stop further repetitions. Feedback that can be used includes the
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Loss RLE Report Block [RFC3611], which will
indicate successful delivery of particular packets. If the RTP/AVPF
transport-layer feedback messages for generic NACK [RFC4585] are
used, they can indicate failure to deliver an RTP packet with the
header extension, thus indicating the need for further repetitions.
The normal RTCP report blocks can also provide an indicator of
successful delivery, if no losses are indicated for a reporting
interval covering the RTP packets with the header extension. Note
that loss of an RTCP packet reporting on an interval where RTP header
extension packets were sent does not necessarily mean that the RTP
header extension packets themselves were lost.
4.1.2. Header Extension Type Considerations
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
of local identifiers. Each distinct extension MUST have a unique ID.
The ID value 0 is reserved for padding and MUST NOT be used as a
local identifier.
An extension element with an ID value equal to 0 MUST NOT have an
associated length field greater than 0. If such an extension element
is encountered, its length field MUST be ignored, processing of the
entire extension MUST terminate at that point, and only the extension
elements present prior to the element with ID 0 and a length field
greater than 0 SHOULD be considered.
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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
small, the one-byte header form is preferred and MUST be supported by
all receivers. A stream MUST contain only one-byte headers or only
two-byte headers unless it is known that all recipients support
mixing, by either SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] negotiation (see
Section 6) or out-of-band knowledge. Each RTP packet with an RTP
header extension following this specification will indicate whether
it contains one-byte or two-byte header extensions through the use of
the "defined by profile" field. Extension element types that do not
match the header extension format, i.e., one-byte or two-byte,
MUST NOT be used in that RTP packet. Transmitters SHOULD NOT use the
two-byte header form when all extensions are small enough for the
one-byte header form. Transmitters that intend to send the two-byte
form SHOULD negotiate the use of IDs above 14 if they want to let the
receivers know that they intend to use the two-byte form -- for
example, if the RTP header extension is longer than 16 bytes. A
transmitter may be aware that an intermediary may add RTP header
extensions; in this case, the transmitter SHOULD use the two-byte
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 will fit in the RTP header extension, as
indicated by 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 needed), and parsing stops
(1) at the end of the entire header extension or (2) in the "one-byte
headers only" case, on encountering an identifier with the reserved
value of 15 -- whichever happens earlier.
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 does it supply 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 that one 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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
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 are explored further in
[RFC2508] and [RFC3095].
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", MUST have the fixed bit
pattern 0xBEDE (the pattern was picked for the trivial reason that
the first version of this specification was written on May 25th --
the feast day of the Venerable Bede).
Each extension element MUST start 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 a future extension and
MUST NOT be used as an identifier. If the ID value 15 is
encountered, its length field MUST be ignored, processing of the
entire extension MUST terminate at that point, and only the extension
elements present prior to the element with ID 15 SHOULD be
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 (0) 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, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
An example header extension, with three extension elements and some
padding, 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 defined 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; this topic is 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 (zeros) 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
extension elements and the value 256 referring to the 4-bit appbits
field (above). Note that there is one ID space for both the one-byte
form and the two-byte form. This means that the lower values (1-14)
can be used in the 4-bit ID field in the one-byte header format with
the same meanings.
The 8-bit length field is the length of extension data in bytes, not
including the ID and length fields. The value zero (0) indicates
that there is no subsequent data.
An example header extension, with three extension elements and some
padding, 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 an SDP
Offer/Answer [RFC3264]. 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 section (or only once if
the mappings are session level). Mappings that do not conform to
these rules MAY be presented, for instance, during SDP Offer/Answer
[RFC3264] 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; it
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
close to that date. (This avoids problems when domain names change
ownership.) If the resource or document defines several extensions,
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
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 do not have to be
dereferencable, in order to permit confidential or experimental use,
or 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
can, of course, be used for several streams and can appear with
different <extensionattributes> for the same stream.)
For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI used SHOULD be a URN starting
with "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:" followed by a registered,
descriptive name.
The registration requirements are detailed in Section 10 ("IANA
Considerations").
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 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 in each media section of the SDP or
unique in the session for session-level SDP declarations.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
Each local identifier potentially used in the stream is mapped to an
extension identified by a URI using an attribute of the form:
a=extmap:<value>["/"<direction>] <URI> <extensionattributes>
where
o <value> is the local identifier (ID) of this extension and is an
integer in the valid range (0 is reserved for padding in both
forms, and 15 is reserved in the one-byte header form, as noted
above).
o <direction> is one of "sendonly", "recvonly", "sendrecv", or
"inactive" (without the quotes) with relation to the device being
configured.
o <URI> is a URI, as above.
The formal BNF syntax is presented in Section 8 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 ("BEDE" or "100")
indicated above.
6. SDP Signaling for Support of Mixed One-Byte and Two-Byte Header
Extensions
In order to allow for backward interoperability with systems that
do not support the mixing of one-byte and two-byte header extensions,
this document defines the "a=extmap-allow-mixed" Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] attribute to indicate if the participant is
capable of supporting this new mode. The attribute takes no value.
This attribute can be used at the session level or the media level.
A participant that proposes the use of this mode SHALL itself support
the reception of mixed one-byte and two-byte header extensions.
If SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] is supported and used, the negotiation
for mixed one-byte and two-byte extensions MUST be negotiated using
SDP Offer/Answer per [RFC3264]. In the absence of negotiations using
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
SDP Offer/Answer -- for example, when declarative SDP is used --
mixed headers MUST NOT occur unless the transmitter has some
(out-of-band) knowledge that all potential recipients support
this mode.
The formal definition of this attribute is:
Name: extmap-allow-mixed
Value: None
Usage Level: session, media
Charset Dependent: No
Example:
a=extmap-allow-mixed
When doing SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264], an offering client that wishes
to use both one-byte and two-byte extensions MUST include the
attribute "a=extmap-allow-mixed" in the SDP offer. If
"a=extmap-allow-mixed" is present in the SDP offer, the answerer that
supports this mode and wishes to use it SHALL include the
"a=extmap-allow-mixed" attribute in the answer. In the cases where
the attribute has been excluded, both clients SHALL NOT use mixed
one-byte and two-byte extensions in the same RTP stream but MAY use
the one-byte or two-byte form exclusively (see Section 4.1.2).
When used per [SDP-BUNDLE], this attribute is specified as the
IDENTICAL category [SDP-MUX].
7. SDP Offer/Answer
The simple signaling described above for the "extmap" attribute MAY
be enhanced in an SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] 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" as specified in [RFC3264].
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
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).
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 answer MAY be
changed 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. An answerer MAY want to respond that he supports the
extension and does not want to receive it at the moment, but he may
indicate a desire to receive it in a future offer and will mark the
extension as "inactive".
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. An answerer MAY want
to respond that he supports this extension but has no intention of
sending it now; he may indicate a desire to send it in a future offer
by marking the extension as "inactive".
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). The local identifiers MUST be unique in an
RTP session, and the same identifier MUST be used for the same
offered extension in the answer. A session update MAY change the
direction qualifiers of extensions being used. A session update MAY
add or remove extension(s). Identifier 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 renumbering is not permitted
either).
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then
multiple extensions with the same identifier in the extended 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.
An answerer may copy an "extmap" for an identifier in the extended
range into the answer to indicate to the offerer that it supports
that extension. Of course, such an extension cannot be used, since
there is no way to specify it in an extension header. If needed, the
offerer or answerer can update the session to assign a valid
identifier to that extension URI.
Rationale: The range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is
deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid
identifiers in the 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, 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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
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
When using [SDP-BUNDLE] to bundle multiple "m=" lines, the "extmap"
attribute falls under the SPECIAL category of [SDP-MUX]. All the
"m=" lines in a BUNDLE group are considered to be part of the same
local identifier (ID) space. If an RTP header extension, i.e., a
particular extension URI and configuration using
<extensionattributes>, is offered in multiple "m=" lines that are
part of the same BUNDLE group, it MUST use the same ID in all of
these "m=" lines. Each "m=" line in a BUNDLE group can include
different RTP header extensions allowing, for example, audio and
video sources to use different sets of RTP header extensions. A
difference in configuration using any of the <extensionattributes> is
important. Unless an RTP header extension explicitly states
otherwise, any such difference SHALL be communicated to all receivers
and SHALL cause assignment of different IDs. An RTP header extension
that does not follow this rule MUST explicitly define what would
constitute compatible configurations that can be sent with the
same ID. The directionality of the RTP header extensions in each
"m=" line of the BUNDLE group is handled in the same way as handling
for non-bundled "m=" lines. This allows for specifying different
directionality for each of the repeated extension URIs in a BUNDLE
group.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
8. 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 can be several.
Name: extmap
Value: extmap-value
Syntax:
extmap-value = mapentry SP extensionname
[SP extensionattributes]
mapentry = "extmap:" 1*5DIGIT ["/" direction]
extensionname = URI
extensionattributes = byte-string
direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive"
URI = <Defined in RFC 3986>
byte-string = <Defined in RFC 4566>
SP = <Defined in RFC 5234>
DIGIT = <Defined in RFC 5234>
9. Security Considerations
This document defines only a place to transmit information; the
security implications of each of the extensions must be discussed
with those extensions.
Extension usage is negotiated using [RFC3264], so integrity
protection and end-to-end authentication MUST be implemented. The
security considerations of [RFC3264] MUST be followed to prevent, for
example, extension-usage blocking.
Header extensions have the same security coverage as the RTP header
itself. When the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
[RFC3711] is used to protect RTP sessions, the RTP payload can be
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
both encrypted and integrity protected, while the RTP header is
either unprotected or integrity protected. In order to prevent DoS
attacks (for example, by changing the header extension) integrity
protection SHOULD be used. Lower-layer security protection such as
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347] MAY be used. RTP
header extensions can carry sensitive information for which
participants in multimedia sessions want confidentiality. RFC 6904
[RFC6904] provides a mechanism that extends the mechanisms of SRTP to
selectively encrypt RTP header extensions in SRTP.
The RTP application designer needs to consider their security needs,
that includes cipher strength for SRTP packets in general and what
that means for the integrity and confidentiality of the RTP header
extensions. As defined by RFC 6904 [RFC6904], the encryption stream
cipher for the header extension is dependent on the chosen SRTP
cipher.
Other options for securing RTP are discussed in [RFC7201].
10. IANA Considerations
This document updates the references in three IANA registries to
point to this document instead of RFC 5285, and updates and adds new
SDP attributes in Sections 10.2 and 10.3, respectively.
10.1. 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 [RFC8126].
IANA will also maintain a server that contains all of the registered
elements in a publicly accessible space.
Here is the formal declaration to comply with 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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
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 SHOULD 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 reviewer
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 header extensions (specifically, that
the header extension can be ignored or discarded without
breaking the RTP layer);
3. that the extension specification is technically consistent (in
itself and with RTP), complete, and comprehensible;
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;
7. that the suggested naming URI form is appropriately chosen and
unique; and
8. that for multiplexed "m=" lines [SDP-BUNDLE], any RTP header
extension with differences in configurations of
<extensionattributes> that do not require assignment of
different IDs MUST explicitly indicate this and provide rules
for what would constitute compatible configurations that can
be sent with the same ID.
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
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
10.2. Registration of the SDP "extmap" Attribute
IANA has updated the registration of the "extmap" SDP attribute
[RFC4566] in the "att-field (both session and media level)"
subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters"
registry.
o Contact Name and email address: IETF, contacted via
<mmusic@ietf.org> (or a successor address designated by the IESG)
o Attribute Name: extmap
o Attribute Syntax: See Section 8 of RFC 8285.
o Attribute Semantics: The details of appropriate values are given
in RFC 8285.
o Usage Level: Media or session level
o Charset Dependent: No
o Purpose: Defines the mapping from the extension numbers used in
packet headers into extension names.
o Offer/Answer (O/A) Procedures: See Section 7 of RFC 8285.
o MUX Category: SPECIAL
o Reference: RFC 8285
10.3. Registration of the SDP "extmap-allow-mixed" Attribute
IANA has registered one new SDP attribute in the "att-field (both
session and media level)" subregistry of the "Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry:
o Contact Name and email address: IETF, contacted via
<mmusic@ietf.org> (or a successor address designated by the IESG)
o Attribute Name: extmap-allow-mixed
o Attribute Syntax: See Section 6 of RFC 8285.
o Attribute Semantics: See Section 6 of RFC 8285.
o Attribute Value: None
o Usage Level: Media or session level
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
o Charset Dependent: No
o Purpose: Negotiate the use of one byte and two bytes in the same
RTP stream.
o O/A Procedures: See Section 6 of RFC 8285.
o MUX Category: IDENTICAL
o Reference: RFC 8285
11. Changes from RFC 5285
The major motivation for updating [RFC5285] was to allow having
one-byte and two-byte RTP header extensions in the same RTP stream
(but not in the same RTP packet). The support for this case is
negotiated using a new SDP attribute, "extmap-allow-mixed", specified
in this document.
The other major change is to update the requirement from the RTP
specifications [RFC3550] and [RFC5285] that the header extension "is
designed so that the header extension may be ignored." This is
described in Section 4.1.
More text was added to Section 4.1.1 ("Transmission Considerations")
to clarify when and how many times to send the RTP header extension
to provide a higher probability of delivery.
The Security Considerations section was expanded.
The rest of the changes are editorial.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2508] Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2508, February 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2508>.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6904] Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
12.2. Informative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553,
June 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.
[RFC5109] Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109,
December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.
[RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
Header Extensions", RFC 5285, DOI 10.17487/RFC5285,
July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5285>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7201] Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201>.
[RFC7667] Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7667, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7667>.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[SDP-BUNDLE]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-39, August 2017.
[SDP-MUX] Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
Multiplexing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-
mux-attributes-16, December 2016.
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.
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8285 RTP Header Extensions October 2017
Authors' Addresses
David Singer
Apple, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
United States of America
Phone: +1 408 996 1010
Email: singer@apple.com
URI: https://support.apple.com/quicktime
Harikishan Desineni
Qualcomm
10001 Pacific Heights Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92121
United States of America
Phone: +1 858 845 8996
Email: h3dnvb@gmail.com
Roni Even (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Tel Aviv
Israel
Email: Roni.even@huawei.com
Singer, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]