GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8285

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8285.txt · Last modified: 2017/10/26 00:14 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki