Internet DRAFT - draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan
draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan
Network Working Group C. Jennings
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational February 25, 2013
Expires: August 29, 2013
Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP
draft-jennings-rtcweb-plan-01
Abstract
This draft outlines a bunch of the remaining issues in RTCWeb related
to how the the W3C APIs map to various usages of RTP and the
associated SDP. It proposes one possible solution to that problem
and outlines several chunks of work that would need to be put into
other drafts or result in new drafts being written. The underlying
design guideline is to, as much as possible, re-use what is already
defined in existing SDP [RFC4566] and RTP [RFC3550] specifications.
This draft is not intended to become an specification but is meant
for working group discussion to help build the specifications. It is
being discussed on the rtcweb@ietf.org mailing list though it has
topics relating to the CLUE WG, MMUSIC WG, AVT* WG, and WebRTC WG at
W3C.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
published except as an Internet-Draft.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Background/Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Overall Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Example Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. One Audio, One Video, No bundle/multiplexing . . . . . . 12
6.2. One Audio, One Video, Bundle/multiplexing . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. One Audio, One Video, Simulcast, Bundle/multiplexing . . 12
6.4. One Audio, One Video, Bundle/multiplexing, Lip-Sync . . . 12
6.5. One Audio, One Active Video, 5 Thumbnails,
Bundle/multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.6. One Audio, One Active Video, 5 Thumbnails, Main
Speaker Lip-Sync, Bundle/multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Correlation and Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Multiple Render . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2.1. Complex Multi Render Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. Dirty Little Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.4. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.5. Confusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14. Existing SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.1. Multiple Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.2. Forward Error Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14.3. Same Video Codec With Different Settings . . . . . . . . 33
14.4. Different Video Codecs With Different Resolutions
Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14.5. Lip Sync Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14.6. BFCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14.7. Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
14.8. Layered coding dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
14.9. SSRC Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
14.10. Content Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
1. Overview
The reoccurring theme of this draft is that SDP [RFC4566] already has
a way of solving many of the problems being discussed at the RTCWeb
WG and we SHOULD not try to invent something new but rather re-use
the existing methods for describing RTP [RFC3550] media flows.
The general theory is that, roughly speaking, the m-line corresponds
to flow of packets that can be handled by the application in the same
way. This often results in more m-lines than there are media sources
such as microphones or cameras. Forward Error Correction (FEC) is
done with multiple M-lines as shown in [RFC4756]. Retransmission
(RTX) is done with multiple m-lines as shown in [RFC4588]. Layered
coding is done with multiple m-lines as shown in [RFC5583].
Simulcast, which is really just multiple video stream from the same
camera, much like layered coding but with no inter m-line dependency,
is done with multiple m-lines modeled after the Layered coding
defined in in [RFC5583].
The significant addition to SDP semantics is an multi-render media
level attribute that allows a device to indicate that it makes sense
to simultaneously use multiple stream of video that will be
simultaneously displayed but share the same SDP characteristics and
semantics such that they can all be negotiated under a single m-line.
When using features like RTX, FEC, and Simulcast in a multi-render
situation, there needs to be a way to correlate a given related media
flow with the correct "base" media-flow. This is accomplished by
having the related flows carry, in the CSRC, the SSRC of their base
flow. An example SDP might look like as provided in the example
Section 7.2.1.
This draft also propose that advanced usages, including WebRTC to
WebRTC scenarios, uses a Media Stream Identifier (MSID) that is
signaled in SDP and also attempts to negotiate the usage of a RTP
header extension to include the MSID in the RTP packet. This
resolves many long term issues.
This does results in lots of m lines but all the alternatives designs
resulted in an roughly equivalent number of SSRC lines with a
possibility of redefining most of the media level attributes. So
it's really hard to see the big benefits defining something new over
what we have. One of the concerns about this approach is the time to
collect all the ICE candidates needed for the initial offer.
Section 7.2.1 provides mitigations to reduce the number of ports
needed to be the same as an alternative SSRC based design. This
assumes that it is perfectly feasible to transport SDP that much
larger than a single MTU. The SIP [RFC3261] usage of SDP has
successfully passed over this long ago. In the cases where the SDP
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
is passed over web mechanisms, it is easy to use compression and the
size of SDP is more of an optimization criteria than a limiting
issue.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This draft uses the API and terminology described in [webrtc-api].
Transport-Flow: An transport 5 Tuple representing the UDP source and
destination IP address and port over which RTP is flowing.
5-tuple: A collection of the following values: source IP address,
source transport port, destination IP address, destination transport
port and transport protocol.
PC-Track: A source of media (audio and/or video) that is contained in
a PC-Stream. A PC-Track represents content comprising one or more
PC-Channels.
PC-Stream: Represents stream of data of audio and/or video added to a
Peer Connection by local or remote media source(s). A PC-Stream is
made up of zero or more PC-Tracks.
m-line: An SDP [RFC4566] media description identifier that starts
with "m=" field and conveys following values:media type,transport
port,transport protocol and media format descriptions.
m-block: An SDP [RFC4566] media description that starts with an
m-line and is terminated by either the next m-line or by the end of
the session description.
Offer: An [RFC3264] SDP message generated by the participant who
wishes to initiate a multimedia communication session. An Offer
describes participants capabilities for engaging in a multimedia
session.
Answer: An [RFC3264] SDP message generated by the participant in
response to an Offer. An Answer describes participants capabilities
in continuing with the multimedia session with in the constraints of
the Offer.
This draft avoids using terms that implementors do not have a clear
idea of exactly what they are - for example RTP Session.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
3. Requirements
The requirements listed here are a collection of requirements that
have come from WebRTC, CLUE, and the general community that uses RTP
for interactive communications based on Offer/Answer. It does not
try to meet the needs of streaming usages or usages involving
multicast. This list also does not try to list every possible
requirement but instead outlines the ones that might influence the
design.
o Devices with multiple audio and/or video sources
o Devices that display multiple streams of video and/or render
multiple streams of audio
o Simulcast, wherein a video from a single camera is sent in a few
independent video streams typically at different resolutions and
frame rates.
o Layered Codec such as H.264 SVC
o One way media flows and bi-directional media flows
o Support asymmetry, i.e. to send a different number of type of
media streams that you receive.
o Mapping W3C PeerConnection (PC) aspects into SDP and RTP. It is
important that the SDP be descriptive enough that both sides can
get the same view of various identifiers for PC-Tracks, PC-Streams
and their relationships.
o Support of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245]
o Support of multiplexing multiple media flows, possible of
different media types, on same 5-tuple.
o Synchronization - It needs to be clear how implementations deal
with synchronization, in particular usages of both CNAME and LS
group. The sender needs be able to indicate which Media Flows are
intended to be synchronized and which are not.
o Redundant codings - The ability to send some media, such as the
audio from a microphone, multiple times. For example it may be
sent with a high quality wideband codec and a low bandwidth codec.
If packets are lost from the high bandwidth steam, the low
bandwidth stream can be used to fill in the missing gaps of audio.
This is very similar to simulcast.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
o Forward Error Correction - Support for various RTP FEC schemes.
o RSVP QoS - Ability to signal various QoS mechanism such Single
Reservation Flow (SRF) group
o Desegregated Media (FID group) - There is a growing desire to deal
with endpoints that are distributed - for example a video phone
where the incoming video is displayed on the an IP TV but the
outgoing video comes from a tablet computer. This results in
situations where the SDP sets up a session with not all the media
transmitted to a single IP address.
o In flight change of codec: Support for system that can negotiate
the uses of more than one codec for a given media flow and then
the sender can arbitrarily switch between them when they are
sending but they only send with one codec as at time.
o Distinguish simulcast (e.g. multiple encoding of same source) from
multiple different sources
o Support for Sequential and Parallel forking at the SIP level
o Support for Early Media
o Conferencing environments with Transcoding MCU that decodes/mixes/
recodes the media
o Conferencing environments with Switching MCU where the MCU mucks
the header information of the media and do not decode/recode all
the media
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
4. Background/Solution Overview
The basic unit of media description in SDP is the m-line/m-block.
This allows any entity defined by a single m-block to be individually
negotiated. This negotiation applies not only to individual sources
(e.g., cameras) but also to individual components that come from a
single source, such as layers in SVC.
For example, consider negotiation of FEC as defined in [RFC4756].
Offer
v=0
o=adam 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=ULP FEC Seminar
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.0
a=group:FEC 1 2
a=group:FEC 3 4
m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
a=mid:1
m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 100
a=rtpmap:100 ulpfec/8000
a=mid:2
m=video 30004 RTP/AVP 31
a=mid:3
m=video 30004 RTP/AVP 101
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=rtpmap:101 ulpfec/8000
a=mid:4
When FEC is expressed this way, the answerer can selectively accept
or reject the various streams by setting the port in the m-line to
zero. RTX [RFC4588], layered coding [RFC5583], and Simulcast are all
handled the same way. Note that while it is also possible to
represent FEC and SVC using source-specific attributes [RFC5576],
that mechanism is less flexible because it does not permit selective
acceptance and rejection as described in [RFC 5576; Section 8]. Most
deployed systems which implement FEC, layered coding, etc. do so with
each component on a separate m-line.
Unfortunately, this strategy runs into problems when combined with
two new features that are desired for WebRTC:
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
m-line multiplexing (bundle):
The ability to send media described in multiple media over the
same 5-tuple.
multi-render:
The ability to have large numbers of multiple similar media flows
(e.g., multiple cameras). The paradigmatic case here is multiple
video thumbnails.
Obviously, this strategy does not scale to large numbers For
instance, consider the case where we want to be able to transmit 35
video thumbnails (this is large, but not insane). In the model
described above, each of these flows would need its own m-line and
its own set of codecs. If each side supports three separate codecs
(e.g., H.261, H.263, and VP8), then we have just consumed 105 payload
types, which exceeds the available dynamic payload space.
In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to have multiple
flows (e.g., multiple thumbnails) indicated by the same m-line and
using the same set of payload types (see Section XXX for proposed
syntax for this.) Because each source has its own SSRC, it is
possible to divide the RTP packets into individual flows. However,
this solution still leaves us with two problems:
o How to individually address specific RTP flows in order to, for
instance, order them on a page or display flow-specific captions.
o How to determine the relationship between multiple variants of the
same stream. For instance, if we have multiple cameras each of
which is present in a layered encoding, we need to be able to
determine which layers go together.
For reasons described in Section 5, the SSRC learned visa SDP is not
suitable for individually addressing RTP flows. Instead, we
introduce a new identifier, the MSID, which can be carried both in
the SDP and the RTP and therefore can be used to correlate SDP
elements to RTP elements. See Section 7.1
By contrast, we can use RTP-only mechanisms to express the
correlation between RTP flows: while all the flows associated with a
given camera have distinct SSIDs, we can use the CSRC to indicate
which flows belong together. This is described in Section 7.2
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
5. Overall Design
The basic unit of media description in SDP is the m-line/m-block and
this document continues with that assumption. In general, different
cameras, microphones, etc. are carried on different m-lines. The
exceptions to this rule is when using the multi-render extension in
which case:
o Multiple sources which are semantically equivalent and multiplexed
on a time-wise basis. For instance, if an MCU mixes multiple
camera feeds but only some subset is displayed at a time, they can
all appear on the same m-line.
By contrast, multiple sources which are semantically distinct cannot
appear on the same m-line because that does not allow for clear
negotiation of which sources are acceptable, or which sets of RTP
SSRCs correspond to which flow.
The second basic assumption is that SSRCs cannot always be safely
used to associate RTP flows with information in the SDP. There are
two reasons for this. First, in an offer/answer setting, RTP can
appear at the offerer before the answer is received; if SSRC
information from the offerer is required, then these RTP packets
cannot be interpreted. The second reason is that RTP permits SSRCs
to be changed at any time.
This assumption makes clear why the two exceptions to the "one flow
per m-line" rule work. In the case of time-based multiplexing (multi
render) of camera sources, all the cameras are equivalent from the
receiver's perspective; he merely needs to know which ones to display
now and he does that based on which ones have been most recently
received. In the case of multiple versions of the same content,
payload types or payload types plus SSRC can be used to distinguish
the different versions.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
6. Example Mappings
This section shows a number of sample mappings in abstract form.
6.1. One Audio, One Video, No bundle/multiplexing
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker > 5-Tuple
Camera --> m=video --> Window > 5-Tuple
6.2. One Audio, One Video, Bundle/multiplexing
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker \
> 5-Tuple
Camera --> m=video --> Window /
6.3. One Audio, One Video, Simulcast, Bundle/multiplexing
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker \
|
Camera +-> m=video -\ > 5-Tuple
| ?-> Window |
+-> m=video -/ /
6.4. One Audio, One Video, Bundle/multiplexing, Lip-Sync
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker \
> 5-Tuple, Lip-Sync
Camera --> m=video --> Window / group
6.5. One Audio, One Active Video, 5 Thumbnails, Bundle/multiplexing
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker \
|
Camera --> m=video --> Window |
> 5-Tuple
Camera --> m=video --> 5 Small Windows |
Camera a=multi-render:5 |
... /
Note that in this case the payload types must be distinct between the
two video m-lines, because that is what is used to demultiplex.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
6.6. One Audio, One Active Video, 5 Thumbnails, Main Speaker Lip-Sync,
Bundle/multiplexing
Microphone --> m=audio --> Speaker \ \ Lip-sync
| > group
Camera --> m=video --> Window | /
> 5-Tuple
Camera --> m=video --> 5 Small Windows |
Camera a=multi-render:5 |
... /
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
7. Solutions
This section outlines a set of rules for the usage of SDP and RTP
that seems to deal with the various problems and issues that have
been discussed. Most of these are not new and are pretty much how
many systems do it today. Some of them are new, but all the items
requiring new standardization work are called out in the Section 9.
Approach:
1. If a system wants to offer to send two sources, such as two
camera, it MUST use a separate m-block for each source. The
means that each PC-Track corresponds to one or more m-blocks.
2. In cases such as FEC, simulcast, SVC, each repair stream, layer,
or simulcast media flow will get an m-block per media flow.
3. If a systems wants to receive two streams of video to display in
two different windows or screens, it MUST use separate m-blocks
for each unless explicitly signaled to be otherwise (see
Section 7.2).
4. Unless explicitly signaled otherwise (see Section 7.2), if a
given m-line receives media from multiple SSRCs, only media from
the most recently received SSRC SHOULD be rendered and other
SSRC SHOULD NOT and if it is video it SHOULD be rendered in the
same window or screen.
5. If a camera is sending simulcast video and three resolutions,
each resolution MUST get its own m-block and all the three
m-blocks will be grouped. A new SDP group will be defined for
this.
6. If a camera is using a layered codec with three layers, there
MUST be an m-block for each, and they will be grouped using
standard SDP for grouping layers.
7. To aid in synchronized playback, there is exactly one, and only
one, LS group for each PC-Stream. All the m-blocks for all the
PC-Tracks in a given PC-Stream are synchronized so they are all
put in one LS group. All the PC-Tracks in a given PC-Stream
have the same CNAME. If a PC-Track appears in more than one PC-
Stream, then all the PC-Streams with that PC-Track MUST have the
same CNAME.
8. One way media MUST use the sendonly or recvonly attributes.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
9. Media lines that are not currently in use but may be used later,
so that the resources need to be kept allocated, SHOULD use the
inactive attribute.
10. If an m-line will not be used, or it is rejected, it MUST have
its port set to zero.
11. If a video switching MCU produces a virtual "active speaker"
media flow, that media flow should have its own SSRC but include
the SSRC of the current speaker's video in the CSRC packets it
produces.
12. For each PC-Track, the W3C API MUST provide a way to set and
read the CSRC list, set and read the content RFC 4574 "label",
and read the SSRC of last packet received on a PC-Track.
13. The W3C API should have a constraint or API method to allow a
PC-Stream to indicate the number of multi-render video streams
it can accept. Each time a new stream is received up to the
maximum, a new PC-Track will be created.
14. Applications MAY signal all the SSRC they intend to send using
RFC 5576, but receivers need to be careful in their usage of the
SSRC in signaling, as the SSRC can change when there is a
collision and it takes time before that will be updated in
signaling.
15. Applications can get out of band "roster information" that maps
the names of various speakers or other information to the MSID
and/or SSRCs that a user is using
16. Applications MAY use RFC 4574 content labels to indicate the
purpose of the video. The additional content types, main-left
and main-right, need to be added to support two- and three-
screen systems.
17. The CLUE WG might want to consider SDP to signal the 3D location
and field of view parameters for captures and renderers.
18. The W3C API allows a "label" to be set for the PC-Track. This
MUST be mapped to the SDP label attribute.
7.1. Correlation and Multiplexing
The port number that RTP is received on provides the primary
mechanism for correlating it to the correct m-line. However, when
the port does not uniquely male the RTP packet to the correct m-block
(such as in multiplexing and other cases), the next thing that can be
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
looked at is the PT number. Finally there are cases where SSRC can
be used if that was signaled.
There are some complications when using SSRC for correlation with
signaling. First, the offerer may end up receiving RTP packets
before receiving the signaling with the SSRC correlation information.
This is because the sender of the RTP chooses the SSRC; there is no
way for the receiver to signal how some of the bits in the SSRC
should be set. Numerous attempts to provide a way to do this have
been made, but they have all been rejected for various reasons, so
this situation is unlikely to change. The second issue is that the
signaled SSRC can change, particularly in collision cases, and there
is no good way to know when SSRC are changing, such that the
currently signaled SSRC usage maps to the actual RTP SSRC usage.
Finally SSRC does not always provide correlation information between
media flows - take for example trying to look at SSRC to tell that an
audio media flow and video media flow came from the same camera. The
nice thing about SSRC is that they are also included in the RTP.
The proposal here is to extend the MSID draft to meet these needs:
each media flow would have a unique MSID and the MSID would have some
level of internal structure, which would allow various forms of
correlation, including what WebRTC needs to be able to recreate the
MS-Stream / MS-Track hierarchy to be the same on both sides. In
addition, this work proposes creating an optional RTP header
extension that could be used to carry the MSID for a media flow in
the RTP packets. This is not absolutely needed for the WebRTC use
cases but it helps in the case where media arrives before signaling
and it helps resolve a broader category of web conferencing use
cases.
The MSID consists of three things and can be extended to have more.
It has a device identifier, which corresponds to a unique identifier
of the device that created the offer; one or more synchronization
context identifiers, which is a number that helps correlate different
synchronized media flows; and a media flow identifier. The
synchronization identifier and flow identifier are scoped within the
context of the device identifier, but the device identifier is
globally unique. The suggested device identifier is a 64-bit random
number. The synchronization group is an integer that is the same for
all media flows that have this device identifier and are meant to be
synchronized. Right now there can be more than one synchronization
identifier, but the open issues suggest that one would be preferable.
The flow identifier is an integer that uniquely identifies this media
flow within the context of the device identifier.
Open Issues: how to know if the MSID RTP Header Extension should be
included in the RTP?
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
An example MSID for a device identifier of 12345123451234512345,
synchronization group of 1, and a media flow id of 3 would be:
a=msid:12345123451234512345 s:1 f:3
When the MSID is used in an answer, the MSID also has the remote
device identifier included. In the case where the device ID of the
device sending the answer was 22222333334444455555, the MSID would
look like:
a=msid:22222333334444455555 s:1 f:3 r:12345123451234512345
Note: The 64 bit size for the device identifier was chosen as it
allows less than a one in a million chance of collision with greater
than 10,000 flows (actually it allows this probability with more like
6 million flows). Much smaller numbers could be used but 32 bits is
probably too small. More discussion on the size of this and the
color of the bike shed is needed.
When used in the WebRTC context, each PeerConnection should generate
a unique device identifier. Each PC-Stream in the PeerConnection
will get a a unique synchronization group identifier, and each PC-
Track in the Peer Connection will get a unique flow identifier.
Together these will be used to form the MSID. The MSID MUST be
included in the SDP offer or answer so that the WebRTC connection on
the remote side can form the correct structure of remote PC-Streams
and PC-Tracks. If a WebRTC client receives an Offer with no MSID
information and no LS group information, it MUST put all the remote
PC-Tracks into a single PC-Stream. If there is LS group information
but no MSID, a PC-Stream for each LS group MUST be created and the
PC-Tracks put in the appropriate PC-Stream.
The W3C specs should be updated to have the ID attribute of the MS-
Stream be the MSID with no flow identifier, and the ID attribute of
the MS-Track be the MSID.
In addition, the SDP will attempt to negotiate sending the MSID in
the RTP using a RTP Header Extension. WebRTC clients SHOULD also
include the a=ssrc attributes if they know which SSRC they plan to
send but they can not rely on this not changing, being compete, or
existing in all offers or answers they receive - particularly when
working with SIP endpoints.
When using multiplexing, the SDP MUST be distinct enough where the
combination of payload type number and SSRC allows for unique
demultiplexing of all the media on the same transport flow without
use of MSID though the MSID can help in several use cases.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
7.2. Multiple Render
There are cases - such as a grid of security cameras or thumbnails in
a video conference - where a receiver is willing to receive and
display several media flows of video. The proposal here is to create
a new media level attribute called multi-render that includes an
integer that indicates how many streams can be rendered at the same
time.
As an example of a m-block, a system that could display 16 thumbnails
at the same time and was willing to receive H261 or H264 might offer
Offer
m=video 52886 RTP/AVP 98 99
a=multi-render:16
a=rtpmap:98 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000
a=fmtp:99 profile-level-id=4de00a;
packetization-mode=0; mst-mode=NI-T;
sprop-parameter-sets={sps0},{pps0};
When combining this multi-render feature with multiplexing, the
answer will might not know all the SSRCs that will be send to this
m-block so it is best to use payload type (PT) numbers that are
unique for the SDP: the demultiplexing may have to only use the PT if
the SSRCs are unknown.
The intention is that the most recently sent SSRC are the ones that
are rendered. Some switching MCU will likely only send the correct
number of SSRC and not change the SSRC but will instead update the
CSRC as the switching MCU select a different participant to include
in the particular video stream.
The receiver displays, in different windows, the video from the most
recent 16 SSRC to send video to m-block.
This allows a switching MCU to know how many thumbnail type streams
would be appropriate to send to this endpoint.
7.2.1. Complex Multi Render Example
The following shows a single multi render m-line that can display up
to three video streams, and send 3 streams, and support 2 layers of
simulcast with FEC on the high resolution layer and bundle. Note
that only host candidates are provided for the FEC and lower
resolution simulcast so if the device is behind a NAT, those streams
will not be used.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
v=0
o=alice 20519 0 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=ULP FEC
t=0 0
a=ice-ufrag:074c6550
a=ice-pwd:a28a397a4c3f31747d1ee3474af08a068
a=fingerprint:sha-1 99:41:49:83:4a:97:0e:1f:ef:6d:f7:
c9:c7:70:9d:1f:66:79:a8:07
c= IN IP4 24.23.204.141
a=group:BUNDLE vid1 vid2 vid3
a=group:FEC vid1 vid2
a=group:SIMULCAST vid1 vid3
m=video 62537 RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:vid1
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:12345123451234512345 s:1 f:1
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:96 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=imageattr:96 [x=1280,y=720]
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.4 62537 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 694302207 24.23.204.141 62537
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.4 rport 62537
a=candidate:0 2 UDP 2113667326 192.168.1.4 64678 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 UDP 1694302206 24.23.204.141 64678
typ rflx raddr 192.168.1.4 rport 64678
m=video 62541 RTP/SAVPF 97
a=mid:vid2
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:34567345673456734567 s:1 f:2
a=rtpmap:97 uplfec/90000
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.4 62541 typ host
m=video 62545 RTP/SAVPF 98
a=mid:vid3
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:333444558899000991122 s:1 f:3
a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:98 max-fr=15;max-fs=300;
a=imageattr:96 [x=320,y=240]
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.4 62545 typ host
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
The following shows an answer to the above offer that accepts
everything and plans to send video from five different cameras in to
this m-line (but only three at a time).
Answer
v=0
o=Bob 20519 0 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=ULP FEC
t=0 0
a=ice-ufrag:c300d85b
a=ice-pwd:de4e99bd291c325921d5d47efbabd9a2
a=fingerprint:sha-1 99:41:49:83:4a:97:0e:1f:ef:6d:f7:
c9:c7:70:9d:1f:66:79:a8:07
c= IN IP4 98.248.92.77
a=group:BUNDLE vid1 vid2 vid3
a=group:FEC vid1 vid2
a=group:SIMULCAST vid1 vid3
m=video 42537 RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:vid1
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:54321543215432154321 s:1 f:1 r:12345123451234512345
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:96 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=imageattr:96 [x=1280,y=720]
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.7 42537 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 1694302207 98.248.92.77 42537
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 42537
a=candidate:0 2 UDP 2113667326 192.168.1.7 60065 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 UDP 1694302206 98.248.92.77 60065
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 60065
m=video 42539 RTP/SAVPF 97
a=mid:vid2
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:11111122222233333444444 s:1 f:2 r:34567345673456734567
a=rtpmap:97 uplfec/90000
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.7 42539 typ host
m=video 42537 RTP/SAVPF 98
a=mid:vid3
a=multi-render:3
a=rtcp-mux
a=msid:777777888888999999111111 s:1 f:3 r:333444558899000991122
a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
a=fmtp:98 max-fr=15;max-fs=300;
a=imageattr:98 [x=320,y=240]
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.7 42537 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 1694302207 98.248.92.77 42537
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 42537
a=candidate:0 2 UDP 2113667326 192.168.1.7 60065 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 UDP 1694302206 98.248.92.77 60065
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 60065
The following shows an answer to the above by a client that does not
support simulcast, FEC, bundle, or msid.
Answer
v=0
o=Bob 20519 0 IN IP4 0.0.0.0
s=ULP FEC
t=0 0
a=ice-ufrag:c300d85b
a=ice-pwd:de4e99bd291c325921d5d47efbabd9a2
a=fingerprint:sha-1 99:41:49:83:4a:97:0e:1f:ef:6d:f7:
c9:c7:70:9d:1f:66:79:a8:07
c= IN IP4 98.248.92.77
m=video 42537 RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:vid1
a=rtcp-mux
a=recvonly
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:96 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2113667327 192.168.1.7 42537 typ host
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 1694302207 98.248.92.77 42537
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 42537
a=candidate:0 2 UDP 2113667326 192.168.1.7 60065 typ host
a=candidate:1 2 UDP 1694302206 98.248.92.77 60065
typ srflx raddr 192.168.1.7 rport 60065
m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 97
a=mid:vid2
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:97 uplfec/90000
m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 98
a=mid:vid3
a=rtcp-mux
a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=428014;
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
max-fs=3600; max-mbps=108000; max-br=14000
7.3. Dirty Little Secrets
If SDP offer/answers are of type AVP or AVPF but contain a crypto of
fingerprint attribute, they should be treated as if they were SAVP or
SAVPF respectively. The Answer should have the same type as the
offer but for all practical purposes the implementation should treat
it as the secure variant.
If SDP offer/answers are of type AVP or SAVP, but contain an
a=rtcp-fb attribute, they should be treated as if they were AVPF or
SAVPF respectively. The SDP Answer should have the same type as the
Offer but for all practical purposes the implementation should treat
it as the feedback variant.
If an SDP Offer has both a fingerprint and a crypto attribute, it
means the Offerer supports both DTLS-SRTP and SDES and the answer
should select one and return an Answer with only an attribute for the
selected keying mechanism.
These may not look appealing but the alternative is to make cap-neg
mandatory to implement in WebRTC.
7.4. Open Issues
What do do with unrecognized media received at W3C PerrConnection
level? Suggestion is it creates a new track in whatever stream the
MSID would indicate if present and the default stream if no MSID
header extension in the RTP.
7.5. Confusions
You can decrypt DTLS-SRTP media before receiving an answer, you can't
determine if it is secure or not till you have the fingerprint and
have verified it
You can use RTCP-FB to do things like PLI without signaling the SSRC.
The PLI packets gets the sender SSRC from the incoming media that is
trying to signal the PLI for.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
8. Examples
Example of a video client joining a video conference. The client can
produce and receive two streams of video, one from the slides and the
other of the person. The video of the person is synchronized with
the audio. In addition, the client can display up to 10 thumbnails
of video. The main video is simulcast at HD size and a thumbnail
size.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=group:LS 1,2,3
a=group:SIMULCAST 2,3
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 96 <- This is the Audio
a=mid:1
a=rtpmap:96 iLBC/8000
a=content:main
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 97 <- This is the main video
a=mid:2
a=rtpmap:97 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:97 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=imageattr:97 [x=1080,y=720]
a=content:main
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 98 <- This is the slides
a=mid:2
a=rtpmap:98 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:98 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=imageattr:98 [x=1080,y=720]
a=content:slides
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 99 <- This is the simulcast of main
a=mid:3
a=rtpmap:99 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:99 max-fr=15;max-fs=300;
a=imageattr:99 [x=320,y=240]
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 100 <- This is the 10 thumbnails
a=mid:4
a=multi-render:10
a=recvonly
a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:100 max-fr=15;max-fs=300;
a=imageattr:100 [x=320,y=240]
Example of a three-screen video endpoint connecting to a two-screen
system which ends up selecting the left and middle screens.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
a=rtcp-fb
m=audio 49100 RTP/SAVPF 96
a=rtpmap:96 iLBC/8000
m=video 49102 RTP/SAVPF 97
a=content:main
a=rtpmap:97 H261/90000
m=video 49104 RTP/SAVPF 98
a=content:left
a=rtpmap:98 H261/90000
m=video 49106 RTP/SAVPF 99
a=content:right
a=rtpmap:99 H261/90000
Answer
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844565 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t= 0 0
a=rtcp-fb
m=audio 50100 RTP/SAVPF 96
a=rtpmap:96 iLBC/8000
m=video 50102 RTP/SAVPF 97
a=content:main
a=rtpmap:97 H261/90000
m=video 50104 RTP/SAVPF 98
a=content:left
a=rtpmap:98 H261/90000
m=video 0 RTP/SAVPF 99
a=content:right
a=rtpmap:99 H261/90000
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Example of a client that supports SRTP-DTLS and SDES connecting to a
client that supports SRTP-DTLS.
Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 99
a=fingerprint:sha-1 99:41:49:83:4a:97:0e:1f:ef:6d
:f7:c9:c7:70:9d:1f:66:79:a8:07
a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80
inline:d0RmdmcmVCspeEc3QGZiNWpVLFJhQX1cfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32
a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 96
a=fingerprint:sha-1 92:81:49:83:4a:23:0a:0f:1f:9d:f7:
c0:c7:70:9d:1f:66:79:a8:07
a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_32
inline:NzB4d1BINUAvLEw6UzF3WSJ+PSdFcGdUJShpX1Zj|2^20|1:32
a=rtpmap:96 H261/90000
Answer
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844565 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 99
a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80
inline:d0RmdmcmVCspeEc3QGZiNWpVLFJhQX1cfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32
a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000
m=video 51374 RTP/AVP 96
a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80
inline:d0RmdmcmVCspeEc3QGZiNWpVLFJhQX1cfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32
a=rtpmap:96 H261/90000
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
9. Tasks
This section outlines work that needs to be done in various
specifications to make the proposal here actually happen.
Tasks:
1. Extend the W3C API to be able to set and read the CSRC list for
a PC-Track.
2. Extend the W3C API to be able to read SSRC of last RTP packed
received.
3. Write an RTP Header Extension draft to cary the MSID.
4. Fix up MSID draft to align with this proposal.
5. Write a draft to add left, right to the SDP content attribute.
Add the stuff to the W3C API to read and write this on a track.
6. Write a draft on SDP "SIMULCAST" group to signal multiple
m-block as are simulcast of same video content.
7. Complete the bundle draft.
8. Provide guidance for ways to use SDP for reduced glare when
adding of one way media streams.
9. Write a draft defining the multi render attribute.
10. Change W3C API to say that a PC-Track can be in only one
PeerConnection or make an object inside the PeerConnection for
each track in the PC that can be used to set constraints and
settings and get information related to the RTP flow.
11. Sort out how to tell a PC-Track, particularly one meant for
receiving information, that it can do simulcast, layered coding,
RTX, FEC, etc.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
10. Security Considerations
TBD
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
11. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
12. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Suhas Nandakumar, Eric Rescorla, Charles Eckel,
Mo Zanaty, and Lyndsay Campbell for help with this draft.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
13. Open Issues
The overall solution is complicated considerably by the fact that
WebRTC allows a PC-Track to be used in more than one PC-Stream but
requires only one copy of the RTP data for the track to be sent. I
am not aware of any use case for this and think it should be removed.
If a PC-Track needs to be synchronized with two different things,
they should all go in one PC-Stream instead of two.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
14. Existing SDP
The following shows some examples of SDP today that any new system
needs to be able to receive and work with in a backwards compatible
way.
14.1. Multiple Encodings
Multiple codecs accepted on same m-line [RFC4566].
Offer
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 99
a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 31 32
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
Answer
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844565 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
s=
c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
t=0 0
m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 99
a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000
m=video 51374 RTP/AVP 31 32
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=rtpmap:32 MPV/90000
This means that a sender can switch back and forth between H261 and
MVP without any further signaling. The receiver MUST be capable of
receiving both formats. At any point in time, only one video format
is sent, thus implying that only one video is meant to be displayed.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
14.2. Forward Error Correction
Multiple m-blocks identified with respective "mid" grouped to
indicate FEC operation using FEC-FR semantics defined in [RFC5956].
Offer
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=Raptor RTP FEC Example
t=0 0
a=group:FEC-FR S1 R1
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
a=fec-source-flow: id=0
a=mid:S1
m=application 30000 RTP/AVP 110
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/127
a=rtpmap:110 raptorfec/90000
a=fmtp:110 raptor-scheme-id=1; Kmax=8192; T=128;
P=A; repair-window=200000
a=mid:R1
14.3. Same Video Codec With Different Settings
This example shows a single codec,say H.264, signaled with different
settings [RFC4566].
Offer
v=0
m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 100 99 98
a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42A01E; packetization-mode=0;
sprop-parameter-sets=Z0IACpZTBYmI,aMljiA==
a=rtpmap:99 H264/90000
a=fmtp:99 profile-level-id=42A01E; packetization-mode=1;
sprop-parameter-sets=Z0IACpZTBYmI,aMljiA==
a=rtpmap:100 H264/90000
a=fmtp:100 profile-level-id=42A01E; packetization-mode=2;
sprop-parameter-sets=Z0IACpZTBYmI,aMljiA==;
sprop-interleaving-depth=45; sprop-deint-buf-req=64000;
sprop-init-buf-time=102478; deint-buf-cap=128000
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
14.4. Different Video Codecs With Different Resolutions Formats
The SDP below shows some m-blocks with various ways to specify
resolutions for video codecs signaled [RFC4566].
Offer
m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 31
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=fmtp:31 CIF=2;QCIF=1;D=1
m=video 49172 RTP/AVP 99
a=rtpmap:99 jpeg2000/90000
a=fmtp:99 sampling=YCbCr-4:2:0;width=128;height=128
m=video 49174 RTP/AVP 96
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=fmtp:96 max-fr=30;max-fs=3600;
a=imageattr:96 [x=1280,y=720]
14.5. Lip Sync Group
[RFC5888] grouping semantics for Lip Synchronization between audio
and video
Offer
v=0
o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 one.example.com
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
t=0 0
a=group:LS 1 2
m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
a=mid:1
m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
a=mid:2
14.6. BFCP
[RFC4583] defines SDP format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
as shown below
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
m=application 50000 TCP/TLS/BFCP *
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=floorctrl:s-only
a=confid:4321
a=userid:1234
a=floorid:1 m-stream:10
a=floorid:2 m-stream:11
m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 0
a=label:10
m=video 50004 RTP/AVP 31
a=label:11
Answer
m=application 50000 TCP/TLS/BFCP *
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=floorctrl:s-only
a=confid:4321
a=userid:1234
a=floorid:1 m-stream:10
a=floorid:2 m-stream:11
m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 0
a=label:10
m=video 50004 RTP/AVP 31
a=label:11
14.7. Retransmission
The SDP given below shows SDP signaling for retransmission of the
original media stream(s) as defined in [RFC4756]
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
v=0
o=mascha 2980675221 2980675778 IN IP4 host.example.net
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.0
a=group:FID 1 2
a=group:FID 3 4
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVPF 96
a=rtpmap:96 AMR/8000
a=fmtp:96 octet-align=1
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack
a=mid:1
m=audio 49172 RTP/AVPF 97
a=rtpmap:97 rtx/8000
a=fmtp:97 apt=96;rtx-time=3000
a=mid:2
m=video 49174 RTP/AVPF 98
a=rtpmap:98 MP4V-ES/90000
a=rtcp-fb:98 nack
a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=8;config=01010000012000884006682C209\
0A21F
a=mid:3
m=video 49176 RTP/AVPF 99
a=rtpmap:99 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:99 apt=98;rtx-time=3000
a=mid:4
Note that RTX RFC also has the following SSRC multiplexing example
but this is meant for declarative use of SDP as there was no way in
this RFC to accept, reject, or otherwise negotiate this in a an offer
/ answer SDP usage.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
SDP
v=0
o=mascha 2980675221 2980675778 IN IP4 host.example.net
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.0
m=video 49170 RTP/AVPF 96 97
a=rtpmap:96 MP4V-ES/90000
a=rtcp-fb:96 nack
a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=8;config=01010000012000884006682C209\
0A21F
a=rtpmap:97 rtx/90000
a=fmtp:97 apt=96;rtx-time=3000
14.8. Layered coding dependency
[RFC5583] "depend" attribute is shown here to indicate dependency
between layers represented by the individual m-blocks
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Offer
a=group:DDP L1 L2 L3
m=video 20000 RTP/AVP 96 97 98
a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=4de00a; packetization-mode=0;
mst-mode=NI-T; sprop-parameter-sets={sps0},{pps0};
a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4de00a; packetization-mode=1;
mst-mode=NI-TC; sprop-parameter-sets={sps0},{pps0};
a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=4de00a; packetization-mode=2;
mst-mode=I-C; init-buf-time=156320;
sprop-parameter-sets={sps0},{pps0};
a=mid:L1
m=video 20002 RTP/AVP 99 100
a=rtpmap:99 H264-SVC/90000
a=fmtp:99 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=1;
mst-mode=NI-T; sprop-parameter-sets={sps1},{pps1};
a=rtpmap:100 H264-SVC/90000
a=fmtp:100 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2;
mst-mode=I-C; sprop-parameter-sets={sps1},{pps1};
a=mid:L2
a=depend:99 lay L1:96,97; 100 lay L1:98
m=video 20004 RTP/AVP 101
a=rtpmap:101 H264-SVC/90000
a=fmtp:101 profile-level-id=53001F; packetization-mode=1;
mst-mode=NI-T; sprop-parameter-sets={sps2},{pps2};
a=mid:L3
a=depend:101 lay L1:96,97 L2:99
14.9. SSRC Signaling
[RFC5576] "ssrc" attribute is shown here to signal synchronization
sources in a given RTP Session
Offer
m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 96
a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
a=ssrc:12345 cname:user@example.com
a=ssrc:67890 cname:user@example.com
This indicates what the sender will send. It's at best a guess
because in the case of SSRC collision, it's all wrong. It does not
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
allow one to reject a stream. It does not mean that both streams are
displayed at the same time.
14.10. Content Signaling
[RFC4796] "content" attribute is used to specify the semantics of
content represented by the video streams.
Offer
v=0
o=Alice 292742730 29277831 IN IP4 131.163.72.4
s=Second lecture from information technology
c=IN IP4 131.164.74.2
t=0 0
m=video 52886 RTP/AVP 31
a=rtpmap:31 H261/9000
a=content:slides
m=video 53334 RTP/AVP 31
a=rtpmap:31 H261/9000
a=content:speaker
m=video 54132 RTP/AVP 31
a=rtpmap:31 H261/9000
a=content:sl
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC4583] Camarillo, G., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format
for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams",
RFC 4583, November 2006.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
July 2006.
[RFC4756] Li, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
Session Description Protocol", RFC 4756, November 2006.
[RFC4796] Hautakorpi, J. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Content Attribute", RFC 4796,
February 2007.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010.
[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
[RFC5583] Schierl, T. and S. Wenger, "Signaling Media Decoding
Dependency in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
RFC 5583, July 2009.
[RFC5888] Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888, June 2010.
[RFC5956] Begen, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
the Session Description Protocol", RFC 5956,
September 2010.
[webrtc-api]
Bergkvist, Burnett, Jennings, Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0:
Real-time Communication Between Browsers", October 2011.
Available at
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb Plan February 2013
Author's Address
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 350
Calgary, AB T2P 4H2
Canada
Email: fluffy@iii.ca
Jennings Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 42]
