Audio/Video Transport WG Ari Lakaniemi Internet Draft Nokia Intended status: Standards track Ye-Kui Wang Expires: April 2010 Huawei Technologies October 22, 2009 RTP payload format for G.718 speech/audio draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g718-02.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 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 BSD License. Abstract This document specifies the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload format for the Embedded Variable Bit-Rate (EV-VBR) speech/audio codec, specified in ITU-T G.718. A media type registration for this RTP payload format is also included. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. Background.....................................................3 2.1. The G.718 codec...........................................3 2.2. Benefits of layered design................................5 2.3. Transmitting layered data.................................5 2.4. Scaling scenarios & rate control..........................6 3. G.718 RTP payload format.......................................7 3.1. Payload Structure.........................................7 3.1.1. Payload Header.......................................7 3.1.2. G.718 transport blocks...............................8 3.2. Handling the Encoded data................................11 3.3. G.718 scaling............................................13 3.4. CRC verification.........................................14 3.5. G.718 session............................................14 3.6. Cross-stream/cross-layer timing synchronization..........14 3.7. RTP Header usage.........................................15 4. Payload Format Parameters.....................................15 4.1. Media Type Registration..................................15 4.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters................................17 4.3. Offer/answer considerations..............................18 4.4. Declarative usage of SDP.................................18 4.5. SDP examples.............................................18 Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 5. Security Considerations.......................................20 6. Congestion control............................................21 7. IANA Considerations...........................................22 APPENDIX A: Payload examples.....................................23 A.1. Simple payload examples..................................23 A.1.1. All the layers in the same payload..................23 A.1.2. Layers in separate RTP streams......................24 A.2. Advanced examples........................................25 A.2.1. Different update rate for subset of layers..........25 A.2.2. Redundant frames with limited set of layers.........26 8. References....................................................28 8.1. Normative References.....................................28 8.2. Informative References...................................29 Author's Addresses...............................................30 Acknowledgment...................................................30 9. Open Issues...................................................30 10. Changes Log..................................................31 1. Introduction The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation G.718 [G.718] specifies the Embedded Variable Bit Rate (EV-VBR) speech/audio codec. This document specifies the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] payload format for this codec. 2. Background 2.1. The G.718 codec G.718 is an embedded variable rate speech codec having a layered design. The bitstream of the G.718 core codec consists of a core layer, denoted as L1, and four enhancement layers, denoted as L2-L5. The bit-rates of the G.718 core codec range from 8 kbit/s (core layer only) to 32 kbit/s (with all layers up to L5). Furthermore, the G.718 codec supports also discontinuous transmission (DTX) and comfort noise generation (CNG) by sending Silence Descriptor (SID) frames during periods of non-active input signal, resulting in a reduced bit-rate. The sampling frequency of the core codec is 16 kHz and the codec operates on 20 ms frames. The G.718 codec is also capable of narrowband operation with audio input and/or output at 8 kHz sampling frequency. While transmitting/receiving the core layer L1 is enough for successful decoding of the audio content, each of the enhancement layers Ln (n being 2 to 5, inclusive) provides an improvement to reconstructed audio quality. Thus, the core layer ensures the basic communication while the enhancement layers can be used to improve the Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 perceptual quality. Furthermore, enhancement layers are dependent on all the lower layers in a sense that successful decoding of layer Ln requires also all the layers Lm with mn MUST also be discarded. 3.5. G.718 session An G.718 session consists of one or several RTP sessions carrying encoded G.718 data according the payload format specified in section 3.1. 3.6. Cross-stream/cross-layer timing synchronization In case an G.718 session consists of multiple RTP sessions, the RTP packets transmitted on separate RTP sessions need to be synchronized in order to enable reconstruction of the frames in the receiving end. Since each of the RTP sessions uses its own random initial value for the RTP timestamp, there is also a random offset between the RTP Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 timestamps values carrying the EDUs belonging to the same encoded frame in different RTP sessions. The receiver MUST use the traditional RTCP based mechanism to synchronize streams by using the RTP and NTP timestamps of the RTCP Sender Reports (SR) it receives. 3.7. RTP Header usage This section specifies the usage of some fields of the RTP header (specified in section 5 of [RFC3550]) with the G.718 RTP payload format. Setting of other RTP header fields is as specified in [RFC3550]. The RTP timestamp corresponds to the sampling instant of the first encoded sample of the earliest frame in the payload. The timestamp clock frequency is 32 kHz. The marker bit (M) of each of the RTP streams of the session SHALL be set to value 1 if the payload carries an EDU belonging to the first frame after an inactive period, i.e. an EDU from the first frame of a talkspurt. For all other packets the marker bit is set to value 0. 4. Payload Format Parameters This section defines the parameters that may be used to configure optional features in the G.718 RTP transmission. The parameters are defined here as part of the media subtype registration for the G.718 codec. Mapping of the parameters into the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] is also provided for those applications that use SDP. In control protocols that do not use MIME or SDP, the media type parameters must be mapped to the appropriate format used with that control protocol. 4.1. Media Type Registration This registration is done using the template defined in RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and following RFC 4855 [RFC4855]. Type name: audio Subtype name: G718 Required parameters: none Optional parameters: Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 mode: This parameter MAY be used to indicate whether the mode with layer L1 being present or the AMR-WB compatible mode (with layer L1' being present) is in use. If this parameter is not present or the value of this parameter is equal to 0, the mode with layer L1 being present is in use. Otherwise, the AMR-WB compatible mode is in use. When this parameter is present, the value MUST be either 0 or 1. Author's note: When the upcoming stereo and SWB options are present, the semantics of this parameter may change. layers: The numbers of the layers (in range from 1 to 5, denoting layers from L1 to L5, respectively) transmitted in this session, expressed as comma- separated list of layer numbers. If the parameter is present, at least layer L1 or L1' MUST be included in the list of layers in one of the RTP sessions included in the G.718 session. If the parameter is not present, all layers up to layer L5 MAY be used in the session. Author's note: Why not use semantics similarly as L-ID? ptime: The recommended length of time (in milliseconds) represented by the media in a packet. See Section 6 of [RFC4566]. maxptime: The maximum length of time (in milliseconds) that can be encapsulated in a packet. See Section 6 of [RFC4566] Author's note: Some further study is needed to see if separate parameters for sending and receiving capabilities/preferences are needed -- especially for upcoming stereo and SWB options. Author's note: The support for upcoming SWB and stereo options needs to be taken into account. Basically we can either 1) extend the parameter "layers" to cover also this aspect, or 2) define separate parameter(s) for these new options when more details on the stereo/SWB support are available. Encoding considerations: This media type is framed and contains binary data; see Section 4.8 of [RFC4288]. Security considerations: See Section 6 of RFC xxxx Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 Interoperability considerations: none Published specification: RFC xxxx Applications which use this media type: For example Voice over IP, audio and video conferencing, audio streaming and voice messaging. Additional information: none Person & email address to contact for further information: Ari Lakaniemi, ari.lakaniemi@nokia.com Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550] Author: Ari Lakaniemi, ari.lakaniemi@nokia.com Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the IESG 4.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters The information carried in the media type specification has a specific mapping to fields of the SDP [RFC4566], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP is used to specify sessions employing the G.718 codec, the mapping is as follows: o The media type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name. o The media subtype ("G718") goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding name. The RTP clock rate in "a=rtpmap" MUST be 32000 for G.718. Author's note: The current choice for the RTP clock rate is a 'placeholder'. The clock rate needs to be set according to SWB sampling rate, which is still T.B.D. Since the core codec employs Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 17] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 16000 Hz sampling rate, an integer multiple of 16000 Hz seems to be a preferable choice. o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively. o Any remaining parameters go in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them directly from the media type string as a semicolon separated list of parameter=value pairs. 4.3. Offer/answer considerations The following considerations apply when using the SDP offer/answer [RFC3264] mechanism to negotiate the G.718 transport. The parameter "layers" MAY be used to indicate the layer configuration for the each RTP session belonging to current G.718 session an end-point making the offer is ready to transmit and wishes to receive. o In case the G.718 session consists of a single RTP session, it is RECOMMENDED not to impose any layer restrictions for the session but to use the rate control functionality to set possible restrictions on usage of the higher or highest layers. If the offer includes a layer configuration parameter, the answer MAY use different configuration, but the highest layer in the answer MUST NOT be higher than the highest layer of the offered configuration. Author's note: Support for answer modifying the layer configuration is FFS. In case the G.718 session consists of multiple RTP sessions, the answer MUST use the layer configurations provided in the offer for the sessions it accepts. 4.4. Declarative usage of SDP In declarative usage, such as SDP in RTSP [RFC2326] or SAP [RFC2974], the parameter "layers" SHALL be interpreted to provide a set of layers that the sender may use in the session. 4.5. SDP examples Some example SDP session descriptions utilizing G.718 encodings are provided below. The first example illustrates the simple case where the G.718 session employing a single RTP session and the AVPF profile is offered, and the answer accepts the offer without any changes. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 18] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 Offer: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 Answer: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 The second example shows a bit more complex case where the G.718 session using a single RTP session and the AVPF profile is offered with restriction to send/receive only with layers L1 and L2. The answer indicates that the other end-point is happy to receive (and send) layers up to L5. Offer: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:97 layers=1,2 Answer: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:97 layers=1,2,3,4,5 The third example shows an G.718 session using multiple RTP sessions with the AVPF profile. The answerer wishes to use only layers up to L3. Offer: Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 19] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:97 layers=1,2 a=mid=1 m=audio 49122 RTP/AVPF 98 a=rtpmap:98 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:98 layers=3 a=mid=2 a=depend:lay 1 m=audio 49124 RTP/AVPF 99 a=rtpmap:99 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:99 layers=4,5 a=mid=3 a=depend:lay 1 2 Answer: m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 97 a=rtpmap:97 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:97 layers=1,2 a=mid=1 m=audio 49120 RTP/AVPF 98 a=rtpmap:98 G718/32000/1 a=fmtp:98 layers=3 a=mid=2 a=depend:lay 1 Note that the dependency signaling according to [smd-sdp] is used in the third example above to indicate the relationship between the layers distributed into separate RTP sessions. 5. Security Considerations RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [RFC3550], and in any appropriate RTP profile (for example [RFC3551] or [RFC4585]). This implies that confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption; for example, through the application of SRTP [RFC3711]. Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression. A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encodings using compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 20] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams into the stream that will increase the processing load of the decoder and may cause the receiver to be overloaded. For example inserting additional EDUs representing the higher enhancement layers on top of the ones actually transmitted may increase the decoder load. However, the G.718 codec is not particularly vulnerable to such an attack, since the majority of the computational load in an G.718 session is associated to the encoder. Another form of possible attach might be forging of codec bit-rate control messages, which may result in encoder operating employing higher number of enhancement layers than originally intended and thereby requiring larger amount of computation resources. Therefore, the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED; for example, with SRTP [RFC3711]. Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and integrity of RTP packets and their payloads is very dependent on the application and on the transport and signaling protocols employed. Thus, although SRTP is given as an example above, other possible choices exist. Note that end-to-end security with either authentication, integrity or confidentiality protection will prevent a network element not within the security context from performing media-aware operations other than discarding complete packets. To allow any (media-aware) intermediate network element to perform its operations, it is required to be a trusted entity which is included in the security context establishment. 6. Congestion control As scalable codec G.718 implicitly provides means for congestion control by providing a possibility for 'thinning' the bitstream. The RTP payload format according to this specification provides several different means for reducing the G.718 session bandwidth. The most appropriate mechanism (in terms of impact to the user experience) depends on the employed payload structure and also on the employed session configuration (single RTP session or multiple RTP sessions). The following means (in no particular order) can be used to assist congestion control procedures -- either by the sender or by the intermediate node. o The transport blocks carrying the EDUs representing the highest layers within the payload may be dropped. o The payloads carrying the EDUs representing the highest layers in an G.718 session are dropped. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 21] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 o Transport blocks or payloads carrying EDUs belonging to redundant frames included in the payload are dropped. 7. IANA Considerations IANA is kindly requested to register a media type for the G.718 codec for RTP transport, as specified in section 4.1. of this document. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 22] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 APPENDIX A: Payload examples The G.718 payload structure enables flexible transport either by carrying all layers in the same payload or separating the layers into separate payloads. The following subsections illustrate different possibilities for transport by simple examples. Note that examples do not show the full payload structure to keep the illustration simple. A.1. Simple payload examples A.1.1. All the layers in the same payload The illustration below shows layers L1-L3 from two encoded frames encapsulated into separate payloads using single transport block. +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+ | RTP1 | L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F1-L1 |F1-L2 |F1-L3 | +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+ +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+ | RTP2 | L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F2-L1 |F2-L2 |F2-L3 | +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+ In case the same layers from two input frames are encapsulated into one payload using single transport block, the structure is as shown below. +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | RTP1 | L-ID=3 |NF=1 |F1-L1 |F2-L1 |F1-L2 |F2-L2 |F3-L3 |F2-L3 | +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+ The third example illustrates the case where the layers L1-L3 from two input frames are encapsulated into one payload using two separate transport blocks, the first one carrying L1 and the other one containing L2 and L3. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 23] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 +-------+--------+-----+------+------+ | RTP1 | L-ID=1 |NF=1 |F1-L1 |F2-L1 | +-------+--------+-----+------+------+------+------+ | L-ID=7 |NF=1 |F1-L2 |F2-L2 |F2-L2 |F2-L3 | +--------+-----+------+------+------+------+ A.1.2. Layers in separate RTP streams In this case the data for each layer is transmitted in its own payload. In the first example each transport block including a single EDU is carried in its own RTP payload. +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP1a | L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F1-L1| | RTP1b | L-ID=6 |NF=0 |F1-L2| +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP1c |L-ID=10 |NF=0 |F1-L3| | RTP2a | L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F2-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP2b | L-ID=6 |NF=0 |F2-L2| | RTP2c |L-ID=10 |NF=0 |F2-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+ If the payloads carry data from two consecutive input frames, the same encoded data as in the previous example is arranged as follows. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 24] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP1a | L-ID=1 |NF=1 |F1-L1|F2-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP1b | L-ID=6 |NF=1 |F1-L2|F2-L2| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP1c |L-ID=10 |NF=1 |F1-L3|F2-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ A.2. Advanced examples A.2.1. Different update rate for subset of layers An example employing different update rates (i.e. different number of frames per packet) for selected subsets of layers. In these examples all core codec layers L1-L5 are shown. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 25] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP1 | L-ID=1 |NF=3 |F1-L1|F2-L1|F3-L1|F4-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP2a | L-ID=7 |NF=1 |F1-L2|F2-L2|F1-L3|F2-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP3a |L-ID=14 |NF=0 |F1-L4|F1-L5| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP3b |L-ID=14 |NF=0 |F2-L4|F2-L5| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP2b | L-ID=7 |NF=1 |F3-L2|F4-L2|F3-L3|F4-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP3c |L-ID=14 |NF=0 |F3-L4|F3-L5| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP3d |L-ID=14 |NF=0 |F4-L4|F4-L5| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+ A.2.2. Redundant frames with limited set of layers An example transmitting layers L1-L3 as primary data and L1 (of the previous frame) as redundant data is shown below. Each payload carries one primary (i.e. new) frame in one transport block and one redundant frame, which in this example is the frame preceding the primary frame, in another transport block. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 26] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP1 | L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F0-L1| L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F1-L1|F1-L2|F1-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP2 | L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F1-L1| L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F2-L1|F2-L2|F2-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | RTP3 | L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F2-L1| L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F3-L1|F3-L2|F3-L3| +-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Alternatively, the payload carrying also redundant data for a subset of layers can be arranged differently, as shown in the example below. +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP1 | L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F0-L1|F0-L2|F0-L3| L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F1-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP2 | L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F1-L1|F1-L2|F1-L3| L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F2-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ | RTP3 | L-ID=3 |NF=0 |F2-L1|F2-L2|F2-L3| L-ID=1 |NF=0 |F3-L1| +-------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----+-----+ Now the first transport block carries the primary data and the second transport block carries the redundant data, which in this case covers the frame following the primary frame. The benefit of this approach is that the redundant data is included in the last (secondary) transport block of the payload, which might be beneficial for possible payload scaling operation within the network. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 27] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 8. References 8.1. Normative References [AMR-WB] 3GPP TS 26.171, "Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) speech codec; General description (Release 7)", v7.0.0, September 2006. [G.718] ITU-T Recommendation G.718, "Frame Error Robust Narrowband and Wideband Embedded Variable Bit-Rate Coding of Speech and Audio from 8-32 Kbit/s", (consented) May 2008. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. [RFC3550]Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and Jacobson, V., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., Norrman, K., "The Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004. [RFC4288] Freed, N., Klensin, J., "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V. and Perkins, C., "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., Rey, J., "Extended RTP Profile for Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July 2006. [RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 28] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 [RFC4867] Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., Xie, Q., "RTP Payload Format and File Storage Format fort he Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 4867, April 2007. [RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., Burman, B., "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, Feburary 2008. [smd-sdp] Schierl, T., Wenger, S., "Signaling media decoding dependency in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft- schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-04 (work in progress), June 2007. 8.2. Informative References [McCanne] McCanne, S., Jacobson, V., and Vetterli, M., "Receiver- driven layered multicast", in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM'96, pages 117--130, Stanford, CA, August 1996. [RFC2326] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998. [RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C., Whelan, E., "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., Fairhurst, G., "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., Floyd, S., "Data Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. [RFC5117] Westerlund, M., Wenger, S., "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117, January 2008. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 29] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 Author's Addresses Ari Lakaniemi Nokia P.O.Box 407 FIN-00045 Nokia Group, FINLAND Phone: +358-71-8008000 Email: ari.lakaniemi@nokia.com Ye-Kui Wang Huawei Technologies 400 Somerset Corp Blvd, Suite 602 Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA Phone: +1-908-541-3518 EMail: yekuiwang@huawei.com Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. 9. Open Issues 1) Support of super-wideband (SWB) audio and stereophonic encoding extensions to ITU-T G.718 currently being worked on by ITU-T is to be specified after ITU-T completes the work in that regards. a. Some further study is needed to see if separate parameters for sending and receiving capabilities/preferences are needed -- especially for upcoming stereo and SWB options. b. The support for upcoming SWB and stereo options needs to be taken into account. Basically we can either 1) extend the parameter "layers" to cover also this aspect, or 2) define separate parameter(s) for these new options when more details on the stereo/SWB support are available. 2) For streaming or other applications that allow for relatively long end-to-end delay, sometimes it would be beneficial to aggregate more than 4 frames in one Transport Block (TB). Should the length of the NF field be larger? 3) On layer structure and configuration signalling. Currently, a unique layer ID is assigned for any possible layer combinations. Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 30] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 See the editing notes below Table 3 for other possible approaches. One of the alternative ways may be chosen in the final draft. 4) Currently, it is mandated that lower layer EDUs of later frames go before higher layer EDUs of earlier frames in a transport block. This way is friendlier to adaptation (dropping of higher layers). However, if all layers are received, then the depacketizer needs to reorder the EDUs to their decoding order before feeding them to the decoder. Therefore, the other way around (i.e. lower layer EDUs of later frames go after higher layer EDUs of earlier frames, or EDUs in transport blocks are placed in decoding order) is more friendly to the depacketizer. Another benefit of the latter is that it does not introduce any end-to-end delay. Which way to be specified (or both allowed if needed) is FFS. 5) MANEs dropping RTP packets are RTP translators. But are those MANEs dropping a subset of the transport blocks in one packet also RTP translators? 6) The RTCP based cross-session synchronization is not possible until the first RTCP SRs are received in all sessions. This implies that decoding only a subset of layers may be possible until RTCP SRs in all sessions have been received. This may imposes higher end-to- end delay or higher bandwidth for RTCP data, and the approach may not work perfectly for some multicast topologies. There is a study ongoing by some AVT members. Once there is an acceptable solution fouthe draft documenting that solution may be referenced in this draft. 7) It might be better to change the semantics of the media type parameter 'layers' to be similar as that for L-ID. 8) Offer/answer with answer being capable of modifying the layer configuration is FFS. 9) Some references need to be updated in the final draft. 10. Changes Log From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g718-00 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g718-01 - Updated the boiler template. - Changed Ye-Kui Wang's affiliation and address. From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g718-01 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g718-02 Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 31] Internet-Draft RTP payload for G.718 speech/audio October 2009 - Updated the boiler template (added the last sentence in Copyright Notice). Lakaniemi, Wang Expires April 22, 2010 [Page 32]