[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[AVT] Re: Carrying SMPTE time-codes in RTP streams, discussion email
At 4:01 PM -0800 2/13/05, lazzaro wrote:
On Feb 13, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Dave Singer wrote:
5. Finally, I've specified a different representation of SMPTE time
code values for the AC-3 payload format than you have. There's an
extension defined in SMPTE 339M for applying time code values to audio
frames, which may not be synchronous with their associated video frames.
The key difference is that the 339M format adds a 'sample' field after
the 'frames' field. This indicates which PCM sample in the coded audio
frame the (video) frame number in the time stamp is associated with.
That's important. Thanks. It needs thought. If the RTP clock is
sample-accurate, then I think I'm OK, as I am associating the
time-code with an RTP timestamp, which may not be the timestamp of
any given frame.
Yes, this issue becomes harder if we end up supporting an RTP profile
that includes a SMPTE time code in the RTP header. We'll need some
way to SMPTE stamp headers whose RTP timestamp does not coincide
with an exact SMPTE timecode value, probably using something like
the 'sample' field Brian describes.
For example, as a rule, RTP MIDI RTP timestamps generated from a MIDI
controller keyboard will not coincide with SMPTE timestamp positions ...
agreed.
here is the draft. we can revise it later in the week, though I hope
I have caught enough open issues to cover your questions and
concerns. I think I had better send this off to the IETF editors now!
Internet Engineering Task Force
INTERNET-DRAFT D. Singer
draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00 Apple Computer
Feb 13 2005
Expires: Aug 13 2005
Associating SMPTE time-codes with RTP streams
IPR Notice
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be
disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in
accordance with RFC 3668.
Status of This Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 a "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
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.
Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
D. Singer [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for associating SMPTE time-codes
with media streams, in a way that is independent of the RTP payload
format of the media stream itself.
1 Introduction
First a brief background on SMPTE time-codes [SMPTE].
SMPTE time-codes count frames. There are two common forms of
display: either a simple counter, or what looks like a normal clock
value (hh:mm:ss.frame). When the frame rate is truly integer, then
this can be a normal clock value, in that seconds tick by at the same
rate as the seconds we know and love.
However, NTSC video infamously runs slightly slower than 30
frames/second. Some people call it 29.97 (which isn't quite right)
and some say that a frame takes 1001 ticks of a 30000 tick/second
clock (which is closer). Be that as it may, SMPTE time codes count
30 of these frames and deem that to make a second.
This causes a SMPTE time-code display to 'run slow' compared to real-
time. To ameliorate this, sometimes a format called drop-frame is
used. Some of the frame numbers are skipped, so that the counter
periodically 'catches up' (so some time-code-seconds actually only
have 28 or 29 frames in them).
It is worth noting that in neither case is the SMPTE time-code an
accurate clock; in the first case, it runs slow, and in the second,
the adjustments are abrupt and periodic - and still not quite
accurate. Hence in the rest of this document I try to be clear when
referring to a second in a time-code as a 'time-code second'.
However, SMPTE time-codes do run in real-time when used with systems
with integral frames/second (e.g. film content at 24 frames/second,
or PAL video). The 'drift' issue is (I believe) unique to NTSC
video.
2 Design Goals
What we desire is a system that allows us to associate a SMPTE time-
code with some media in an RTP [RTP] stream. Since in RTP all media
has a clock already, we can leverage that fact. If we treat the
media as having 'segments' of time in which the time-code is simply
counting up, then the time-code anywhere within a segment can be
calculated if you know:
D. Singer [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
1. the RTP timestamp of the start of the segment;
2. the time-code of the start of the segment;
3. the counting rate and other parameters of the time-code;
4. the RTP timestamp where you want to know the time-code.
My proposal is that we put periodic mappings between (1) and (2) into
RTCP packets, and provide (3) the 'setup' information out-of-band,
for example in SDP. Then given a timestamp (4), we can calculate
exactly what the time-code must be.
The setup information includes:
(the timescale of the RTP stream, already provided);
the duration, in that timescale, of a single frame-count in the
'frames' portion of the time-code
the number of those frames that make a time-code-second
the following booleans:
is-NTSC-drop-frame: should the usual 'left out numbers' of
drop-frame be applied or not?
wrap-at-24-hours: should the hours portion wrap from 23 to 0,
or keep counting up?
allow-negative-time-codes: are negative time-codes used in
this stream?
display-time-code-as-counter: should the display be an integer
frame-count, or hh:mm:ss.fr format?
time-code-displayed: is it intended that this time-code be
displayed somehow?
For example, if associated with a video track with the common time-
scale of 90000, then frame-duration of 3003 and frames-per-tc-second
of 30 would yield a 'normal' SMPTE time-code for NTSC video.
Similarly values of 3750 and 24 yield a time-code for 24 fps film
content, and so on.
Now, we put into an RTCP APP packet (or a new RTCP packet), a mapping
between an RTP time-stamp value and the time-code. The RTP timestamp
and the that time-code are 32 bits; the time-code is either a signed
counter value (if we're in counter format), or it is the format:
hours(8) -- 0 to 255
sign(1) -- 1 for negative, 0 for positive
minutes(7) -- 0 to 59
seconds(8) -- 0 to 59
frames(8) -- 0 to (frames-per-tc-second - 1)
This establishes the time-code for all RTP times greater than or
equal to the one given, until a subsequent APP packet reestablishes
the mapping. It's unfortunate that the sign is in the middle, but
that allows the hours to use the full range, and the minutes don't
need to.
D. Singer [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
Note that the RTP time-stamp in the mapping may not match the time-
stamp of any frame in the media stream. For video, it normally
would; but a time-stamp transition may happen part-way through a
decoded audio frame. Since they share the same clock, the timing of
that transition and the timing of the audio stream itself have the
same accuracy.
3 Discussion
This design has the advantage of introducing no new IP packets into
the sessions, using low-bandwidth (vanishingly low in the case of
streams with no discontinuities), and is independent of the design of
the RTP packets themselves: the RTP profile (including possibly
encryption) and the RTP payload format. SMPTE time-codes can be
associated with any RTP stream, including those with existing payload
formats.
It might be argued that we could set the initial mapping also in the
SDP, since RTCP packets might get lost. But this means that the SDP
now has to have knowledge of the RTP random offset, which is nasty;
and if one puts this APP packet into all sender reports, it's
probably good enough. Then if you don't have time-codes, you don't
have audio-video-sync either.
This associates the time-code with a particular media stream. An
alternative would be to make it an RTP stream in its own right; but
the data rate is so low, this seems egregious. And by packing it
inline, we can do this backwards-compatible for gateways etc. that
already handle dual-stream.
The APP packets need not use the same RTP timestamp as the sender
report in the same RTCP packet. They can be sent 'ahead of need' if
possible (e.g. for stored content, when the server can look-ahead) or
just-in-time - send an RTCP immediately a discontinuity in the time-
code is detected, and allow media-buffering in the client the chance
to 'catch' the RTCP before the matching RTP packet is processed and
displayed,
If time-codes change more rapidly than RTCP packets are normally
sent, then this might force a more rapid transmission. However, it
should be possible to send multiple mappings in one RTCP packet.
There is no way in this draft to detect that an RTCP packet has been
lost, and that a mapping may be being used outside its intended
range. The likelihood of this happening can be reduced, however, by
permitting a pair of RTP times in the mapping, and defining that the
mapping is only valid between those times. This only works for
stored media, when look-ahead is possible, of course.
D. Singer [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
This design has the advantage of being independent of both the RTP
profile and the media-specific RTP payload design. However, it does
this at the expense of certainty. It is also possible to imagine
some payloads with explicit provision for this mapping. However,
such provision need not go as far as a full SMPTE time-code in every
packet. If the RTCP APP packets have a small 'time-code epoch'
indicator, then that same epoch indicator can be in each packet.
The current design assumes that clients will hold mappings until they
are superseded, and that a client may need to buffer some number of
upcoming mappings. It may be necessary to introduce explicit
statements about the amount of buffering needed.
For trick modes, it may be desirable to signal that a given section
of media has the time-code running in reverse; this would require a
new sign bit in the mapping record.
4 Security Considerations
SMPTE time-codes are only informative and it is hard to see security
considerations from associating them with media streams.
5 IANA Considerations
None.
6 RFC Editor Considerations
None.
7 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
8 Intellectual Property Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
D. Singer [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Acknowledgments
Both Brian Link and John Lazzaro provided helpful comments on an
initial draft (not all of which are yet addressed).
D. Singer [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.doc Feb 13 2005
Authors' Contact Information
David Singer
Apple Computer, Inc.
One Infinite Loop, MS:302-3MT
Cupertino CA 95014
USA
Email: singer at apple.com
Tel: +1 408 974 3162
6. References
[RTP]
RFC3550, STD0064, RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications, H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson,
July 2003
[SMPTE-12M]
SMPTE 12M-1999, Television, Audio and Film - Time and Control Code
Dates
Written: Feb 13 2005
Expires: Aug 13 2005
D. Singer [Page 7]
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt