Audio/Video Transport WG T. Kristensen Internet-Draft TANDBERG Intended status: Standards Track November 19, 2007 Expires: May 22, 2008 RTP Payload Format for H.264 RCDO Video draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-rcdo-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 May 22, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This memo describes an RTP Payload format for the Reduced-Complexity Decoding Operation (RCDO) for H.264 Baseline profile bitstreams, as specified in H.241. RCDO reduces the decoding cost and resource consumption of the video processing. The RTP Payload format is based on the description in RFC 3984. Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Media Format Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. RTP Header Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Payload Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Payload Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Declarative SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 1. Introduction The Reduced-Complexity Decoding Operation (RCDO) for H.264 offers a solution to support higher resolutions at the same high framerates used in current implementations, but with reduced processing requirements, compared to today's needs. This is achieved by reducing the complexity and thus the decoding cost/resource consumption of the video processing. ITU-T H.264 [4] and ITU-T H.241 [5], its associated video procedures and signalling recommendation, continue to evolve. The IETF RTP payload formats and parameters need to be updated to include important new functionalities not covered in RFC 3984 [3]. The RCDO approach is already addressed in the latest version of H.241 [5]. This proposal defines media type parameters, a new H.264 media subtype for RCDO and allows use in SDP. 2. Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms 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 [1]. 3. Media Format Background The Reduced-Complexity Decoding Operation (RCDO) for H.264 Baseline profile bitstreams is specified in Annex B of H.241 [5]. RCDO is specified as a separate H.264 mode, and is distinct from any profile defined in H.264. An RCDO bitstream obey to all the constraints of the Baseline profile. The media format is based on the H.264 RTP Payload format as specified in RFC 3984 [3]. Therefore, RFC 3984 is referred to several times in this memo. In order to signal H.264 additional modes the parameter AdditionalModesSupported is specified in Table 9f of H.241 [5]. Currently, the only mode defined is RCDO. Informational note: Other additional modes may be defined in the future. However, as H.264 additional modes may or may not be distinct from the Profiles in H.264 - these modes would require separate extensions RFC 3984 [3]. To maintain backward compatibility with existing H.264 implementations, this memo proposes a separate media subtype for RCDO Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 named H264-RCDO. 4. Payload Format Section 5 of RFC 3984 [3] applies. 4.1. RTP Header Usage Editorial note: Include verbatim or sligthly modified version from Section 5 of RFC 3984 [3] in a later phase. Or simply refer to RFC 3984? 4.2. Payload Header Editorial note: Include verbatim or sligthly modified version from Section 5 of RFC 3984 [3] in a later phase. Or simply refer to RFC 3984? 5. Payload Examples TBD or refer to RFC3984. 6. Congestion Control Considerations Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RFC 3550 [6], and with any applicable RTP profile; e.g., RFC 3551 [7]. An additional requirement if best-effort service is being used is: users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. 7. Payload Format Parameters This RTP payload format is identified using the H264-RCDO media type which is registered in accordance with RFC 4855 [8] and using the template of RFC 4288 [9]. 7.1. Media Type Definition Editorial note: Complete formal media type specification TBD. For now we mainly describe the changes and differences. Copy verbatim from RFC 3984 in the final version and for IANA registration. The media subtype for the ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10 codec is allocated from the IETF tree. Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 The receiver MUST ignore any unspecified parameter. Type name: video Subtype name: H264-RCDO Required parameters: rate: Indicates the RTP timestamp clock rate. The rate value MUST be 90000. Optional parameters: The optional media type parameters specified in RFC 3984 [3] apply, with the following constraints: profile-level-id: RCDO is distinct from any profile, this implies that the profile value 0 (no profile) and the profile_idc byte of the profile-level-id parameter are equal to 0. An RCDO bitstream MUST obey to all the constraints of the Baseline profile. Therefore, only constraint_set0_flag is equal to 1 in the profile- iop part of the profile-level-id parameter, the remaining bits are set to 0. Editorial note: In H.241 the profile value is set to 0, assuming no profile. Therefore this draft currently proposes using 0 for the profile part of profile-level-id. However, as RCDO is applied to Baseline profile bitstreams we might consider using the Baseline profile as value. TBD. For example, if a codec supports level 2.1, the profile-level-id becomes 00800d, in which 00 indicates the "no profile" value, 80 indicates the constraints of the Baseline profile and 0d indicates level 1.3. When level 2.1 is supported, the profile-level-id becomes 008015. If no profile-level-id is present, level 1 MUST be implied, i.e. equivalent to profile-level-id 00800a. Encoding considerations: This type is only defined for transfer via RTP (RFC 3550). Security considerations: See section X of RFC YYYY. (TBD. Update when this memo becomes an RFC) Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 Interoperability considerations: None Published specification: TBD. Update when this memo becomes an RFC. Also refer to H.264 and H.241 in an IANA way. Applications that use this media type: None Additional information: None Magic number(s): None File extension(s): None Macintosh file type code(s): None Person & email address to contact for further information: Tom Kristensen Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via RTP, ref RFC3550. Transport within other framing protocols is not defined at this time. Author: Tom Kristensen Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the IESG. 8. Mapping to SDP The mapping of the above defined payload format media type and its parameters SHALL be done according to Section 3 of RFC 4855 [8]. An example of media representation of a level 2 bitstream is as follows: m=video 54321 RTP/AVP 101 a=rtpmap:101 H264-RCDO/90000 a=fmtp:101 profile-level-id=008014;max-mbps=60000;max-smbps=360000 8.1. Offer/Answer Considerations When H264-RCDO is offered over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model [2] for unicast and multicast usage, the limitations and rules described in Section 8.2.2 of RFC 3984 [3] apply. Note that the Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 H264-RCDO profile-level-id parameter does only have the value 0 (no profile) for the profile part. 8.2. Declarative SDP Considerations When H264-RCDO over RTP is offered with SDP in a declarative style, as in RTSP [13] or SAP [14], the considerations in Section 8.2.3 of RFC 3984 [3] apply. Note that the H264-RCDO profile-level-id parameter does only have the value 0 (no profile) for the profile part. 9. IANA Considerations This memo requests that IANA registers H264-RCDO as specified in Section Section 7.1. The media type is also requested to be added to the IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format MIME types" (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters). 10. Security Considerations RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [6], and in any applicable RTP profile. The main security considerations for the RTP packet carrying the RTP payload format defined within this memo are confidentiality, integrity and source authenticity. Confidentiality is achieved by encryption of the RTP payload. Integrity of the RTP packets through suitable cryptographic integrity protection mechanism. Cryptographic system may also allow the authentication of the source of the payload. A suitable security mechanism for this RTP payload format should provide confidentiality, integrity protection and at least source authentication capable of determining if an RTP packet is from a member of the RTP session or not. Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and payloads following this memo may vary. It is dependent on the application, the transport, and the signalling protocol employed. Therefore a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if suitable the usage of SRTP [10] is recommended. Other mechanism that may be used are IPsec [11] and TLS [12] (RTP over TCP), but also other alternatives may exist. Refer also to section 9 of RFC 3984 [3], as no reasons for separate considerations are introduced in this document. Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 11. Acknowledgements The RTP Payload Formats HOWTO [15] was used for guidance and proved helpful in the process. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. [3] Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M., Stockhammer, T., Westerlund, M., and D. Singer, "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 3984, February 2005. [4] International Telecommunications Union, "Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services", ITU-T Recommendation H.264, March 2005. [5] International Telecommunications Union, "Extended video procedures and control signals for H.300-series terminals", ITU-T Recommendation H.241, May 2006. [6] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. [7] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003. [8] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007. 12.2. Informative references [9] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. [10] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004. [11] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [12] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999. [13] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998. [14] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. [15] Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload Format", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-howto-01 (work in progress), December 2006. Author's Address Tom Kristensen TANDBERG Philip Pedersens vei 22 N-1366 Lysaker Norway Phone: +47 67125125 Email: tom.kristensen@tandberg.com, tomkri@ifi.uio.no URI: http://www.tandberg.com Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft H.264 RCDO RTP Payload November 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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, THE IETF TRUST 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. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Kristensen Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 10]