idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 13, 2016) is 2721 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 321, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast' is defined on line 447, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5104' is defined on line 487, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5576' is defined on line 506, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6236' is defined on line 517, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-54) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-34 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-clue-signaling-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5285 (Obsoleted by RFC 8285) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CLUE WG R. Even 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Standards Track J. Lennox 5 Expires: May 17, 2017 Vidyo 6 November 13, 2016 8 Mapping RTP streams to CLUE Media Captures 9 draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is 14 used in the context of the CLUE protocol. It also describes the 15 mechanisms and recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams 16 defined in SDP to CLUE Media Captures. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2017. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. RTP topologies for CLUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Mapping CLUE Capture Encodings to RTP streams . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. MCC Constituent CaptureID definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5.1. RTCP CaptureID SDES Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 5.2. RTP Header Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 1. Introduction 70 Telepresence systems can send and receive multiple media streams. 71 The CLUE framework [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] defines Media Captures 72 (MC) as a source of Media, such as from one or more Capture Devices. 73 A Media Capture may also be constructed from other Media streams. A 74 middle box can express conceptual Media Captures that it constructs 75 from Media streams it receives. A Multiple Content Capture (MCC) is 76 a special Media Capture composed of multiple Media Captures. 78 SIP offer answer [RFC3264] uses SDP [RFC4566] to describe the 79 RTP[RFC3550] media streams. Each RTP stream has a unique SSRC within 80 its RTP session. The content of the RTP stream is created by an 81 encoder in the endpoint. This may be an original content from a 82 camera or a content created by an intermediary device like an MCU 83 (Multipoint Control Unit). 85 This document makes recommendations, for the CLUE architecture, about 86 how RTP and RTCP streams should be encoded and transmitted, and how 87 their relation to CLUE Media Captures should be communicated. The 88 proposed solution supports multiple RTP topologies [RFC7667]. 90 With regards to the media (audio, video and timed text), systems that 91 support CLUE use RTP for the media, SDP for codec and media transport 92 negotiation (CLUE individual encodings) and the CLUE protocol for 93 Media Capture description and selection. In order to associate the 94 media in the different protocols there are three mapping that need to 95 be specified: 97 1. CLUE individual encodings to SDP 98 2. RTP streams to SDP (this is not a CLUE specific mapping) 100 3. RTP streams to MC to map the received RTP steam to the current MC 101 in the MCC. 103 2. Terminology 105 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 106 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 107 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119[RFC2119] and 108 indicate requirement levels for RTP processing in compliant CLUE 109 implementations. 111 The definitions from the CLUE framework document 112 [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] section 3 are used by this document as 113 well. 115 3. RTP topologies for CLUE 117 The typical RTP topologies used by CLUE Telepresence systems specify 118 different behaviors for RTP and RTCP distribution. A number of RTP 119 topologies are described in [RFC7667]. For CLUE telepresence, the 120 relevant topologies include Point-to-Point, as well as Media-Mixing 121 mixers, Media- Switching mixers, and Selective Forwarding Middleboxs. 123 In the Point-to-Point topology, one peer communicates directly with a 124 single peer over unicast. There can be one or more RTP sessions, 125 each sent on a separate 5-tuple, and having a separate SSRC space, 126 with each RTP session carrying multiple RTP streams identified by 127 their SSRC. All SSRCs are recognized by the peers based on the 128 information in the RTCP SDES report that includes the CNAME and SSRC 129 of the sent RTP streams. There are different Point-to-Point use 130 cases as specified in CLUE use case [RFC7205]. In some cases, a CLUE 131 session which, at a high-level, is point-to-point may nonetheless 132 have an RTP stream which is best described by one of the mixer 133 topologies. For example, a CLUE endpoint can produce composite or 134 switched captures for use by a receiving system with fewer displays 135 than the sender has cameras. The Media Capture may be described 136 using MCC. 138 For the Media Mixer topology [RFC7667], the peers communicate only 139 with the mixer. The mixer provides mixed or composited media 140 streams, using its own SSRC for the sent streams. If needed by CLUE 141 endpoint, the conference roster information including conference 142 participants, endpoints, media and media-id (SSRC) can be determined 143 using the conference event package [RFC4575] element. 145 4. Mapping CLUE Capture Encodings to RTP streams 147 The different topologies described in Section 3 create different SSRC 148 distribution models and RTP stream multiplexing points. 150 Most video conferencing systems today can separate multiple RTP 151 sources by placing them into RTP sessions using the SDP description; 152 the video conferencing application can also have some knowledge about 153 the purpose of each RTP session. For example, video conferencing 154 applications that have main and slides video sources can send each 155 media source in a separate RTP session with a content attribute 156 [RFC4796] enabling different application behavior for each received 157 RTP media source. Demultiplexing is straightforward because each 158 media capture is sent as a single RTP stream, with each RTP stream 159 being sent in a separate RTP session, on a distinct UDP 5-tuple. 160 This will also be true for mapping the RTP streams to Media Captures 161 Encodings if each Media Capture Encodings uses a separate RTP 162 session, and the consumer can identify it based on the receiving RTP 163 port. In this case, SDP only needs to label the RTP session with an 164 identifier that can be used to identify the Media Capture in the CLUE 165 description. The SDP label attribute serves as this identifier. 167 Each Capture Encoding MUST be sent as a separate RTP stream. CLUE 168 endpoints MUST support sending each such RTP stream in a separate RTP 169 session signalled by an SDP m= line. They MAY also support sending 170 some or all of the RTP streams in a single RTP session, using the 171 mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] to 172 relate RTP streams to SDP m= lines. 174 MCCs bring another mapping issue, in that an MCC represents multiple 175 Media Captures that can be sent as part of this MCC if configured by 176 the consumer. When receiving an RTP stream which is mapped to the 177 MCC, the consumer needs to know which original MC it is in order to 178 get the MC parameters from the advertisement. If a consumer 179 requested a MCC, the original MC does not have a capture encoding, so 180 it cannot be associated with an m-line using a label as described in 181 CLUE signaling [I-D.ietf-clue-signaling]. This is important, for 182 example, to get correct scaling information for the original MC, 183 which may be different for the various MCs that are contributing to 184 the MCC. 186 5. MCC Constituent CaptureID definition 188 For a MCC which can represent multiple switched MCs there is a need 189 to know which MC is represented in the current RTP stream at any 190 given time. This requires a mapping from the SSRC of the RTP stream 191 conveying a particular MCC to the constituent MC. In order to 192 address this mapping this document defines an RTP header extension 193 and SDES item that includes the captureID of the original MC, 194 allowing the consumer to use the original source MC's attributes like 195 the spatial information. 197 This mapping temporarily associates the SSRC of the RTP stream 198 conveying a particular MCC with the captureID of the single original 199 MC that is currently switched into the MCC. This mapping cannot be 200 used for the composed case where more than one original MC is 201 composed into the MCC simultaneously. 203 If there is only one MC in the MCC then the media provider MUST send 204 the captureID of the current constituent MC in the RTP Header 205 Extension and as a RTCP CaptureID SDES item. When the media provider 206 switches the MC it sends within an MCC, it MUST send the captureID 207 value for the MC just switched into the MCC. 209 If there is more than one MC composed into the MCC then the media 210 provider MUST NOT send any of the MCs' captureIDs using this 211 mechanism. However, if an MCC is sending contributing source (CSRC) 212 information in the RTP header for a composed capture, it MAY send the 213 captureID values in the RTCP SDES packets giving source information 214 for the SSRC values sent as contributing sources (CSRCs). 216 If the media provider sends the captureID of a single MC switched 217 into an MCC, then later sends a composed stream of multiple MCs in 218 the same MCC, it MUST send the special value "-", a single dash 219 character, as the captureID RTP Header Extension and RTCP CaptureID 220 SDES item. The single dash character indicates there is no 221 applicable value for the MCC constituent CaptureID. The media 222 consumer interprets this as meaning that any previous CaptureID value 223 associated with this SSRC no longer applies. As 224 [I-D.ietf-clue-data-model-schema] defines the captureID syntax as 225 "xs:ID", the single dash character is not a legal captureID value, so 226 there is no possibility of confusing it with an actual captureID. 228 5.1. RTCP CaptureID SDES Item 230 This document specifies a new RTCP SDES item. 232 0 1 2 3 233 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 | CaptureId=XX | length | CaptureID | 236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 237 | .... | 238 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 This CaptureIDis a variable-length UTF-8 string corresponding either 240 to a CaptureID negotiated in the CLUE protocol, or the single 241 character "-". 243 This SDES item MUST be sent in an SDES packet within a compound RTCP 244 packet unless support for Reduced-size RTCP has been negotiated as 245 specified in RFC 5506 [RFC5506], in which case it can be sent as an 246 SDES packet in a non-compound RTCP packet. 248 5.2. RTP Header Extension 250 The CaptureIDis also carried in an RTP header extension [RFC5285], 251 using the mechanism defined in [RFC7941]. 253 Support is negotiated within SDP using the URN "urn:ietf:params:rtp- 254 hdrext:sdes:CaptureID". 256 The CaptureID is sent in a RTP Header Extension because for switched 257 captures, receivers need to know which original MC corresponds to the 258 media being sent for an MCC, in order to correctly apply geometric 259 adjustments to the received media. 261 As discussed in [RFC7941], there is no need to send the CaptureId 262 Header Extension with all RTP packets. Senders MAY choose to send it 263 only when a new MC is sent. If such a mode is being used, the header 264 extension SHOULD be sent in the first few RTP packets to reduce the 265 risk of losing it due to packet loss. See [RFC7941] for more 266 discussion of this. 268 6. Examples 270 In this partial advertisement the Media Provider advertises a 271 composed capture VC7 made by a big picture representing the current 272 speaker (VC3) and two picture-in-picture boxes representing the 273 previous speakers (the previous one -VC5- and the oldest one -VC6). 275 277 CS1 278 true 279 280 VC3 281 VC5 282 VC6 283 284 3 285 false 286 big picture of the current speaker 287 pips about previous speakers 288 1 289 it 290 static 291 individual 292 294 In this case the media provider will send capture IDs VC3, VC5 or VC6 295 as an RTP header extension and RTCP SDES message for the RTP stream 296 associated with the MC. 298 7. Acknowledgements 300 The authors would like to thanks Allyn Romanow and Paul Witty for 301 contributing text to this work. 303 8. IANA Considerations 305 This document defines a new extension URI in the RTP SDES Compact 306 Header Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol 307 (RTP) Parameters registry, according to the following data: 309 Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:CaptureId 311 Description: CLUE CaptureId 313 Contact: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com 315 Reference: RFC XXXX 317 The IANA is requested to register one new RTCP SDES items in the 318 "RTCP SDES Item Types" registry, as follows: 320 Value Abbrev Name Reference 321 TBA CCID CLUE CaptureId [RFCXXXX] 323 9. Security Considerations 325 The security considerations of the RTP specification, the RTP/SAVPF 326 profile, and the various RTP/RTCP extensions and RTP payload formats 327 that form the complete protocol suite described in this memo apply. 328 It is not believed there are any new security considerations 329 resulting from the combination of these various protocol extensions. 331 The Extended Secure RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control 332 Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback [RFC5124] (RTP/SAVPF) provides 333 handling of fundamental issues by offering confidentiality, integrity 334 and partial source authentication. CLUE endpoints MUST support RTP/ 335 SAVPF and DTLS-SRTP keying [RFC5764]. 337 RTCP packets convey a Canonical Name (CNAME) identifier that is used 338 to associate RTP packet streams that need to be synchronised across 339 related RTP sessions. Inappropriate choice of CNAME values can be a 340 privacy concern, since long-term persistent CNAME identifiers can be 341 used to track users across multiple calls. CLUE endpoint MUST 342 generate short-term persistent RTCP CNAMES, as specified in RFC7022 343 [RFC7022], resulting in untraceable CNAME values that alleviate this 344 risk. 346 Some potential denial of service attacks exist if the RTCP reporting 347 interval is configured to an inappropriate value. This could be done 348 by configuring the RTCP bandwidth fraction to an excessively large or 349 small value using the SDP "b=RR:" or "b=RS:" lines [RFC3556], or some 350 similar mechanism, or by choosing an excessively large or small value 351 for the RTP/AVPF minimal receiver report interval (if using SDP, this 352 is the "a=rtcp-fb:... trr-int" parameter) [RFC4585] The risks are as 353 follows: 355 1. the RTCP bandwidth could be configured to make the regular 356 reporting interval so large that effective congestion control 357 cannot be maintained, potentially leading to denial of service 358 due to congestion caused by the media traffic; 360 2. the RTCP interval could be configured to a very small value, 361 causing endpoints to generate high rate RTCP traffic, potentially 362 leading to denial of service due to the non-congestion controlled 363 RTCP traffic; and 365 3. RTCP parameters could be configured differently for each 366 endpoint, with some of the endpoints using a large reporting 367 interval and some using a smaller interval, leading to denial of 368 service due to premature participant timeouts due to mismatched 369 timeout periods which are based on the reporting interval (this 370 is a particular concern if endpoints use a small but non-zero 371 value for the RTP/AVPF minimal receiver report interval (trr-int) 372 [RFC4585], as discussed in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream]). 374 Premature participant timeout can be avoided by using the fixed (non- 375 reduced) minimum interval when calculating the participant timeout 376 ([I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream]). To address the other 377 concerns, endpoints SHOULD ignore parameters that configure the RTCP 378 reporting interval to be significantly longer than the default five 379 second interval specified in [RFC3550] (unless the media data rate is 380 so low that the longer reporting interval roughly corresponds to 5% 381 of the media data rate), or that configure the RTCP reporting 382 interval small enough that the RTCP bandwidth would exceed the media 383 bandwidth. 385 The guidelines in [RFC6562] apply when using variable bit rate (VBR) 386 audio codecs such as Opus. The use of the encryption of the header 387 extensions are RECOMMENDED, unless there are known reasons, like RTP 388 middleboxes performing voice activity based source selection or third 389 party monitoring that will greatly benefit from the information, and 390 this has been expressed using API or signalling. If further evidence 391 are produced to show that information leakage is significant from 392 audio level indications, then use of encryption needs to be mandated 393 at that time. 395 In multi-party communication scenarios using RTP Middleboxes, a lot 396 of trust is placed on these middleboxes to preserve the sessions 397 security. The middlebox SHOULD maintain the confidentiality, 398 integrity and perform source authentication. The middlebox MAY 399 perform checks that prevents any endpoint participating in a 400 conference to impersonate another. Some additional security 401 considerations regarding multi-party topologies can be found in 402 [RFC7667] 404 10. References 406 10.1. Normative References 408 [I-D.ietf-clue-data-model-schema] 409 Presta, R. and S. Romano, "An XML Schema for the CLUE data 410 model", draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-17 (work in 411 progress), August 2016. 413 [I-D.ietf-clue-framework] 414 Duckworth, M., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger, "Framework 415 for Telepresence Multi-Streams", draft-ietf-clue- 416 framework-25 (work in progress), January 2016. 418 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] 419 Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, 420 "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session 421 Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle- 422 negotiation-34 (work in progress), October 2016. 424 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 425 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 426 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 427 . 429 [RFC7941] Westerlund, M., Burman, B., Even, R., and M. Zanaty, "RTP 430 Header Extension for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) 431 Source Description Items", RFC 7941, DOI 10.17487/RFC7941, 432 August 2016, . 434 10.2. Informative References 436 [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream] 437 Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, W., and C. Perkins, 438 "Sending Multiple Media Streams in a Single RTP Session", 439 draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-11 (work in progress), 440 December 2015. 442 [I-D.ietf-clue-signaling] 443 Kyzivat, P., Xiao, L., Groves, C., and R. Hansen, "CLUE 444 Signaling", draft-ietf-clue-signaling-09 (work in 445 progress), March 2016. 447 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast] 448 Westerlund, M., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty, "Using 449 Simulcast in SDP and RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp- 450 simulcast-05 (work in progress), June 2016. 452 [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model 453 with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, 454 DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002, 455 . 457 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 458 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 459 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 460 July 2003, . 462 [RFC3556] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth 463 Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth", 464 RFC 3556, DOI 10.17487/RFC3556, July 2003, 465 . 467 [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session 468 Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, 469 July 2006, . 471 [RFC4575] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and O. Levin, Ed., "A 472 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Package for 473 Conference State", RFC 4575, DOI 10.17487/RFC4575, August 474 2006, . 476 [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, 477 "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control 478 Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, 479 DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, 480 . 482 [RFC4796] Hautakorpi, J. and G. Camarillo, "The Session Description 483 Protocol (SDP) Content Attribute", RFC 4796, 484 DOI 10.17487/RFC4796, February 2007, 485 . 487 [RFC5104] Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman, 488 "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile 489 with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10.17487/RFC5104, 490 February 2008, . 492 [RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for 493 Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback 494 (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February 495 2008, . 497 [RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP 498 Header Extensions", RFC 5285, DOI 10.17487/RFC5285, July 499 2008, . 501 [RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size 502 Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities 503 and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April 504 2009, . 506 [RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific 507 Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol 508 (SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009, 509 . 511 [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer 512 Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure 513 Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, 514 DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, 515 . 517 [RFC6236] Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image 518 Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", 519 RFC 6236, DOI 10.17487/RFC6236, May 2011, 520 . 522 [RFC6562] Perkins, C. and JM. Valin, "Guidelines for the Use of 523 Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", RFC 6562, 524 DOI 10.17487/RFC6562, March 2012, 525 . 527 [RFC7022] Begen, A., Perkins, C., Wing, D., and E. Rescorla, 528 "Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) 529 Canonical Names (CNAMEs)", RFC 7022, DOI 10.17487/RFC7022, 530 September 2013, . 532 [RFC7205] Romanow, A., Botzko, S., Duckworth, M., and R. Even, Ed., 533 "Use Cases for Telepresence Multistreams", RFC 7205, 534 DOI 10.17487/RFC7205, April 2014, 535 . 537 [RFC7667] Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667, 538 DOI 10.17487/RFC7667, November 2015, 539 . 541 Authors' Addresses 543 Roni Even 544 Huawei Technologies 545 Tel Aviv 546 Israel 548 Email: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com 550 Jonathan Lennox 551 Vidyo, Inc. 552 433 Hackensack Avenue 553 Seventh Floor 554 Hackensack, NJ 07601 555 US 557 Email: jonathan@vidyo.com