[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-avt-...] [Tracker] [Diff1] [Diff2]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Network Working Group D. Singer
Request for Comments: 5450 Apple Computer Inc.
Category: Standards Track H. Desineni
Qualcomm
March 2009
Transmission Time Offsets in RTP Streams
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
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.
Abstract
This document describes a method to inform Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) clients when RTP packets are transmitted at a time
other than their 'nominal' transmission time. It also provides a
mechanism to provide improved inter-arrival jitter reports from the
clients, that take into account the reported transmission times.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Transmission Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Extended Jitter Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Signaling (Setup) Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
In the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification [RFC3550],
network jitter calculations are based on the presumption that packets
are transmitted essentially in accordance with their RTP timestamps.
This must be true, of course, on average over longer time intervals,
as the client is playing the packets out according to those
timestamps. However, for individual packets, this may not be true
under some circumstances, such as:
o When the data rate of the stream is bursty, such as with video
where I-frames may be significantly larger than P or B frames,
traffic smoothing may need to be applied to maintain an
appropriate data rate.
o In video that has forward-decode dependencies, frames may need to
be transmitted in decoding order (the sequence number order) but
with, of course, presentation timestamps. Under these
circumstances, the transmission time of a frame sent early in
sequence does not correspond to its RTP timestamp.
o When retransmissions are sent, the retransmitted packet clearly
has a different actual transmission time from the original, even
though they share the same timestamp.
Under some circumstances, it can help the receiver, or intermediate
network elements, to know the actual transmission time of the packet.
This RTP header extension element allows the communication of this
information.
The RTP specification does not define a transmission timestamp; nor
does this specification. This specification merely provides
information on the relationship between the relative transmission
times and relative RTP timestamps.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
This specification allows the transmitter to indicate to the receiver
any known variation between the spacing of transmission times and the
spacing of RTP timestamps; any unreported variation introduced at or
after the point of measurement of the transmission time will be
treated as network jitter by the receiver. The definition of the
point where the transmission time is measured or defined is left to
the transmitter, though it should, of course, be consistent from
packet to packet.
This information can also be of use to report the inter-arrival
jitter caused by the network, excluding that introduced by the
source. A new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packet is defined to
enable this reporting.
2. Requirements Notation
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 [RFC2119].
3. Transmission Offset
Classically, a pair of RTP packets with timestamps S2 and S1 are
transmitted with a time interval between them of (S2 - S1). This
specification permits sending an offset value O in each packet, O1
and O2. One characteristic of these offsets is that the original
transmission interval can be deduced to be (S2 + O2) - (S1 + O1).
More precisely, the offset is defined as follows (with the function
RtoN converting from RTP to Network Time Protocol (NTP) times, and
NtoR doing the reverse):
o Take an RTP stream that has a recent RTCP sender report relating
RTP timestamp S0 to NTP timestamp N0;
o Consider a packet sent after that with RTP timestamp S1.
Nominally, this is sent at N1 = (N0 + RtoN(S1 - S0));
o If it was actually sent at a different time, Na, then the offset
value O1 is O1 = NtoR(Na - N1).
The transmission time is signaled to the receiver in-band using the
general mechanism for RTP header extensions [RFC5285]. The payload
of this extension (the transmitted value) is a 24-bit signed integer.
When added to the RTP timestamp of the packet, it represents the
"effective" RTP transmission time of the packet, on the RTP
timescale. The reported transmission time T1 of a packet with
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
timestamp S1 and an offset of O1, from the above equations, is T1 =
S1+O1 (though of course the transmission time values only have
meaning when two or more are compared).
The form of the transmission offset extension block is as follows:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | len=2 | transmission offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length field takes the value 2 to indicate that 3 bytes follow.
The sign of the offset value depends greatly on the choice of the
initial mapping of RTP to NTP times. In general, without scanning a
stream entirely it is not possible to ensure that this mapping would
keep all the offsets positive; therefore, this specification allows
negative values.
Imagine a stream with the following timestamps and sizes (in KB):
200 2 KB
300 4 KB
400 2 KB
500 12 KB
600 ...effective end of stream
This has 20 KB spread over 400 time units, i.e., on average, 1 KB per
20 time units. We traffic-smooth this, and establish that given a
transmission time of x for the first packet, we would transmit the
following packets at the given intervals later:
x + 000 2 KB
x + 040 4 KB
x + 120 2 KB
x + 160 12 KB
x + 400 ...effective end of stream
The choice of x is essentially arbitrary: only relative values of
timestamps matter. Now, let's say I claim on the first packet that
it went out *at* its RTP timestamp, i.e., with an offset of 0,
meaning that x is 200. Then the offset values are:
0
-60
-80
-140
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
This is because in this case, I traffic-smooth by conceptually
sending the small packets 'early'. But since only the relative
values are significant, it is just as valid to say x is 400,
whereupon the offset values are:
200
140
120
60
In a stream where this extension is not in effect (i.e., not declared
or negotiated), the actual transmission offset is therefore unknown.
However, when the extension is in effect for the stream, it MAY be
omitted in those packets for which the offset is 0 (zero); that is,
packets sent at their nominal time do not need this to be tagged with
this extension. Therefore, the implied transmission time of an un-
tagged RTP packet depends on whether the extension is in effect for
the stream (and therefore the transmission offset is 0) or not
(whereupon the transmission offset is unknown).
The jitter calculations performed by an RTP client MUST NOT use these
transmission offsets. In general, the sender (or intermediate
network elements doing RTP analysis) cannot always know whether the
offsets have been taken into account or not. Therefore, for
consistency, the jitter calculation should continue to operate on the
'raw' reception times. However, see Section 4 on extended jitter
reports, below.
There are no extensionattributes defined for this extension.
It is structurally possible to have more than one extension of the
same type in a packet. However, this extension is only defined for
the source to report. Intermediate network nodes that are not the
source of the RTP session MUST NOT add this extension (whether or not
it was previously present) and MUST NOT alter the existing
transmission offset value in a packet, if the extension is already
present.
(Of course, it is clear that network elements that terminate an RTP
flow, and are the source for a new RTP flow, can add a transmission
offset extension header to the RTP packets of the new flow, if
desired.)
4. Extended Jitter Reports
The inter-arrival jitter computed as defined in Section 6.4.1 of RFC
3550 provides inter-arrival jitter reports that include any source-
introduced jitter (transmission time offsets). If it is desired to
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
indicate the actual network jitter, excluding the source-introduced
jitter, the new RTCP packet type defined here may be used.
It has the following form:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
hdr |V=2|P| RC | PT=IJ=195 | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| inter-arrival jitter |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
| inter-arrival jitter |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If present, this RTCP packet must be placed after a receiver report
(inside a compound RTCP packet), and MUST have the same value for RC
(reception report count) as the receiver report. The content is
exactly that number of inter-arrival jitter calculations, calculated
using the same formula as for sender and receiver reports, but taking
into account the transmission offsets for the streams (if any). That
is, the formula uses the values T1=S1+O1, T2, etc., as defined above,
instead of S1, S2, etc. (If no transmission offset information is
given for a stream, then the value of inter-arrival jitter in this
packet and in the receiver report will be identical).
Precisely, the replacement equation for the equation in the RTP
specification is as follows, where Rj is the most recent arrival
time:
D(i,j) = (Rj - Ri) - ((Sj + Oj) - (Si + Oi))
= (Rj - (Sj + Oj)) - (Ri - (Si + Oi))
5. Signaling (Setup) Information
The URI for declaring this header extension in an extmap attribute is
"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset". There is no additional setup
information needed for this extension (no extensionattributes).
6. Security Considerations
The given transmission offsets are only informative, and it is hard
to see security considerations from associating them with media
streams.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
The underlying security considerations of [RFC3550] should be taken
into account.
It is possible that malicious senders (or systems tampering with
packets in transit) could send offsets that are implausible, could
confuse the receiver, or result in calculated jitter values that
might mislead the sender. Both the sender and receiver of the
transmission offsets and jitter values should take care that such
behavior does not result in denial of service or other problems.
7. IANA Considerations
The RTCP packet type used for the adjusted inter-arrival jitter has
been registered, in accordance with Section 15 of [RFC3550]. IANA
has added a new value to the RTCP Control Packet types subregistry of
the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry, according
to the following data:
abbrev. name value Reference
------- ------------------------------------ ------ ---------
IJ Extended inter-arrival jitter report 195 RFC 5450
Additionally, IANA has registered a new extension URI to the RTP
Compact Header Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport
Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry, according to the following data:
Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset
Description: Transmission Time offsets
Contact: singer@apple.com
Reference: RFC 5450
8. Acknowledgments
Ron Frederick, Colin Perkins, and Steve Casner all contributed
substantially to this document, and their help and contributions
helped turn an idea into a specification.
9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC5285] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5450 RTP Transmission Offsets March 2009
Authors' Addresses
David Singer
Apple Computer Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
US
Phone: +1 408 996 1010
EMail: singer@apple.com
Harikishan Desineni
Qualcomm
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
US
Phone: +1 858 845 8996
EMail: hd@qualcomm.com
Singer & Desineni Standards Track [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
