[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-mmusic-duplication-grouping

MMUSIC                                                          A. Begen
Internet-Draft                                                    Y. Cai
Intended status:  Standards Track                                  H. Ou
Expires:  September 12, 2012                                       Cisco
                                                          March 11, 2012


   Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol
               draft-begen-mmusic-redundancy-grouping-03

Abstract

   Packet loss is undesirable for real-time multimedia sessions, but can
   occur due to congestion, or other unplanned network outages.  This is
   especially true for IP multicast networks, where packet loss patterns
   can vary greatly between receivers.  One technique that can be used
   to recover from packet loss without incurring unbounded delay for all
   the receivers is to duplicate the packets and send them in separate
   redundant streams.  This document defines the semantics for grouping
   redundant streams in the Session Description Protocol (SDP).  The
   semantics defined in this document are to be used with the SDP
   Grouping Framework [RFC5888].  SSRC-level (Synchronization Source)
   grouping semantics are also defined in this document for RTP streams
   using SSRC multiplexing.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  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 Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Duplication Grouping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  "DUP" Grouping Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  DUP Grouping for SSRC-Multiplexed RTP Streams . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  SDP Offer/Answer Model Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  SDP Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.1.  Separate Source Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.2.  Separate Destination Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.3.  Temporal Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9






















Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


1.  Introduction

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] is widely used today
   for delivering IPTV traffic, and other real-time multimedia sessions.
   Many of these applications support very large numbers of receivers,
   and rely on intra-domain UDP/IP multicast for efficient distribution
   of traffic within the network.

   While this combination has proved successful, there does exist a
   weakness.  As [RFC2354] noted, packet loss is not avoidable, even in
   a carefully managed network.  This loss might be due to congestion,
   it might also be a result of an unplanned outage caused by a flapping
   link, link or interface failure, a software bug, or a maintenance
   person accidentally cutting the wrong fiber.  Since UDP/IP flows do
   not provide any means for detecting loss and retransmitting packets,
   it leaves up to the RTP layer and the applications to detect, and
   recover from, packet loss.

   One technique to recover from packet loss without incurring unbounded
   delay for all the receivers is to duplicate the packets and send them
   in separate redundant streams.  Variations on this idea have been
   implemented and deployed today [IC2011].
   [I-D.begen-avtcore-rtp-duplication] explains how duplication can be
   achieved for RTP streams without breaking the RTP and RTCP
   functionality.  In this document, we describe the semantics needed in
   the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] to support this
   technique.


2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].


3.  Duplication Grouping

3.1.  "DUP" Grouping Semantics

   Each "a=group" line is used to indicate an association relationship
   between the redundant streams.  The streams included in one "a=group"
   line are called a Duplication Group.

   Using the framework in [RFC5888], this document defines "DUP" as the
   grouping semantics for redundant streams.




Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


   The "a=group:DUP" semantics MUST be used to group the redundant
   streams except when the streams are specified in the same media
   description, i.e., in the same "m" line (See Section 3.2).

   When the redundant streams are described in separate "m" lines and
   the 'group' attribute is used to describe the redundancy relation,
   the SSRCs for each redundant stream MUST be announced in the SDP
   description using the 'ssrc' attribute [RFC5576].  According to
   [I-D.begen-avtcore-rtp-duplication], the sender must also use the
   same RTCP CNAME for both the main and redundant streams, and must
   include an "a=ssrc:... srcname:..." attribute to correlate the flows.

3.2.  DUP Grouping for SSRC-Multiplexed RTP Streams

   [RFC5576] defines an SDP media-level attribute, called 'ssrc-group',
   for grouping the RTP streams that are SSRC multiplexed and carried in
   the same RTP session.  The grouping is based on the SSRC identifiers.
   Since SSRC-multiplexed RTP streams are defined in the same "m" line,
   the 'group' attribute cannot be used.

   This section specifies how duplication is used with SSRC-multiplexed
   streams using the 'ssrc-group' attribute [RFC5576].

   The semantics of "DUP" for the 'ssrc-group' attribute are the same as
   the one defined for the 'group' attribute except that the SSRC
   identifiers are used to designate the duplication grouping
   associations:  a=ssrc-group:DUP *(SP ssrc-id) [RFC5576].

3.3.  SDP Offer/Answer Model Considerations

   When offering duplication grouping using SDP in an Offer/Answer model
   [RFC3264], the following considerations apply.

   A node that is receiving an offer from a sender may or may not
   understand line grouping.  It is also possible that the node
   understands line grouping but it does not understand the "DUP"
   semantics.  From the viewpoint of the sender of the offer, these
   cases are indistinguishable.

   When a node is offered a session with the "DUP" grouping semantics
   but it does not support line grouping or the duplication grouping
   semantics, as per [RFC5888], the node responds to the offer either
   (1) with an answer that ignores the grouping attribute or (2) with a
   refusal to the request (e.g., 488 Not Acceptable Here or 606 Not
   Acceptable in SIP).

   In the first case, the original sender of the offer must send a new
   offer without any duplication grouping.  In the second case, if the



Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


   sender of the offer still wishes to establish the session, it should
   retry the request with an offer without the duplication grouping.
   This behavior is specified in [RFC5888].


4.  SDP Examples

4.1.  Separate Source Addresses

   In this example, the redundant streams use the same IP destination
   address (232.252.0.1) but they are sourced from different addresses
   (198.51.100.1 and 198.51.100.2).  Thus, the receiving host needs to
   join both SSM sessions separately.


       v=0
       o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 dup.example.com
       s=DUP Grouping Semantics
       t=0 0
       m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
       c=IN IP4 232.252.0.1/127
       a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 232.252.0.1 198.51.100.1 198.51.100.2
       a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
       a=ssrc:1000 cname:ch1@example.com
       a=ssrc:1010 cname:ch1@example.com
       a=ssrc-group:DUP 1000 1010
       a=mid:Group1

   Note that in actual use, SSRC values, which are random 32-bit
   numbers, can be much larger than the ones shown in this example.

4.2.  Separate Destination Addresses

   In this example, the redundant streams have different IP destination
   addresses.  The example shows the same UDP port number and IP source
   addresses, but either or both could have been different for the two
   streams.














Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


        v=0
        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 dup.example.com
        s=DUP Grouping Semantics
        t=0 0
        a=group:DUP S1a S1b
        m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
        a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.1 198.51.100.1
        a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
        a=ssrc:1000 cname:ch1@example.com
        a=ssrc:1000 srcname:45:a8:f4:19:b4:c3
        a=mid:S1a
        m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 101
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/127
        a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.2 198.51.100.1
        a=rtpmap:101 MP2T/90000
        a=ssrc:1010 cname:ch1@example.com
        a=ssrc:1010 srcname:45:a8:f4:19:b4:c3
        a=mid:S1b

4.3.  Temporal Redundancy

   In this example, the redundant streams have the same IP source and
   destination addresses but different UDP port numbers.  Due to the
   same source and destination addresses, the packets in both streams
   will be routed over the same path.  To provide resiliency against
   packet loss, the duplicate of an original packet is transmitted 50 ms
   later as indicated by the 'duplication-delay' attribute (defined in
   [I-D.begen-mmusic-temporal-interleaving]).






















Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


        v=0
        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 dup.example.com
        s=DUP Grouping Semantics
        t=0 0
        a=group:DUP S1a S1b
        a=duplication-delay:50
        m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
        a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.1 198.51.100.1
        a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
        a=ssrc:1000 cname:ch1@example.com
        a=ssrc:1000 srcname:45:a8:f4:19:b4:c3
        a=mid:S1a
        m=video 40000 RTP/AVP 101
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
        a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.1 198.51.100.1
        a=rtpmap:101 MP2T/90000
        a=ssrc:1010 cname:ch1@example.com
        a=ssrc:1010 srcname:45:a8:f4:19:b4:c3
        a=mid:S1b


5.  Security Considerations

   There is a weak threat for the receiver that the duplication grouping
   can be modified to indicate relationships that do not exist.  Such
   attacks might result in failure of the duplication mechanisms, and/or
   mishandling of the media streams by the receivers.

   In order to avoid attacks of this sort, the SDP description needs to
   be integrity protected and provided with source authentication.  This
   can, for example, be achieved on an end-to-end basis using S/MIME
   [RFC5652] [RFC5751] when the SDP is used in a signaling packet using
   MIME types (application/sdp).  Alternatively, HTTPS [RFC2818] or the
   authentication method in the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP)
   [RFC2974] could be used as well.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the following semantics with IANA in
   Semantics for the 'group' SDP Attribute under SDP Parameters:

   Note to the RFC Editor:  In the following registrations, please
   replace "XXXX" with the number of this document prior to publication
   as an RFC.





Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


   Semantics                              Token   Reference
   -------------------------------------  ------  ---------
   Duplication                            DUP     [RFCXXXX]

   This document also registers the following semantics with IANA in
   Semantics for the 'ssrc-group' SDP Attribute under SDP Parameters:


   Token    Semantics                      Reference
   -------  -----------------------------  ---------
   DUP      Duplication                    [RFCXXXX]


7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Colin Perkins, Bill Ver Steeg, Dave
   Oran and Toerless Eckert for their inputs and suggestions.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5576]  Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
              Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
              (SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.

   [RFC5888]  Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888, June 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.begen-avtcore-rtp-duplication]
              Begen, A. and C. Perkins, "Duplicating RTP Streams",



Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


              draft-begen-avtcore-rtp-duplication-01 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.begen-mmusic-temporal-interleaving]
              Begen, A., Cai, Y., and H. Ou, "Delayed Duplication
              Attribute in the Session Description Protocol",
              draft-begen-mmusic-temporal-interleaving-04 (work in
              progress), March 2012.

   [IC2011]   Evans, J., Begen, A., Greengrass, J., and C. Filsfils,
              "Toward Lossless Video Transport (to appear in IEEE
              Internet Computing)", November 2011.

   [RFC2354]  Perkins, C. and O. Hodson, "Options for Repair of
              Streaming Media", RFC 2354, June 1998.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC2974]  Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
              Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, September 2009.

   [RFC5751]  Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
              Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
              Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Ali Begen
   Cisco
   181 Bay Street
   Toronto, ON  M5J 2T3
   Canada

   Email:  abegen@cisco.com


   Yiqun Cai
   Cisco
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email:  ycai@cisco.com




Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Duplication Grouping Semantics in SDP       March 2012


   Heidi Ou
   Cisco
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email:  hou@cisco.com












































Begen, et al.          Expires September 12, 2012              [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/