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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 4573

AVT                                                              R. Even
Internet-Draft                                                   Polycom
Expires: October 29, 2005                                 April 27, 2005


        MIME type registration for RTP Payload format for H.224
                    draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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 October 29, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   In conversional video applications far end camera control protocol is
   used by participants to control the remote camera.  The protocol that
   is commonly used is ITU H.281 over H.224.  The document registers the
   H224 media type.  It defines the syntax and the semantics of the SDP
   parameters needed to support far end camera control protocol using
   H.281.




Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Far-end camera control protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1   Registration of MIME media type application/h224 . . . . .  6
   5.  SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1   Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model  . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 10






































Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


1.  Introduction

   The ITU-T recommendation H.281 [ITU.281] specifies a protocol for far
   end camera control (FECC).  This protocol is carried in H.320 systems
   using H.224 [ITU.H224].  For H.323 systems, H.323 annex Q specifies
   how to carry H.224 frames using RTP packets.

   The document registers the H224 media type that can be used by
   systems that uses SDP[RFC2327].

   This media type is used for supporting the simple far end camera
   control protocol on SDP based systems.  The media type helps
   signaling gateways between H.323 [ITU.H323]and SDP based systems to
   use far end camera control, end to end, without having any protocol
   translation in the middle.

   The document defines H224 media type since the RTP packets in H.323
   annex Q, carry H.224 frames.  The FECC proocol is internal to H.224
   frame and is identified by the client ID field of the H.224 packet.

   The document will define the SDP[RFC2327]parameters needed to support
   the above far end camera control protocol in systems that use SDP





























Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


2.  Terminology

   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[RFC2119] and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.













































Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


3.  Far-end camera control protocol

   This protocol is based on ITU-T H.281 running over ITU-T H.224 in an
   RTP/UDP channel.  H.323 annex Q specifies how to build the RTP
   packets from the H.224 packets.

   Using far end camera control protocol in point to point calls and
   multipoint calls is described in H.281 and H.323 annex Q











































Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


4.  IANA Considerations

   This section describes the media types and names associated with this
   payload format.  The section registers the media types, as per
   RFC2048[RFC2048]

4.1  Registration of MIME media type application/h224

   MIME media type name: application

   MIME subtype name: H224

   Required parameters: None

   Optional parameters:  None

   Encoding considerations:

   This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550]

   Security considerations: See Section 6

   Interoperability considerations: Terminals sending simple far end
   camera control command should use this MIME type, receivers who can
   not support the protocol will reject the channel.

   Published specification: RFC yyy

   Applications which use this media type:

   Video conferencing applications.

   Additional information: none

   Person and email address to contact for further information :

   Roni Even: roni.even@polycom.co.il

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Author:

   Roni Even

   Change controller:

   IETF Audio/Video Transport working group delegated from the IESG.




Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


5.  SDP Parameters

   The media media type application/h224 string is mapped to fields in
   the Session Description Protocol (SDP)  as follows:

   o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be application.  The
   transport SHOULD be RTP and the payload type is dynamic.

   o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be h224 (the
   MIME subtype).

   o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 0.

   The recommended maximum bandwidth for this protocol is 6.4 kbit/sec.

5.1  Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model

   When offering FECC using SDP in an Offer/Answer model[RFC3264]  the
   following considerations are necessary.

   H.281 Far end camera control communication are uni-directional.
   H.224 is bi-directional and can be used to learn the capabilities of
   the remote video end point e.g how many cameras it has.  The offer
   answer exchange is dependent on the functionality of both side.

   The offerer offers a sendonly channel if its camera can not be
   remotely controlled and if the offerer does not intend to use H.224
   to learn the capabilities of the remote video endpoints.

   In all other cases, when the offerer camera can be remotely
   controlled and/or it intends to use H.224 capabilities negotiation,
   the offerer offers a sendrecv channel.

   The answerer behavior is as follows:

   If it receives an offer with sendonly it answers with a recvonly if
   it supports far end camera control, otherwise it ignores / reject the
   offer.

   If it receives an offer with sendrecv and its camera can be remotely
   controlled it answers with a sendrecv option.  If its camera cannot
   be remotely control it rejects the offer but may later try to
   remotely control the offerer's camera using this procedure.








Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


6.  Security Considerations

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
   specification [RFC3550].  This implies that confidentiality of the
   media streams is achieved by encryption.

   A potential denial-of-service threat exists.  The attacker can inject
   pathological datagrams into the stream which may cause the receiver
   to move the camera randomly.  The usage of authentication of at least
   the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED

   As with any IP-based protocol, in some circumstances a receiver may
   be overloaded simply by the receipt of too many packets, either
   desired or undesired.  Network-layer authentication may be used to
   discard packets from undesired sources, but the processing cost of
   the authentication itself may be too high.

7.  Normative References

   [ITU.281]  International Telecommunications Union, "A far end camera
              control protocol for videoconferences using H.224", ITU-
              T Recommendation H.281, November 1994.

   [ITU.H224]
              International Telecommunications Union, "A real time
              control protocol for simplex applications using the H.221
              LSD/HSD/HLP channels.", ITU-T Recommendation H.224,
              February 2000.

   [ITU.H323]
              International Telecommunications Union, "Visual telephone
              systems and equipment for local area networks which
              provide a non-guaranteed quality of service", ITU-
              T Recommendation H.323, July 2003.

   [RFC2048]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
              Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
              Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

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

   [RFC2327]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
              Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

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



Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


              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.


Author's Address

   Roni Even
   Polycom
   94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
   Petach Tikva  49130
   Israel

   Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il



































Even                    Expires October 29, 2005                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                        April 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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.


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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Even                    Expires October 29, 2005               [Page 10]


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