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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 4573

AVT                                                              R. Even
Internet-Draft                                               A. Lochbaum
Expires: August 3, 2006                                          Polycom
                                                        January 30, 2006


        MIME type registration for RTP Payload format for H.224
                    draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-05.txt

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 August 3, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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.224.





Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Far-end camera control protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Media Type Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.1.  Registration of MIME media type application/h224 . . .  6
   5.  SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model  . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13



































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


1.  Introduction

   The document registers the H224 media type that may be used by
   systems that uses SDP [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-new].

   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 [ITU.H323] carry H.224 frames[ITU.H224].  The far end camera
   control protocol (FECC) 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 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-new] parameters
   needed to support the above far end camera control protocol in
   systems that use SDP.
































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


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 & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


3.  Far-end camera control protocol

   This simple protocol is based on ITU-T H.281[ITU.281] frames carried
   in ITU-T H.224 packets 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 for packet switch networks is described in H.323
   annex Q










































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  Media Type Registration

   This section describes the media types and names associated with this
   payload format.  The registration uses the templates defined in
   RFC4288 [RFC4288].  It follows RFC3555 [RFC3555].

4.1.1.  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 media type is framed (see H.323 Annex Q [ITU.H323]) and
      contains binary data, see section 4.8 in [RFC4288]

   Security considerations: See Section 6 of RFCxxxx

   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 xxxx

   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

   Restrictions on usage:





Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


      This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence is only defined
      for transfer via RTP [RFC3550].  Transport within other framing
      protocols is not defined at this time.

   Author: Roni Even

   Change controller:

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










































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


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 SHALL be any applicable RTP profile (for example RFC 3551
   [RFC3551]) 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 default clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 4800.

   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.

   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's 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 or it intendes to use H.224 capabilities negotiation, it
   answers with a sendrecv option.  If its camera cannot be remotely
   controlled it can answer with a sendonly attribute.  The answerer may
   also reject the offer if he does not support FECC or does not intend
   to use FECC at the moment.





Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


6.  Security Considerations

   H.224 payload format defined in H.323 annex Q defines packets
   structure based on RTP using the RTP header structure from RFC3550.
   Those packets are subject to the security considerations discussed in
   the RTP specification [RFC3550].  This implies that confidentiality
   of the media streams is achieved by encryption.  SRTP [RFC3711] may
   be used to provide both encryption and integrity protection of RTP
   flow.

   A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data that causes
   application behavior like camera movement.  The attacker can inject
   pathological datagrams into the stream which cause the receiver to
   change the camera position.  Therefore, the usage of data origin
   authentication and data integrity protection of at least the H.323
   annex Q packet is RECOMMENDED; for example, with SRTP.

   Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and
   integrity of H.323 annex Q packets and their payloads is very
   dependent on the application and on the transport and signaling
   protocols employed.  Thus, although SRTP is given as an example
   above, other possible choices exist.





























Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-new]
              Handley, M., "SDP: Session Description Protocol",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-25 (work in progress),
              July 2005.

   [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.

   [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.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3555]  Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP
              Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.



Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

















































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Roni Even
   Polycom
   94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
   Petach Tikva  49130
   Israel

   Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il


   Andrew Lochbaum
   Polycom
   6500 River Place Blvd, Building 6
   Austin, TX  78730
   USA

   Email: alochbaum@polycom.com

































Even & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    FECC                      January 2006


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 (2006).  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 & Lochbaum          Expires August 3, 2006                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/