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

Versions: (draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 6285

AVT                                                          B. VerSteeg
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Begen
Intended status:  Standards Track                                  Cisco
Expires:  August 8, 2010                                  T. VanCaenegem
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                                  Z. Vax
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                        February 4, 2010


       Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions
              draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-06

Abstract

   When an RTP receiver joins a multicast session, it may need to
   acquire and parse certain Reference Information before it can process
   any data sent in the multicast session.  Depending on the join time,
   length of the Reference Information repetition (or appearance)
   interval, size of the Reference Information as well as the
   application and transport properties, the time lag before an RTP
   receiver can usefully consume the multicast data, which we refer to
   as the Acquisition Delay, varies and may be large.  This is an
   undesirable phenomenon for receivers that frequently switch among
   different multicast sessions, such as video broadcasts.

   In this document, we describe a method using the existing RTP and
   RTCP protocol machinery that reduces the acquisition delay.  In this
   method, an auxiliary unicast RTP session carrying the Reference
   Information to the receiver precedes/accompanies the multicast
   stream.  This unicast RTP flow may be transmitted at a faster than
   natural rate to further accelerate the acquisition.  The motivating
   use case for this capability is multicast applications that carry
   real-time compressed audio and video.  However, the proposed method
   can also be used in other types of multicast applications where the
   acquisition delay is long enough to be a problem.

Status of this Memo

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



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   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 8, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (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 BSD License.

   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.













VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.   Acquisition of RTP Streams vs. RTP Sessions . . . . . . .  7
     1.2.   Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Elements of Delay in Multicast Applications  . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Protocol Design Considerations and Their Effect on
       Resource Management for Rapid Acquisition  . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions  . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.   Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.   Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.3.   Synchronization of Primary Multicast Streams  . . . . . . 23
     6.4.   Shaping the Unicast Burst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.5.   Failure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  Encoding of the Signaling Protocol in RTCP . . . . . . . . . . 27
     7.1.   Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.1.1.  Vendor-Neutral Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       7.1.2.  Private Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     7.2.   RAMS Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     7.3.   RAMS Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     7.4.   RAMS Termination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   8.  SDP Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     8.1.   Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     8.2.   Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     8.3.   Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9.  NAT Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   10. Congestion Control Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     12.1.  Registration of SDP Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     12.2.  Registration of SDP Attribute Values  . . . . . . . . . . 43
     12.3.  Registration of FMT Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     12.4.  SFMT Values for RAMS Messages Registry  . . . . . . . . . 43
     12.5.  RAMS TLV Space Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     12.6.  RAMS Response Code Space Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   14. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   15. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     15.1.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-06 . . . . . . . 47
     15.2.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-05 . . . . . . . 47
     15.3.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-04 . . . . . . . 47
     15.4.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-03 . . . . . . . 48
     15.5.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-02 . . . . . . . 48
     15.6.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-01 . . . . . . . 48
     15.7.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-00 . . . . . . . 48
     15.8.  draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-03 . . . 49



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


     15.9.  draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-02 . . . 49
     15.10. draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-01 . . . 49
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     16.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     16.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52













































VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


1.  Introduction

   Most multicast flows carry a stream of inter-related data.  Certain
   information must first be acquired by the receivers to start
   processing any data sent in the multicast session.  This document
   refers to this information as Reference Information.  The Reference
   Information is conventionally sent periodically in the multicast
   session (although its content may change over time) and usually
   consists of items such as a description of the schema for the rest of
   the data, references to which data to process, encryption information
   including keys, as well as any other information required to process
   the data in the multicast stream [IC2009].

   Real-time multicast applications require the receivers to buffer
   data.  The receiver may have to buffer data to smooth out the network
   jitter, to allow loss-repair methods such as Forward Error Correction
   and retransmission to recover the missing packets, and to satisfy the
   data processing requirements of the application layer.

   When a receiver joins a multicast session, it has no control over
   what point in the flow is currently being transmitted.  Sometimes the
   receiver may join the session right before the Reference Information
   is sent in the session.  In this case, the required waiting time is
   usually minimal.  Other times, the receiver may join the session
   right after the Reference Information has been transmitted.  In this
   case, the receiver has to wait for the Reference Information to
   appear again in the flow before it can start processing any multicast
   data.  In some other cases, the Reference Information is not
   contiguous in the flow but dispersed over a large period, which
   forces the receiver to wait for all of the Reference Information to
   arrive before starting to process the rest of the data.

   The net effect of waiting for the Reference Information and waiting
   for various buffers to fill up is that the receivers may experience
   significantly large delays in data processing.  In this document, we
   refer to the difference between the time an RTP receiver joins the
   multicast session and the time the RTP receiver acquires all the
   necessary Reference Information as the Acquisition Delay.  The
   acquisition delay may not be the same for different receivers; it
   usually varies depending on the join time, length of the Reference
   Information repetition (or appearance) interval, size of the
   Reference Information as well as the application and transport
   properties.

   The varying nature of the acquisition delay adversely affects the
   receivers that frequently switch among multicast sessions.  In this
   specification, we address this problem for RTP-based multicast
   applications and describe a method that uses the fundamental tools



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   offered by the existing RTP and RTCP protocols [RFC3550].  In this
   method, either the multicast source (or the distribution source in a
   source-specific multicast (SSM) session) retains the Reference
   Information for a period after its transmission, or an intermediary
   network element (that we refer to as Retransmission Server) joins the
   multicast session and continuously caches the Reference Information
   as it is sent in the session and acts as a feedback target (See
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm]) for the session.  When an RTP receiver wishes
   to join the same multicast session, instead of simply issuing a
   Source Filtering Group Management Protocol (SFGMP) Join message, it
   sends a request to the feedback target for the session and asks for
   the Reference Information.  The Retransmission Server starts a new
   unicast RTP (retransmission) session and sends the Reference
   Information to the RTP receiver over that session.  If there is spare
   bandwidth, the Retransmission Server may burst the Reference
   Information faster than its natural rate.  As soon as the receiver
   acquires the Reference Information, it can join the multicast session
   and start processing the multicast data.  A simplified network
   diagram showing this method through an intermediary network element
   is depicted in Figure 1.

   This method potentially reduces the acquisition delay.  We refer to
   this method as Unicast-based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP
   Sessions.  A primary use case for this method is to reduce the
   channel-change times in IPTV networks where compressed video streams
   are multicast in different SSM sessions and viewers randomly join
   these sessions.
























VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


                                        -----------------------
                                  +--->|     Intermediary      |
                                  |    |    Network Element    |
                                  | ...|(Retransmission Server)|
                                  | :   -----------------------
                                  | :
                                  | v
           -----------          ----------             ----------
          | Multicast |        |          |---------->| Joining  |
          |  Source   |------->|  Router  |..........>|   RTP    |
          |           |        |          |           | Receiver |
           -----------          ----------             ----------
                                    |
                                    |                  ----------
                                    +---------------->| Existing |
                                                      |    RTP   |
                                                      | Receiver |
                                                       ----------


          -------> Multicast RTP Flow
          .......> Unicast RTP Flow

    Figure 1: Rapid acquisition through an intermediary network element

   A principle design goal in this solution is to use the existing tools
   in the RTP/RTCP protocol family.  This improves the versatility of
   the existing implementations, and promotes faster deployment and
   better interoperability.  To this effect, we use the unicast
   retransmission support of RTP [RFC4588] and the capabilities of RTCP
   to handle the signaling needed to accomplish the acquisition.

1.1.  Acquisition of RTP Streams vs. RTP Sessions

   By the definition given in [RFC3550], an RTP session may involve one
   or more RTP streams each identified with a unique SSRC.  All RTP
   streams within a single RTP session are sent towards the same
   transport address, i.e., they share the same destination IP address
   and port.  In RTP jargon, these streams are said to be SSRC-
   multiplexed.  On the other hand, an SSM session is uniquely
   identified by its source address and destination group address.
   However, it may carry one or more RTP sessions, each associated with
   a different destination port.  Consequently, while it is not very
   practical, it is still possible for an SSM session to carry multiple
   RTP sessions each carrying multiple SSRC-multiplexed RTP streams.

   Developing a protocol that can jointly handle the rapid acquisition
   of all of the RTP sessions in an SSM session is neither practical nor



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   necessary.  Rather, in this specification we focus on developing a
   protocol that handles the rapid acquisition of a single RTP session
   (called primary multicast RTP session) carrying one or more RTP
   streams (called primary multicast streams).  If desired, multiple
   instances of this protocol may be run in parallel to acquire multiple
   RTP sessions simultaneously.

   When an RTP receiver requests the Reference Information from the
   Retransmission Server, it may opt to rapidly acquire a specific
   subset of the available RTP streams in the primary multicast RTP
   session.  Alternatively, it may request the rapid acquisition of all
   of the RTP streams in that RTP session.  Regardless of how many RTP
   streams are requested by the RTP receiver or how many will be
   actually sent by the Retransmission Server, only one unicast RTP
   (retransmission) session will be established by the Retransmission
   Server serving as the feedback target for that RTP session.  The RTP
   receiver multiplexes this unicast RTP session with the primary
   multicast RTP session it receives as part of the SSM session.  If the
   RTP receiver wants to rapidly acquire multiple RTP sessions
   simultaneously, separate unicast RTP (retransmission) sessions will
   be established for each of them.

1.2.  Outline

   In the rest of this specification, we have the following outline:  In
   Section 4, we describe the delay components in generic multicast
   applications.  Section 5 presents an overview of the protocol design
   considerations for rapid acquisition.  We provide the protocol
   details of the rapid acquisition method in Section 6 and Section 7.
   Section 8 and Section 9 discuss the SDP signaling issues with
   examples and NAT-related issues, respectively.  Section 10 and
   Section 11 discuss the congestion control and security
   considerations, respectively.

   Section 3 provides a list of the definitions frequently used in this
   document.


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.  Definitions

   This document uses the following acronyms and definitions frequently:



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   (Primary) SSM (or Multicast) Session:  The multicast session to which
   RTP receivers can join at a random point in time.

   Primary Multicast RTP Session:  The multicast RTP session an RTP
   receiver is interested in acquiring rapidly.  A primary SSM session
   may carry multiple multicast RTP sessions, but only one of them can
   be the primary from the viewpoint of rapid acquisition.

   Primary Multicast (RTP) Streams:  The RTP stream(s) carried in the
   primary multicast RTP session.

   Source Filtering Group Management Protocol (SFGMP):  Following the
   definition in [RFC4604], SFGMP refers to the Internet Group
   Management Protocol (IGMP) version 3 [RFC3376] and the Multicast
   Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) version 2 [RFC3810] in the IPv4 and
   IPv6 networks, respectively.  However, the rapid acquisition method
   introduced in this document does not depend on a specific version of
   either of these group management protocols.  In the remainder of this
   document, SFGMP will refer to any group management protocol that has
   Join and Leave functionalities.

   Feedback Target (FT):  Unicast RTCP feedback target as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm].  FT_Ap denotes a specific feedback target
   running on a particular address and port.

   Retransmission Packet:  An RTP packet that is formatted as defined in
   [RFC4588].

   Reference Information:  The set of certain media content and metadata
   information that is sufficient for an RTP receiver to start usefully
   consuming a media stream.  The meaning, format and size of this
   information are specific to the application and are out of scope of
   this document.

   Preamble Information:  A more compact form of the whole or a subset
   of the Reference Information transmitted out-of-band.

   (Unicast) Burst (Stream):  A unicast stream of RTP retransmission
   packets that enable an RTP receiver to rapidly acquire the Reference
   Information associated with a primary multicast stream.  Each burst
   stream is identified by its unique SSRC identifier in the primary
   multicast RTP session.  The burst streams are typically transmitted
   at an accelerated rate.

   Retransmission Server (RS):  The RTP/RTCP endpoint that can generate
   the retransmission packets and the burst streams.  RS may also
   generate other non-retransmission packets to aid the rapid
   acquisition process.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


4.  Elements of Delay in Multicast Applications

   In an any-source (ASM) or a source-specific (SSM) multicast delivery
   system, there are three major elements that contribute to the overall
   acquisition delay when an RTP receiver switches from one multicast
   session to another one.  These are:

   o  Multicast switching delay

   o  Reference Information latency

   o  Buffering delays

   Multicast switching delay is the delay that is experienced to leave
   the current multicast session (if any) and join the new multicast
   session.  In typical systems, the multicast join and leave operations
   are handled by a group management protocol.  For example, the
   receivers and routers participating in a multicast session may use
   the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) version 3 [RFC3376] or
   the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) version 2 [RFC3810].
   In either of these protocols, when a receiver wants to join a
   multicast session, it sends a message to its upstream router and the
   routing infrastructure sets up the multicast forwarding state to
   deliver the packets of the multicast session to the new receiver.
   Depending on the proximity of the upstream router, the current state
   of the multicast tree, the load on the system and the protocol
   implementation, the join times vary.  Current systems provide join
   latencies usually less than 200 milliseconds (ms).  If the receiver
   had been participating in another multicast session before joining
   the new session, it needs to send a Leave message to its upstream
   router to leave the session.  In common multicast routing protocols,
   the leave times are usually smaller than the join times, however, it
   is possible that the Leave and Join messages may get lost, in which
   case the multicast switching delay inevitably increases.

   Reference Information latency is the time it takes the receiver to
   acquire the Reference Information.  It is highly dependent on the
   proximity of the actual time the receiver joined the session to the
   next time the Reference Information will be sent to the receivers in
   the session, whether the Reference Information is sent contiguously
   or not, and the size of the Reference Information.  For some
   multicast flows, there is a little or no interdependency in the data,
   in which case the Reference Information latency will be nil or
   negligible.  For other multicast flows, there is a high degree of
   interdependency.  One example of interest is the multicast flows that
   carry compressed audio/video.  For these flows, the Reference
   Information latency may become quite large and be a major contributor
   to the overall delay.  Refer to [I-D.begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble]



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   for details.

   The buffering component of the overall acquisition delay is driven by
   the way the application layer processes the payload.  In many
   multicast applications, an unreliable transport protocol such as UDP
   [RFC0768] is often used to transmit the data packets, and the
   reliability, if needed, is usually addressed through other means such
   as Forward Error Correction (e.g.,
   [I-D.ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme]) and retransmission.
   These loss-repair methods require buffering at the receiver side to
   function properly.  In many applications, it is also often necessary
   to de-jitter the incoming data packets before feeding them to the
   application.  The de-jittering process also increases the buffering
   delays.  Besides these network-related buffering delays, there are
   also specific buffering needs that are required by the individual
   applications.  For example, standard video decoders typically require
   an amount, sometimes a significant amount, of coded video data to be
   available in the pre-decoding buffers prior to starting to decode the
   video bitstream.


5.  Protocol Design Considerations and Their Effect on Resource
    Management for Rapid Acquisition

   Rapid acquisition is an optimization of a system that must continue
   to work correctly and properly whether or not the optimization is
   effective, or even fails due to lost control and feedback messages,
   congestion, or other problems.  This is fundamental to the overall
   design requirements surrounding the protocol definition and to the
   resource management schemes to be employed together with the protocol
   (e.g., QoS machinery, server load management, etc).  In particular,
   the system needs to operate within a number of constraints:

   o  First, a rapid acquisition operation must fail gracefully.  The
      user experience must, except perhaps in pathological
      circumstances, be not significantly worse for trying and failing
      to complete rapid acquisition compared to simply joining the
      multicast session.

   o  Second, providing the rapid acquisition optimizations must not
      cause collateral damage to either the multicast session being
      joined, or other multicast sessions sharing resources with the
      rapid acquisition operation.  In particular, the rapid acquisition
      operation must avoid interference with the multicast session that
      may be simultaneously being received by other hosts.  In addition,
      it must also avoid interference with other multicast sessions
      sharing the same network resources.  These properties are
      possible, but are usually difficult to achieve.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   One challenge is the existence of multiple bandwidth bottlenecks
   between the receiver and the server(s) in the network providing the
   rapid acquisition service.  In commercial IPTV deployments, for
   example, bottlenecks are often present in the aggregation network
   connecting the IPTV servers to the network edge, the access links
   (e.g., DSL, DOCSIS) and in the home network of the subscribers.  Some
   of these links may serve only a single subscriber, limiting
   congestion impact to the traffic of only that subscriber, but others
   can be shared links carrying multicast sessions of many subscribers.
   Also note that the state of these links may be varying over time.
   The receiver may have knowledge of a portion of this network, or may
   have partial knowledge of the entire network.  The methods employed
   by the devices to acquire this network state information is out of
   scope for this document.  The receiver should be able to signal the
   server with the bandwidth that it believes it can handle.  The server
   also needs to be able to rate limit the flow in order to stay within
   the performance envelope that it knows about.  Both the server and
   receiver need to be able to inform the other of changes in the
   requested and delivered rates.  However, the protocol must be robust
   in the presence of packet loss, so this signaling must include the
   appropriate default behaviors.

   A second challenge is that for some uses (e.g., high-bitrate video)
   the unicast burst bitrate is high while the flow duration of the
   unicast burst is short.  This is because the purpose of the unicast
   burst is to allow the RTP receiver to join the multicast quickly and
   thereby limit the overall resources consumed by the burst.  Such
   high-bitrate, short-duration flows are not amenable to conventional
   admission control techniques.  For example, end-to-end per-flow
   signaled admission control techniques such as RSVP have too much
   latency and control channel overhead to be a good fit for rapid
   acquisition.  Similarly, using a TCP (or TCP-like) approach with a
   3-way handshake and slow-start to avoid inducing congestion would
   defeat the purpose of attempting rapid acquisition in the first place
   by introducing many round-trip times (RTT) of delay.

   These observations lead to certain unavoidable requirements and goals
   for a rapid acquisition protocol.  These are:

   o  The protocol must be designed to allow a deterministic upper bound
      on the extra bandwidth used (compared to just joining the
      multicast session).  A reasonable size bound is e*B, where B is
      the nominal bandwidth of the primary multicast streams, and e is
      an excess-bandwidth coefficient.  The total duration of the
      unicast burst must have a reasonable bound; long unicast bursts
      devolve to the bandwidth profile of multi-unicast for the whole
      system.




VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   o  The scheme should minimize (or better eliminate) the overlap of
      the unicast burst and the primary multicast stream.  This
      minimizes the window during which congestion could be induced on a
      bottleneck link compared to just carrying the multicast or unicast
      packets alone.

   o  The scheme must minimize (or better eliminate) any gap between the
      unicast burst and the primary multicast stream, which has to be
      repaired later, or in the absence of repair, will result in loss
      being experienced by the application.

   In addition to the above, there are some other protocol design issues
   to be considered.  First, there is at least one RTT of "slop" in the
   control loop.  In starting a rapid acquisition burst, this manifests
   as the time between the client requesting the unicast burst and the
   burst description and/or the first unicast burst packets arriving at
   the receiver.  For managing and terminating the unicast burst, there
   are two possible approaches for the control loop:  The receiver can
   adapt to the unicast burst as received, converge based on observation
   and explicitly terminate the unicast burst with a second control loop
   exchange (which takes a minimum of one RTT, just as starting the
   unicast burst does).  Alternatively, the server generating the
   unicast burst can pre-compute the burst parameters based on the
   information in the initial request and tell the receiver the burst
   duration.

   The protocol described in the next section allows either method of
   controlling the rapid acquisition unicast burst.


6.  Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions

   We start this section with an overview of the rapid acquisition of
   multicast sessions (RAMS) method.

6.1.  Overview

   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm] specifies an extension to the RTP Control
   Protocol (RTCP) to use unicast feedback in an SSM session.  It
   defines an architecture that introduces the concept of Distribution
   Source, which - in an SSM context - distributes the RTP data and
   redistributes RTCP information to all RTP receivers.  This RTCP
   information is retrieved from the Feedback Target, to which RTCP
   unicast feedback traffic is sent.  The feedback target MAY be
   implemented in one or more entities different from the Distribution
   Source, and different RTP receivers MAY use different feedback
   targets.




VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   This document builds further on these concepts to reduce the
   acquisition delay when an RTP receiver joins a multicast session at a
   random point in time by introducing the concept of the Burst Source
   and new RTCP feedback messages.  The Burst Source has a cache where
   the most recent packets from the primary multicast RTP session are
   continuously stored.  When an RTP receiver wants to receive a primary
   multicast stream prior to joining the SSM session, it may first
   request a unicast burst from the Burst Source.  In this burst, the
   packets are formatted as RTP retransmission packets [RFC4588] and
   carry the Reference Information.  This information allows the RTP
   receiver to start usefully consuming the RTP packets sent in the
   primary multicast RTP session.

   Using an accelerated rate (as compared to the nominal rate of the
   primary multicast stream) for the unicast burst implies that at a
   certain point in time, the payload transmitted in the unicast burst
   is going to be the same as the payload in the associated multicast
   stream, i.e., the unicast burst will catch up with the primary
   multicast stream.  At this point, the RTP receiver no longer needs to
   receive the unicast burst and can join the SSM session.  This method
   is referred to as the Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Sessions (RAMS).

   This document proposes extensions to [RFC4585] for an RTP receiver to
   request a unicast burst as well as for additional control messaging
   that can be leveraged during the acquisition process.

6.2.  Message Flows

   Figure 2 shows the main entities involved in rapid acquisition and
   the message flows.  They are

   o  Multicast Source

   o  Feedback Target (FT)

   o  Burst/Retransmission Source

   o  RTP Receiver (RTP_Rx)













VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


      -----------          ----------------            --------------
     |           |        | Retransmission |          |              |
     | Multicast |------->|  Server  (RS)  |--------->|              |
     |  Source   |.-.-.-.>|                |.-.-.-.-.>|              |
     |           |        |  ------------  |          |              |
      -----------         | |  Feedback  | |<.=.=.=.=.|              |
                          | |   Target   | |<~~~~~~~~~| RTP Receiver |
                          |  ------------  |          |   (RTP_Rx)   |
                          |                |          |              |
                          |  ------------  |          |              |
                          | | Burst  and | |<~~~~~~~~>|              |
                          | |  Retrans.  | |.........>|              |
                          | |   Source   | |<.=.=.=.=>|              |
                          |  ------------  |          |              |
                          |                |          |              |
                           ----------------            --------------


     -------> Multicast RTP Flow
     .-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
     .=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
     ~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages
     .......> Unicast RTP Flow

        Figure 2: Flow diagram for unicast-based rapid acquisition

   The feedback target (FT) is the entity as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm], to which RTP_Rx sends its RTCP feedback
   messages indicating packet loss by means of an RTCP NACK message or
   indicating RTP_Rx's desire to rapidly acquire the primary multicast
   RTP session by means of an RTCP feedback message defined in this
   document.  While the Burst/Retransmission Source is responsible for
   responding to these messages and for further RTCP interaction with
   RTP_Rx in the case of a rapid acquisition process, it is assumed in
   the remainder of the document that these two logical entities (FT and
   Burst/Retransmission Source) are combined in a single physical entity
   and they share state.  In the remainder of the text, the term
   Retransmission Server (RS) will be used whenever appropriate, to
   refer to the combined functionality of the FT and Burst/
   Retransmission Source.

   However, it must be noted that only FT is involved in the primary
   multicast RTP session, whereas the Burst/Retransmission Source
   transmits the unicast burst and retransmission packets both formatted
   as RTP retransmission packets [RFC4588] in a single separate unicast
   RTP retransmission session to each RTP_Rx.  In the retransmission
   session, as in any other RTP session, RS and RTP_Rx regularly send
   the periodic sender and receiver reports, respectively.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   The unicast burst is triggered by an RTCP feedback message that is
   defined in this document based on the common packet format provided
   in [RFC4585], whereas an RTP retransmission is triggered by an RTCP
   NACK message defined in [RFC4585].  In the RTP/AVPF profile, there
   are certain rules that apply to scheduling of both of these messages,
   which are detailed in Section 3.5 of [RFC4585].  One of the rules
   states that in a multi-party session such as the SSM sessions we are
   considering in this specification, an RTP receiver cannot send an
   RTCP feedback message for a minimum of one second period after
   joining the session (i.e., Tmin=1.0 second).  While this rule has the
   goal of avoiding problems associated with flash crowds in typical
   multi-party sessions, it defeats the purpose of rapid acquisition.
   Furthermore, when RTP receivers delay their messages requesting a
   burst by a deterministic or even a random amount, it still does not
   make a difference since such messages are not related and their
   timings are independent from each other.  Thus, in this specification
   we initialize Tmin to zero and allow the RTP receivers to send a
   burst request message right at the beginning.  It should, however, be
   emphasized that for the subsequent messages during rapid acquisition,
   the timing rules of [RFC4585] still apply.

   Figure 3 depicts an example of messaging flow for rapid acquisition.
   The RTCP feedback messages are explained below.  The optional
   messages are indicated in parentheses and they may or may not be
   present during rapid acquisition.  Note that in a scenario where
   rapid acquisition is performed by a feedback target co-located with
   the media sender, the same method (with the identical message flows)
   still applies.


                  -------------------------
                 | Retransmission  Server  |
    -----------  |  ------   ------------  |   --------    ------------
   | Multicast | | |  FT  | | Burst/Ret. | |  |        |  |    RTP     |
   |  Source   | | |      | |   Source   | |  | Router |  |  Receiver  |
   |           | |  ------   ------------  |  |        |  |  (RTP_Rx)  |
    -----------  |      |         |        |   --------    ------------
     |            -------------------------       |                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |-- RTP Multicast ---------->--------------->|                |
     |-. RTCP Multicast -.-.-.-.->-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->|                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |********************************|
     |                  |         |*      PORT MAPPING SETUP      *|
     |                  |         |********************************|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RTCP RAMS-R ~~~|
     |                  |         |               |                |



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


     |                  |         |********************************|
     |                  |         |* UNICAST SESSION  ESTABLISHED *|
     |                  |         |********************************|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |~~~ RTCP RAMS-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |... Unicast RTP Burst .........>|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (RTCP RAMS-R) ~~|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |~~ (RTCP RAMS-I) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |               |<= SFGMP Join ==|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |-- RTP Multicast ------------------------------------------->|
     |-. RTCP Multicast -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.>|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RTCP RAMS-T ~~~|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (RTCP NACK) ~~|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |               |                |
     |                  |         |...(Unicast Retransmissions)...>|
     |                  |         |               |                |
     :                  :         :               :                :
     :                  :         :               :                :
     |                  |         |<.=.= Unicast RTCP Reports .=.=>|
     :                  :         :               :                :
     :                  :         :               :                :
     |                  |         |               |                |


   -------> Multicast RTP Flow
   .-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
   .=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
   ~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages
   =======> SFGMP Messages
   .......> Unicast RTP Flow

        Figure 3: Message flows for unicast-based rapid acquisition

   This document defines the expected behaviors of RS and RTP_Rx.  It is
   instructive to have independently operating implementations on RS and
   RTP_Rx that request the burst, describe the burst, start the burst,
   join the multicast session and stop the burst.  These implementations



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   send messages to each other, but there must be provisions for the
   cases where the control messages get lost, or re-ordered, or are not
   being delivered to their destinations.

   The following steps describe rapid acquisition in detail:

   1.   Port Mapping Setup:  For the primary multicast RTP session, the
        RTP and RTCP destination ports are declaratively specified
        (Refer to Section 8 for examples in SDP).  However, in the
        unicast RTP retransmission session, RTP_Rx often needs to choose
        its receive ports for RTP and RTCP.  Since this unicast session
        is established after RTP_Rx sends its rapid acquisition request
        and it is received by RS in the primary multicast RTP session,
        RTP_Rx MUST setup the port mappings between the unicast and
        multicast sessions and send this mapping information to RS
        before it sends its request so that RS knows how to communicate
        with RTP_Rx.

        The details of this setup procedure and other NAT-related issues
        are left to Section 9 to keep the present discussion focused on
        the RAMS message flows.

   2.   Request:  RTP_Rx sends a rapid acquisition request for the
        primary multicast RTP session to the feedback target address of
        that session.  The request contains the SSRC identifier of
        RTP_Rx and may contain the media sender SSRC identifier(s)
        associated with the desired primary multicast stream(s).  This
        RTCP feedback message is defined as the RAMS-Request (RAMS-R)
        message and may contain parameters that constrain the burst,
        such as the buffer and bandwidth limits.

        Before joining the SSM session, RTP_Rx learns the addresses for
        the multicast source, group and RS by out-of-band means.  If
        RTP_Rx desires to rapidly acquire only a subset of the primary
        multicast streams available in the primary multicast RTP
        session, the SSRC identifiers for the desired RTP streams MUST
        also be obtained out-of-band, since no RTP packets have been
        received yet for those streams.  Based on this information,
        RTP_Rx populates the desired SSRC(s) in its request message.

        When RS successfully receives the RAMS-R message, it responds to
        it by accepting or rejecting the request.  Right before RS sends
        any RTP or RTCP packet(s) described below, it establishes the
        unicast RTP retransmission session.

   3.   Response:  RS sends RAMS-Information (RAMS-I) message(s) to
        RTP_Rx to convey the status for the burst(s) requested by
        RTP_Rx.  The RAMS-I message is sent by the Burst/Retransmission



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


        Source logical entity that is part of RS.

        In cases where the primary multicast RTP session associated with
        FT_Ap on which the RAMS-R message was received contains only a
        single primary multicast stream, RS SHALL always use the SSRC of
        the RTP stream associated with FT_Ap in the RAMS-I message(s)
        regardless of the media sender SSRC specified in the RAMS-R
        message.  In such cases the 'ssrc' attribute MAY be omitted from
        the media description.  If the requested SSRC and the actual
        media sender SSRC do not match, RS SHOULD explicitly populate
        the correct media sender SSRC in the initial RAMS-I message.

        FT_Ap could also be associated with an RTP session that carries
        two or more primary multicast streams.  If RTP_Rx will issue a
        collective request to receive the whole primary multicast RTP
        session, it does not need the 'ssrc' attributes to be described
        in the media description.  Note that if FT_Ap is associated with
        two or more RTP sessions, RTP_Rx's request will be ambiguous.
        Thus, each FT_Ap MUST be associated with a single RTP session.

        If RTP_Rx is willing to rapidly acquire only a subset of the
        primary multicast streams, the RAMS-R message MUST explicitly
        list the media sender SSRCs.  Upon receiving such a message, RS
        MAY accept the request for only the media sender SSRC(s) that
        matched one of the RTP streams it serves.  It MUST reject all
        other requests with the appropriate response code.


        *  Reject Responses:  RS MUST take into account any limitations
           that MAY have been specified by RTP_Rx in the RAMS-R message
           when making a decision regarding the request.  If RTP_Rx has
           requested to acquire the whole primary multicast RTP session
           but RS cannot provide a rapid acquisition service for any of
           the primary multicast streams, RS MUST reject the request via
           a single RAMS-I message with a collective reject response
           code and whose media sender SSRC field is set to one of SSRCs
           served by this FT_Ap.  Upon receiving this RAMS-I message,
           RTP_Rx abandons the rapid acquisition attempt and may
           immediately join the multicast session by sending an SFGMP
           Join message towards its upstream multicast router.

           In all other cases, RS MUST send a separate RAMS-I message
           with the appropriate response code for each primary multicast
           stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx but cannot be served
           by RS.

        *  Accept Responses:  RS MUST send a separate RAMS-I message
           with the appropriate response code for each primary multicast



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


           stream that has been requested by RTP_Rx and will be served
           by RS.  Such RAMS-I messages comprise fields that can be used
           to describe the individual unicast burst streams.

           A particularly important field carries the RTP sequence
           number of the first packet transmitted in the respective RTP
           stream to allow RTP_Rx to detect any missing initial
           packet(s).  Note that the first RTP packet transmitted in an
           RTP stream is not necessarily a burst packet.  It could be a
           payload-specific RTP packet, which is payload-type-
           multiplexed with the burst packets (See
           [I-D.begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble] for an example).  When
           RS accepts the request, this field MUST be populated in the
           RAMS-I message and the initial RAMS-I message SHOULD precede
           the unicast burst or be sent at the start of the burst so
           that RTP_Rx may quickly detect any missing initial packet(s).


        Where possible, it is RECOMMENDED to include all RAMS-I messages
        in the same compound RTCP packet.  However, it is possible that
        the RAMS-I message for a primary multicast stream may get
        delayed or lost, and RTP_Rx may start receiving RTP packets
        before receiving a RAMS-I message.  Thus, RTP_Rx SHOULD NOT make
        protocol dependencies on quickly receiving the initial RAMS-I
        message.  For redundancy purposes, it is RECOMMENDED that RS
        repeats the RAMS-I messages multiple times as long as it follows
        the RTCP timer rules defined in [RFC4585].

   4.   Unicast Burst:  For the primary multicast stream(s) for which
        the request is accepted, RS starts sending the unicast burst(s)
        that comprises one or more RTP retransmission packets.  The
        burst packet(s) are sent by the Burst/Retransmission Source
        logical entity.  In addition, there MAY be optional payload-
        specific information that RS chooses to send to RTP_Rx.  Such an
        example is discussed in [I-D.begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble] for
        transmitting the payload-specific information for MPEG2
        Transport Streams.

   5.   Updated Request:  RTP_Rx MAY send an updated RAMS-R message (to
        the FT entity of RS) with a different value for one or more
        fields of an earlier RAMS-R message.  Upon receiving an updated
        request, RS may use the updated values for sending/shaping the
        burst, or refine the values and use the refined values for
        sending/shaping the burst.  Subsequently, RS MAY send an updated
        RAMS-I message to indicate the changes it made.

        However, the updated RAMS-I message may get lost.  It is also
        possible that the updated RAMS-R message could have been lost.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


        Thus, RTP_Rx SHOULD NOT make protocol dependencies on quickly
        (or ever) receiving an updated RAMS-I message, or assume that RS
        will honor the requested changes.

        RTP_Rx may be in an environment where the available resources
        are time-varying, which may or may not deserve sending a new
        updated request.  Determining the circumstances where RTP_Rx
        should or should not send an updated request and the methods
        that RTP_Rx can use to detect and evaluate the time-varying
        available resources are not specified in this document.

   6.   Updated Response:  RS may send more than one RAMS-I messages,
        e.g., to update the value of one or more fields in an earlier
        RAMS-I message.  The updated RAMS-I messages may or may not be a
        direct response to a RAMS-R message.  RS may also send updated
        RAMS-I messages to signal RTP_Rx in real time to join the
        multicast session.  RTP_Rx depends on RS to learn the join time,
        which can be conveyed by the first RAMS-I message, or can be
        sent/revised in a later RAMS-I message.  If RS is not capable of
        determining the join time in the initial RAMS-I message, it MUST
        send another RAMS-I message (with the join time information)
        later.

   7.   Multicast Join Signaling:  The RAMS-I message allows RS to
        signal explicitly when RTP_Rx SHOULD send the SFGMP Join
        message.  If the request is accepted, this information MUST be
        conveyed in at least one RAMS-I message and its value MAY be
        updated by subsequent RAMS-I messages.  If RTP_Rx has received
        multiple RAMS-I messages, it SHOULD use the information from the
        most recent RAMS-I message.

        There may be missing packets if RTP_Rx joins the multicast
        session too early or too late.  For example, if RTP_Rx starts
        receiving the primary multicast stream while it is still
        receiving the unicast burst at a high excess bitrate, this may
        result in an increased risk of packet loss.  Or, if RTP_Rx joins
        the multicast session some time after the unicast burst is
        finished, there may be a gap between the burst and multicast
        data (a number of RTP packets may be missing).  In both cases,
        RTP_Rx may issue retransmissions requests (via RTCP NACK
        messages) [RFC4585] to the FT entity of RS to fill the gap.  RS
        may or may not respond to such requests.  When it responds and
        the response causes significant changes in one or more values
        reported earlier to RTP_Rx, an updated RAMS-I should be sent to
        RTP_Rx.

   8.   Multicast Receive:  After the join, RTP_Rx starts receiving the
        primary multicast stream(s).



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   9.   Terminate:  RS may know when it needs to ultimately stop the
        unicast burst based on its parameters.  However, RTP_Rx may need
        to ask RS to terminate the burst prematurely or at a specific
        sequence number.  For this purpose, it uses the RAMS-Termination
        (RAMS-T) message.  A separate RAMS-T message is sent for each
        primary multicast stream served by RS unless an RTCP BYE message
        has been sent as described in Step 10.  For the burst requests
        that were rejected by RS, there is no need to send a RAMS-T
        message.

        If RTP_Rx wants to terminate a burst prematurely, it SHALL send
        a plain RAMS-T message for the particular primary multicast
        stream, and upon receiving this message RS MUST terminate the
        unicast burst.  If RTP_Rx requested to acquire the entire
        primary multicast RTP session but wants to terminate this
        request before it learns the individual media sender SSRC(s) via
        RAMS-I message(s), it cannot use RAMS-T message(s) and thus MUST
        send an RTCP BYE message to terminate the request.

        Otherwise, the default behavior for RTP_Rx is to send a RAMS-T
        message right after it joined the multicast session and started
        receiving multicast packets.  In that case, RTP_Rx SHALL send a
        RAMS-T message with the sequence number of the first RTP packet
        received in the primary multicast stream, and RS SHOULD
        terminate the respective burst after it sends the unicast burst
        packet whose Original Sequence Number (OSN) field in the RTP
        retransmission payload header matches this number minus one.

        RTP_Rx MUST send at least one RAMS-T message for each primary
        multicast stream served by RS (if an RTCP BYE message has not
        been issued yet as described in Step 10).  The RAMS-T message(s)
        MUST be addressed to the Burst/Retransmission Source logical
        entity.  Against the possibility of a message loss, it is
        RECOMMENDED that RTP_Rx repeats the RAMS-T messages multiple
        times as long as it follows the RTCP timer rules defined in
        [RFC4585].

   10.  Terminate with RTCP BYE:  When RTP_Rx is receiving one or more
        burst streams, if RTP_Rx becomes no longer interested in
        acquiring any of the primary multicast streams, RTP_Rx SHALL
        issue an RTCP BYE message for the RTP retransmission session and
        another RTCP BYE message for the primary multicast RTP session.
        These RTCP BYE messages are sent to the Burst/Retransmission
        Source and FT logical entities, respectively.

        Upon receiving an RTCP BYE message, the Burst/Retransmission
        Source logical entity MUST terminate the rapid acquisition
        operation, and cease transmitting any further burst packets and



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


        retransmission packets.  If support for [RFC5506] has been
        signaled, the RTCP BYE message MAY be sent in a reduced-size
        RTCP packet.  Otherwise, Section 6.1 of [RFC3550] mandates the
        RTCP BYE message always to be sent with a sender or receiver
        report in a compound RTCP packet (If no data has been received,
        an empty receiver report MUST be still included).  With the
        information contained in the receiver report, RS can figure out
        how many duplicate RTP packets have been delivered to RTP_Rx
        (Note that this will be an upper-bound estimate as one or more
        packets might have been lost during the burst transmission).
        The impact of duplicate packets and measures that can be taken
        to minimize the impact of receiving duplicate packets will be
        addressed in Section 6.4.

        Note that an RTCP BYE message issued for the RTP retransmission
        session terminates the whole session and ceases transmitting any
        further packets in that RTP session.  Thus, in this case there
        is no need for sending explicit RAMS-T messages, which would
        only terminate their respective bursts.

   For the purpose of gathering detailed information about RTP_Rx's
   rapid acquisition experience, [I-D.begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr]
   defines an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block.  This report is designed
   to be payload-independent, thus, it can be used by any multicast
   application that supports rapid acquisition.  Support for this XR
   report is, however, OPTIONAL.

6.3.  Synchronization of Primary Multicast Streams

   When RTP_Rx acquires multiple primary multicast streams, it may need
   to synchronize them for the playout.  This synchronization is
   traditionally achieved by the help of the RTCP sender reports
   [RFC3550].  If the playout will start before RTP_Rx has joined the
   multicast session, RTP_Rx must receive the information reflecting the
   synchronization among the primary multicast streams early enough so
   that it can play out the media in a synchronized fashion.  However,
   this would require RS to cache the sender reports sent in the primary
   multicast RTP session(s), and piggyback the latest synchronization
   information on its own sender report and send an early sender report
   in the unicast RTP retransmission session.  This issue and its
   implications are discussed in detail in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync].

   An alternative approach is to use the RTP header extension mechanism
   [RFC5285] and convey the synchronization information in a header
   extension as defined in [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync].

   [RFC4588] says that retransmission packets SHOULD carry the same



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   header extension carried in the header of the original RTP packets.
   Thus, as long as the multicast source emits a header extension with
   the synchronization information frequently enough, there is no
   additional task that needs to be carried out by RS.  The
   synchronization information will be sent to RTP_Rx along with the
   burst packets.  The frequent header extensions sent in the primary
   multicast RTP sessions also allow rapid synchronization of the RTP
   streams for the RTP receivers that do not support RAMS or that
   directly join the multicast session without running RAMS.  Thus, in
   RAMS applications, it is RECOMMENDED that the multicast sources
   frequently send synchronization information by using header
   extensions following the rules presented in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync].  It should be noted that the regular
   sender reports are still sent in the unicast session by following the
   rules of [RFC3550].

6.4.  Shaping the Unicast Burst

   This section provides informative guidelines about how RS can shape
   the transmission of the unicast burst.

   A higher bitrate for the unicast burst naturally conveys the
   Reference Information and media content to RTP_Rx faster.  This way,
   RTP_Rx can start consuming the data sooner, which results in a faster
   acquisition.

   A higher rate also represents a better utilization of RS resources.
   As the burst may continue until it catches up with the primary
   multicast stream, the higher the bursting rate, the less data RS
   needs to transmit.  However, a higher rate for the burst also
   increases the chances for congestion-caused packet loss.  Thus, as
   discussed in Section 5, there must be an upper bound on the extra
   bandwidth used by the burst.

   When RS transmits the burst, it should take into account all
   available information to prevent any packet loss that may take place
   during the bursting as a result of buffer overflow on the path
   between RS and RTP_Rx and at RTP_Rx itself.  The bursting rate may be
   determined by taking into account the following data, when available:

   a.  Information obtained via the RAMS-R message, such as Max RAMS
       Buffer Fill Requirement and/or Max Receive Bitrate (See
       Section 7.2).

   b.  Information obtained via RTCP receiver reports provided by RTP_Rx
       in the retransmission session, allowing in-session rate
       adaptations for the burst.  When these receiver reports indicate
       packet loss, this may indicate a certain congestion state in the



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


       path from RS to RTP_Rx.  Heuristics or algorithms that deduce
       such congestion state and how subsequently the RS should act, are
       outside the scope of this document.

   c.  Information obtained via RTCP NACKs provided by RTP_Rx in the
       primary multicast RTP session, allowing in-session rate
       adaptations for the burst.  Such RTCP NACKs are transmitted by
       RTP_Rx in response to packet loss detection by RTP_Rx in the
       burst.  NACKs may indicate a certain congestion state on the path
       from RS to RTP_Rx.  Heuristics or algorithms that deduce such
       congestion state and how subsequently the RS should act, are
       outside the scope of this document.

   d.  There may be other feedback received from RTP_Rx, e.g., in the
       form of ECN-CE RTCP feedback messages
       [I-D.westerlund-avt-ecn-for-rtp] that may influence in-session
       rate adaptations.

   e.  Information obtained via updated RAMS-R messages, allowing in-
       session rate adaptations, if supported by RS.

   f.  Pre-configured settings for each RTP_Rx or a set of RTP_Rxs that
       indicate the upper-bound bursting rates for which no packet loss
       will occur as a result of congestion along the path of RS to
       RTP_Rx.  For example, in managed IPTV networks, where the
       bottleneck bandwidth along the end-to-end path is known and where
       the network between RS and this link is provisioned and
       dimensioned to carry the burst streams, the bursting rate does
       not exceed the provisioned value.  These settings may also be
       dynamically adapted using application-aware knowledge.

   The initial bursting rate of the unicast burst to RTP_Rx is
   determined by parameters directly obtained from RTP_Rx (a) or by pre-
   configured settings (f).  If such information is not available, RS
   may choose an appropriate initial bursting rate, and could increase
   or decrease the rate based on the feedback information (b, c, d or
   e).  However, this may not be an easy task as by the time packet loss
   is reported back to RS triggering a rate reduction, packet loss may
   have occurred.

   A specific situation occurs near the end of the unicast burst, when
   RS has almost no more additional data to sustain the relatively
   higher bursting rate, thus, the upper-bound bursting rate
   automatically gets limited by the nominal rate of the primary
   multicast stream.  During this time frame, RTP_Rx eventually needs to
   join the multicast session.  This means that both the burst packets
   and the multicast packets may be simultaneously received by RTP_Rx
   for a period of time.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Since RS signals RTP_Rx when it should send the SFGMP Join message,
   RS may have a rough estimate of when RTP_Rx will start receiving
   multicast packets in the SSM session.  RS may keep on sending burst
   packets but should reduce the rate accordingly at the appropriate
   instant by taking the rate of the SSM session into account.  If RS
   ceases transmitting the burst packets before the burst catches up,
   any gap resulting from this imperfect switch-over by RTP_Rx can be
   later repaired by requesting retransmissions of the missing packets
   from RS.  The retransmissions may be shaped by RS to make sure that
   they do not cause collateral loss in the primary multicast RTP
   session and the RTP retransmission session.

6.5.  Failure Cases

   In the following, we examine the implications of losing the RAMS-R,
   RAMS-I or RAMS-T messages and other failure cases.

   When RTP_Rx sends a RAMS-R message to initiate a rapid acquisition
   but the message gets lost and RS does not receive it, RTP_Rx will get
   neither a RAMS-I message, nor a unicast burst.  In this case, RTP_Rx
   MAY resend the request when it is eligible to do so based on the RTCP
   timer rules defined in [RFC4585].  Or, after a reasonable amount of
   time, RTP_Rx may time out (based on the previous observed response
   times) and immediately join the SSM session.

   In the case RTP_Rx starts receiving a unicast burst but it does not
   receive a corresponding RAMS-I message within a reasonable amount of
   time, RTP_Rx may either discard the burst data or decide not to
   interrupt the unicast burst, and be prepared to join the SSM session
   at an appropriate time it determines or as indicated in a subsequent
   RAMS-I message (if available).  To minimize the chances of losing the
   RAMS-I messages, it is RECOMMENDED that RS repeats the RAMS-I
   messages multiple times based on the RTCP timer rules defined in
   [RFC4585].

   In the failure cases where the RAMS-R message is lost and RTP_Rx
   gives up, or the RAMS-I message is lost, RTP_Rx MUST still terminate
   the burst(s) it requested by following the rules described in
   Section 6.2.

   In the case a RAMS-T message sent by RTP_Rx does not reach its
   destination, RS may continue sending burst packets even though RTP_Rx
   no longer needs them.  In such cases, it is RECOMMENDED that RTP_Rx
   repeats the RAMS-T message multiple times based on the RTCP timer
   rules defined in [RFC4585].  In the worst case, RS MUST be
   provisioned to deterministically terminate the burst when it can no
   longer send the burst packets faster than it receives the primary
   multicast stream packets.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Section 6.3.5 of [RFC3550] explains the rules pertaining to timing
   out an SSRC.  When RS accepts to serve the requested burst(s) and
   establishes the retransmission session, it should check the liveness
   of RTP_Rx via the RTCP messages and reports RTP_Rx sends.

   Editor's note:  What would the timeout duration be and what action
   should RS take?


7.  Encoding of the Signaling Protocol in RTCP

   This section defines the formats of the RTCP transport-layer feedback
   messages that are exchanged between the Retransmission Server (RS)
   and RTP Receiver (RTP_Rx) during rapid acquisition.  These messages
   are referred to as the RAMS Messages.  They are payload-independent
   and MUST be used by all RTP-based multicast applications that support
   rapid acquisition regardless of the payload they carry.

   Payload-specific feedback messages are not defined in this document.
   However, further optional payload-independent and payload-specific
   information can be included in the exchange.

   The common packet format for the RTCP feedback messages is defined in
   Section 6.1 of [RFC4585].  Each feedback message has a fixed-length
   field for version, padding, feedback message type (FMT), payload type
   (PT), length, SSRC of packet sender, SSRC of media sender as well as
   a variable-length field for feedback control information (FCI).

   In the RAMS messages, the PT field is set to RTPFB (205) and the FMT
   field is set to RAMS (6).  Individual RAMS messages are identified by
   a sub-field called Sub Feedback Message Type (SFMT).  Any Reserved
   field SHALL be set to zero and ignored.

   Depending on the specific scenario and timeliness/importance of a
   RAMS message, it may be desirable to send it in a reduced-size RTCP
   packet [RFC5506].  However, unless support for [RFC5506] has been
   signaled, compound RTCP packets MUST be used by following [RFC3550]
   rules.

   Following the rules specified in [RFC3550], all integer fields in the
   messages defined below are carried in network-byte order, that is,
   most significant byte (octet) first, also known as big-endian.
   Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants are in decimal (base 10).

7.1.  Extensions

   To improve the functionality of the RAMS method in certain
   applications, it may be desirable to define new fields in the RAMS



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Request, Information and Termination messages.  Such fields MUST be
   encoded as TLV elements as described below and sketched in Figure 4:

   o  Type:  A single-octet identifier that defines the type of the
      parameter represented in this TLV element.

   o  Length:  A two-octet field that indicates the length (in octets)
      of the TLV element excluding the Type and Length fields, and the
      8-bit Reserved field between them.  Note that this length does not
      include any padding that is required for alignment.

   o  Value:  Variable-size set of octets that contains the specific
      value for the parameter.

   In the extensions, the Reserved field SHALL be set to zero and
   ignored.  If a TLV element does not fall on a 32-bit boundary, the
   last word MUST be padded to the boundary using further bits set to
   zero.

   In a RAMS message, any vendor-neutral or private extension MUST be
   placed after the mandatory fields (if any).  The extensions MAY be
   placed in any order.  The support for extensions is OPTIONAL.


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |   Reserved    |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                             Value                             :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 4: Structure of a TLV element

7.1.1.  Vendor-Neutral Extensions

   If the goal in defining new TLV elements is to extend the
   functionality in a vendor-neutral manner, they MUST be registered
   with IANA through the guidelines provided in Section 12.5.

   The current document defines several vendor-neutral extensions in the
   subsequent sections.

7.1.2.  Private Extensions

   It is desirable to allow vendors to use private extensions in a TLV
   format.  For interoperability, such extensions MUST NOT collide with
   each other.



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   A certain range of TLV Types (between - and including - 128 and 254 )
   is reserved for private extensions (Refer to Section 12.5).  IANA
   management for these extensions is unnecessary and they are the
   responsibility of individual vendors.

   The structure that MUST be used for the private extensions is
   depicted in Figure 5.  Here, the enterprise numbers are used from
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.  This will ensure
   the uniqueness of the private extensions and avoid any collision.


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      Type     |   Reserved    |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Enterprise Number                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                             Value                             :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 5: Structure of a private extension

7.2.  RAMS Request

   The RAMS Request message is identified by SFMT=1.  This message is
   used by RTP_Rx to request rapid acquisition for a primary multicast
   RTP session, or one or more primary multicast streams belonging to
   the same primary multicast RTP session.

   Unless signaled otherwise, a RAMS-R message is used to request a
   single primary multicast stream whose SSRC is indicated in the media
   sender SSRC field of the message header.  In cases where RTP_Rx does
   not know the media sender SSRC, it MUST set that field to its own
   SSRC.

   If RTP_Rx wants to request two or more primary multicast streams or
   all of the streams in the primary multicast RTP session, RTP_Rx MUST
   provide explicit signaling as described below and set the media
   sender SSRC field to its own SSRC to minimize the chances of
   accidentally requesting a wrong primary multicast stream.

   The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Request.  The FCI field has
   the structure depicted in Figure 6.







VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    SFMT=1     |                    Reserved                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :      Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed)     :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 6: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Request message

   o  Requested Media Sender SSRC(s):  Optional TLV element that lists
      the media sender SSRC(s) requested by RTP_Rx.  If this TLV element
      does not exist in the RAMS-R message, it means that RTP_Rx is only
      interested in a single primary multicast stream whose media sender
      SSRC is already specified in the header of the RAMS-R message.
      However, if this TLV element exists, RS MUST ignore the media
      sender SSRC specified in the header of the RAMS-R message.  If
      this TLV element exists but the Length field is set to zero,
      meaning that no media sender SSRC is listed, it means that RTP_Rx
      is requesting to rapidly acquire the entire primary multicast RTP
      session.  Otherwise, RTP_Rx lists the individual media sender
      SSRCs in this TLV element and sets the Length field of the TLV
      element to 4*n, where n is the number of SSRC entries.

      Type:  1

   o  Min RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement (32 bits):  Optional TLV element
      that denotes the minimum milliseconds of data that RTP_Rx desires
      to have in its buffer before allowing the data to be consumed by
      the application.

      RTP_Rx may have knowledge of its buffering requirements.  These
      requirements may be application and/or device specific.  For
      instance, RTP_Rx may need to have a certain amount of data in its
      application buffer to handle transmission jitter and/or to be able
      to support error-control methods.  If RS is told the minimum
      buffering requirement of the receiver, it may tailor the burst(s)
      more precisely, e.g., by choosing an appropriate starting point.
      The methods used by RTP_Rx to determine this value are application
      specific, and thus, out of the scope of this document.

      If specified, the amount of backfill that will be provided by the
      unicast bursts and any payload-specific information MUST NOT be
      smaller than the specified value since it will not be able to
      build up the desired level of buffer at RTP_Rx and may cause
      buffer underruns.

      Type:  2



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   o  Max RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement (32 bits):  Optional TLV element
      that denotes the maximum milliseconds of data that RTP_Rx can
      buffer without losing the data due to buffer overflow.

      RTP_Rx may have knowledge of its buffering requirements.  These
      requirements may be application or device specific.  For instance,
      one particular RTP_Rx may have more physical memory than another
      RTP_Rx, and thus, can buffer more data.  If RS knows the buffering
      ability of the receiver, it may tailor the burst(s) more
      precisely.  The methods used by the receiver to determine this
      value are application specific, and thus, out of scope.

      If specified, the amount of backfill that will be provided by the
      unicast bursts and any payload-specific information MUST NOT be
      larger than this value since it may cause buffer overflows at
      RTP_Rx.

      Type:  3

   o  Max Receive Bitrate (64 bits):  Optional TLV element that denotes
      the maximum bitrate (in bits per second) that the RTP receiver can
      process the aggregation of the unicast burst(s) and any payload-
      specific information that will be provided by RS.  The limits may
      include local receiver limits as well as network limits that are
      known to the receiver.

      If specified, the total bitrate of the unicast burst(s) plus any
      payload-specific information MUST NOT be larger than this value
      since it may cause congestion and packet loss.

      Type:  4

   o  Request for Preamble Only (0 bits):  Optional TLV element that
      indicates that RTP_Rx is only requesting the preamble information
      for the desired primary multicast stream(s).  If this TLV element
      exists in the RAMS-R message, RS SHOULD NOT send any burst packets
      other than the preamble packets.  Note that this TLV element does
      not carry a Value field.  Thus, the Length field MUST be set to
      zero.

      Type:  5

   The semantics of the RAMS-R feedback message is independent of the
   payload type.







VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


7.3.  RAMS Information

   The RAMS Information message is identified by SFMT=2.  This message
   is used to describe the unicast burst that will be sent for rapid
   acquisition.  It also includes other useful information for RTP_Rx as
   described below.

   A separate RAMS-I message with the appropriate media sender SSRC and
   response code is sent by RS for each primary multicast stream that
   has been requested by RTP_Rx.

   The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Information.  The FCI field
   has the structure depicted in Figure 7.


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    SFMT=2     |      MSN      |          Response             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :      Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed)     :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 7: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Information message

   o  Message Sequence Number (8 bits) :  Mandatory field that denotes
      the sequence number of the RAMS-I message for the particular media
      sender SSRC specified in the message header.  The MSN value SHALL
      be set to zero only when a new RAMS request is received.  During
      rapid acquisition, the same RAMS-I message MAY be repeated for
      redundancy purposes without incrementing the MSN value.  If an
      updated RAMS-I message will be sent (either with a new information
      or an updated information), the MSN value SHALL be incremented by
      one.  In the MSN field, the regular wrapping rules apply.

   o  Response (16 bits):  Mandatory field that denotes the RS response
      code for this RAMS-I message.  This document defines several
      initial response codes and registers them with IANA.  If a new
      vendor-neutral response code will be defined, it MUST be
      registered with IANA through the guidelines specified in
      Section 12.6.  If the new response code is intended to be used
      privately by a vendor, there is no need for IANA management.
      Instead, the vendor MUST use the private extension mechanism
      (Section 7.1.2) to convey its message and MUST indicate this by
      putting zero in the Response field.

   o  Media Sender SSRC (32 bits):  Optional TLV element that specifies
      the media sender SSRC of the unicast burst stream.  While this



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


      information is already available in the message header, it may be
      useful to repeat it in an explicit field.  For example, if FT_Ap
      that received the RAMS-R message is associated with a single
      primary multicast stream but the requested media sender SSRC does
      not match the SSRC of the RTP stream associated with this FT_Ap,
      RS SHOULD include this TLV element in the initial RAMS-I message
      to let RTP_Rx know that the media sender SSRC has changed.  If the
      two SSRCs match, there is no need to include this TLV element.

      Type:  31

   o  RTP Seqnum of the First Packet (16 bits):  TLV element that
      specifies the RTP sequence number of the first packet that will be
      sent in the respective RTP stream.  This allows RTP_Rx to know
      whether one or more packets sent by RS have been dropped at the
      beginning of the stream.  If RS accepts the RAMS request, this
      element MUST exist.  If RS rejects the RAMS request, this element
      SHALL NOT exist.

      Type:  32

   o  Earliest Multicast Join Time (32 bits):  TLV element that
      specifies the delta time (in ms) between the arrival of the first
      RTP packet in the RTP stream (which could be a burst packet or a
      payload-specific packet) and the earliest time instant when RTP_Rx
      SHOULD send an SFGMP Join message to join the multicast session.
      A zero value in this field means that RTP_Rx may send the SFGMP
      Join message right away.

      If the RAMS request has been accepted, RS MUST send this field at
      least once, so that RTP_Rx knows when to join the multicast
      session.  If the burst request has been rejected as indicated in
      the Response field, this field MAY be omitted or set to zero.  In
      that case, it is up to RTP_Rx when or whether to join the
      multicast session.

      It should be noted that when RS serves two or more bursts and
      sends a separate RAMS-I message for each burst, the join times
      specified in these RAMS-I messages should correspond to more or
      less the same time instant, and RTP_Rx sends the SFGMP Join
      message based on the earliest join time.

      Type:  33

   o  Burst Duration (32 bits):  Optional TLV element that denotes the
      duration of the burst, i.e., the delta difference between the
      first and the last burst packet, that RS is planning to send (in
      ms) in the respective RTP stream.  In the absence of additional



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


      stimulus, RS will send a burst of this duration.  However, the
      burst duration may be modified by subsequent events, including
      changes in the primary multicast stream and reception of RAMS-T
      messages.

      Note that RS MUST terminate the flow in a deterministic timeframe,
      even if it does not get a RAMS-T or a BYE from RTP_Rx.  It is
      OPTIONAL to send this field in a RAMS-I message when the burst
      request is accepted.  If the burst request has been rejected as
      indicated in the Response field, this field MAY be omitted or set
      to zero.

      Type:  34

   o  Max Transmit Bitrate (64 bits):  Optional TLV element that denotes
      the maximum bitrate (in bits per second) that will be used by RS
      for the RTP stream associated with this RAMS-I message.

      Type:  35

   The semantics of the RAMS-I feedback message is independent of the
   payload type.

   The initial RAMS-I message SHOULD precede the unicast burst or be
   sent at the start of the burst.  Subsequent RAMS-I message(s) MAY be
   sent during the unicast burst and convey changes in any of the
   fields.

7.4.  RAMS Termination

   The RAMS Termination message is identified by SFMT=3.

   The RAMS Termination is used to assist RS in determining when to stop
   the burst.  A separate RAMS-T message is sent by RTP_Rx for each
   primary multicast stream that has been served by RS.  Each of these
   RAMS-T messages has the appropriate media sender SSRC populated in
   its message header.

   If RTP_Rx wants RS to stop a burst prematurely, it sends a plain
   RAMS-T message as described below.  Upon receiving this message, RS
   stops the respective burst immediately.  If RTP_Rx wants RS to
   terminate all of the bursts, it should send all of the respective
   RAMS-T messages in a single compound RTCP packet.

   The default behavior for RTP_Rx is to send a RAMS-T message right
   after it joined the multicast session and started receiving multicast
   packets.  In that case, RTP_Rx includes the sequence number of the
   first RTP packet received in the primary multicast stream in the



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   RAMS-T message.  With this information, RS can decide when to
   terminate the unicast burst.

   The FCI field MUST contain only one RAMS Termination.  The FCI field
   has the structure depicted in Figure 8.


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    SFMT=3     |                    Reserved                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :      Optional TLV-encoded Fields (and Padding, if needed)     :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 8: FCI field syntax for the RAMS Termination message

   o  Extended RTP Seqnum of First Multicast Packet (32 bits):  Optional
      TLV element that specifies the extended RTP sequence number of the
      first packet received from the SSM session for a particular
      primary multicast stream.  The low 16 bits contain the sequence
      number of the first packet received from the SSM session, and the
      most significant 16 bits extend that sequence number with the
      corresponding count of sequence number cycles, which may be
      maintained according to the algorithm in Appendix A.1 of
      [RFC3550].

      Type:  61

   The semantics of the RAMS-T feedback message is independent of the
   payload type.


8.  SDP Signaling

8.1.  Definitions

   The syntax of the 'rtcp-fb' attribute has been defined in [RFC4585].
   Here we add the following syntax to the 'rtcp-fb' attribute (the
   feedback type and optional parameters are all case sensitive):

   (In the following ABNF [RFC5234], fmt, SP and CRLF are used as
   defined in [RFC4566].)








VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


         rtcp-fb-syntax = "a=rtcp-fb:" rtcp-fb-pt SP rtcp-fb-val CRLF

         rtcp-fb-pt         = "*"   ; wildcard: applies to all formats
                            / fmt   ; as defined in SDP spec

         rtcp-fb-val        = "nack" SP "ssli"

   The following parameter is defined in this document for use with
   'nack':

   o  'ssli' stands for Stream Synchronization Loss Indication and
      indicates the use of RAMS messages as defined in Section 7.

   This document also defines a new media-level SDP attribute ('rams-
   updates') that indicates whether RS supports updated request messages
   or not.  This attribute is used in a declarative manner.  If RS
   supports updated request messages and this attribute is included in
   the SDP description, RTP_Rx may send updated requests.  RS may or may
   not be able to accept value changes in every field in an updated
   RAMS-R message.  However, if the 'rams-updates' attribute is not
   included in the SDP description, RTP_Rx SHALL NOT send updated
   requests (RTP_Rx MAY still repeat its initial request without
   changes, though).

8.2.  Requirements

   The use of SDP to describe the RAMS entities normatively requires the
   support for:

   o  The SDP grouping semantics [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]

   o  The RTP/AVPF profile [RFC4585]

   o  The RTP retransmissions [RFC4588]

   o  The RTCP extensions for SSM sessions with unicast feedback
      [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm]

   The support for the source-specific media attributes [RFC5576] may be
   required in some deployments as described below.

8.3.  Examples

   This section provides a declarative SDP [RFC4566] example for
   enabling rapid acquisition of multicast RTP sessions.

   In the example shown Figure 9, we have a primary multicast (source)
   stream and a unicast retransmission stream.  The source stream is



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   multicast from a distribution source (with a source IP address of
   198.51.100.1) to the multicast destination address of 233.252.0.2 and
   port 41000.  A Retransmission Server including feedback target
   functionality (with an address of 192.0.2.1 and port of 41001) is
   specified with the 'rtcp' attribute.  The RTP receiver(s) can report
   missing packets on the source stream to the feedback target and
   request retransmissions.  In the RAMS context, the parameter 'rtx-
   time' specifies the time in milliseconds that the Retransmission
   Server keeps an RTP packet in its cache available for retransmission
   (measured from the time the packet was received by the Retransmission
   Server).

   In this example, both the conventional retransmission and rapid
   acquisition support are enabled.  This is achieved by the "a=rtcp-
   fb:98 nack ssli" line.  Note that this SDP includes the "a=sendonly"
   line for the media description of the retransmission stream and is
   for the Retransmission Server (RS).  Its counterpart for the RTP
   Receiver (RTP_Rx) includes the "a=recvonly" line as shown in
   Figure 10.

   When an RTP receiver asks for rapid acquisition before it joins a
   primary multicast RTP session, it sends a RAMS-R message to the
   feedback target of that primary multicast RTP session.  If FT_Ap is
   associated with only one RTP stream, the RTP receiver does not need
   to learn the SSRC of that stream via an out-of-band method.  If RS
   accepts the request, it will send an RAMS-I message with the correct
   SSRC identifier.  If FT_Ap is associated with a multi-stream RTP
   session and the RTP receiver is willing to request rapid acquisition
   for the entire session, the RTP receiver again does not need to learn
   the SSRCs via an out-of-band method.  However, if the RTP receiver is
   willing to request a particular subset of the primary multicast
   streams, it must learn their SSRC identifiers and list them in the
   RAMS-R message.  Since this RTP receiver has not yet received any RTP
   packets for the primary multicast stream(s), the RTP receiver must in
   this case learn the SSRC value(s) from the 'ssrc' attribute of the
   media description.  In addition to the SSRC value, the 'cname' source
   attribute must also be present in the SDP description [RFC5576].

   Note that listing the SSRC values for the primary multicast streams
   in the SDP file does not create a problem in SSM sessions when an
   SSRC collision occurs.  This is because in SSM sessions, an RTP
   receiver that observed an SSRC collision with a media sender MUST
   change its own SSRC [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm] by following the rules
   defined in [RFC3550].

   A feedback target that receives a RAMS-R feedback message becomes
   aware that the prediction chain at the RTP receiver side has been
   broken or does not exist anymore.  If the necessary conditions are



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   satisfied (as outlined in Section 7 of [RFC4585]) and available
   resources exist, RS may react to the RAMS-R message by sending any
   transport-layer and payload-specific feedback message(s) and starting
   the unicast burst.

        v=0
        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 rams.example.com
        s=Rapid Acquisition Example
        t=0 0
        a=group:FID 1 2
        a=rtcp-unicast:rsi
        m=video 41000 RTP/AVPF 98
        i=Primary Multicast Stream
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/255
        a=source-filter: incl IN IP4 233.252.0.2 198.51.100.1
        a=recvonly
        a=rtpmap:98 MP2T/90000
        a=rtcp:41001 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
        a=rtcp-fb:98 nack
        a=rtcp-fb:98 nack ssli
        a=ssrc:123321 cname:iptv-ch32@rams.example.com
        a=rams-updates
        a=mid:1
        m=video 41002 RTP/AVPF 99
        i=Unicast Retransmission Stream (Ret. and Rapid Acq. Support)
        c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
        a=sendonly
        a=rtpmap:99 rtx/90000
        a=rtcp:41003
        a=fmtp:99 apt=98; rtx-time=5000
        a=mid:2

         Figure 9: Example SDP for RS when RAMS support is enabled


















VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


        v=0
        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 rams.example.com
        s=Rapid Acquisition Example
        t=0 0
        a=group:FID 1 2
        a=rtcp-unicast:rsi
        m=video 41000 RTP/AVPF 98
        i=Primary Multicast Stream
        c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/255
        a=source-filter: incl IN IP4 233.252.0.2 198.51.100.1
        a=recvonly
        a=rtpmap:98 MP2T/90000
        a=rtcp:41001 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
        a=rtcp-fb:98 nack
        a=rtcp-fb:98 nack ssli
        a=ssrc:123321 cname:iptv-ch32@rams.example.com
        a=rams-updates
        a=mid:1
        m=video 41002 RTP/AVPF 99
        i=Unicast Retransmission Stream (Ret. and Rapid Acq. Support)
        c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
        a=recvonly
        a=rtpmap:99 rtx/90000
        a=rtcp:41003
        a=fmtp:99 apt=98; rtx-time=5000
        a=mid:2

      Figure 10: Example SDP for RTP_Rx when RAMS support is enabled

   In this section, we considered the simplest scenario where the
   primary multicast RTP session carried only one stream and the RTP
   receiver wanted to rapidly acquire this stream only.  Best practices
   for scenarios where the primary multicast RTP session carries two or
   more streams or the RTP receiver wants to acquire one or more streams
   from multiple primary multicast RTP sessions at the same time are
   presented in [I-D.begen-avt-rams-scenarios].

   Editor's note:  Should we keep the text above?


9.  NAT Considerations

   For a variety of reasons, one or more NAPT devices (hereafter simply
   called NAT) may exist between RTP_Rx and RS.  NATs have a variety of
   operating characteristics for UDP traffic [RFC4787].  For a NAT to
   permit traffic from RS to arrive at RTP_Rx, the NAT(s) must first
   either:




VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   a.  See UDP traffic sent from RTP_Rx (which is on the 'inside' of the
       NAT) to RS (which is on the 'outside' of the NAT).  This traffic
       is sent to the same transport address as the subsequent response
       traffic, or;

   b.  Be configured to forward certain ports (e.g., using HTML
       configuration, UPnP IGD [UPnP-IGD], DLNA [DLNA]).  Details of
       this are out of scope of this document.

   For both (a) and (b), RTP_Rx is responsible for maintaining the NAT's
   state if it wants to receive traffic from the RS on that port.  For
   (a), RTP_Rx MUST send UDP traffic to keep the NAT binding alive, at
   least every 30 seconds [RFC4787].  Note that while (a) is more like
   an automatic/dynamic configuration, (b) is more like a manual/static
   configuration.

   When RTP_Rx sends a RAMS-R message in the primary multicast RTP
   session and the request is received by RS, a new unicast RTP
   retransmission session will be established between RS and RTP_Rx.

   While the ports on the RS side are already signaled via out-of-band
   means (e.g., SDP), RTP_Rx may need to convey to RS the RTP and RTCP
   ports it wants to use on its side for the new session.  Since there
   are two RTP sessions involved during this process and one of them is
   established upon a feedback message sent in the other one, this
   requires an explicit port mapping method.  This problem equally
   applies to scenarios where the RTP media is multicast in an SSM
   session, and an RTP receiver requests retransmission from a local
   repair server by using the RTCP NACK messages for the missing packets
   and the repair server retransmits the requested packets over a
   unicast session.  Thus, instead of laying out a specific solution for
   the RAMS applications, a general solution is introduced in
   [I-D.begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp].

   Applications using RAMS MUST support this solution both on the RS and
   RTP_Rx side to allow RTP receivers to use their desired ports and to
   support RAMS behind NAT devices.


10.  Congestion Control Considerations

   Editor's note:  Text for this section will be provided by Magnus W.


11.  Security Considerations

   Applications that are using RAMS make heavy use of the unicast
   feedback mechanism described in [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm] and the



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   payload format defined in [RFC4588].  Thus, these applications are
   subject to the general security considerations discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm] and [RFC4588].  In this section, we give an
   overview of the guidelines and suggestions described in these
   specifications from a RAMS perspective.  We also discuss the security
   considerations that explicitly apply to applications using RAMS.

   First of all, much of the session description information is
   available in the SDP descriptions that are distributed to the media
   senders, Retransmission Servers and RTP receivers.  Adequate security
   measures are RECOMMENDED to ensure the integrity and authenticity of
   the SDP descriptions so that transport addresses of the media
   senders, distribution sources, feedback targets as well as other
   session-specific information can be authenticated.

   Compared to an RTCP NACK message that triggers one or more
   retransmissions, a RAMS Request (RAMS-R) message may trigger a new
   burst stream to be sent by the Retransmission Server.  Depending on
   the application-specific requirements and conditions existing at the
   time of the RAMS-R reception by the Retransmission Server, the
   resulting burst stream may contain potentially a large number of
   retransmission packets.  Since these packets are sent at a faster
   than the nominal rate, RAMS consumes more resources on the
   Retransmission Server, the RTP receiver and the network.  This
   particularly makes denial-of-service attacks more intense, and hence,
   more harmful than attacks that target ordinary retransmission
   sessions.

   Following the suggestions given in [RFC4588], counter-measures SHOULD
   be taken to prevent tampered or spoofed RTCP packets.  Tampered
   RAMS-R messages may trigger inappropriate burst streams or alter the
   existing burst streams in an inappropriate way.  For example, if the
   Max Receive Bitrate field is altered by a tampered RAMS-R message,
   the updated burst may overflow the buffer on the receiver side, or
   oppositely, may slow down the burst to the point that it becomes
   useless.  Tampered RAMS Termination (RAMS-T) messages may terminate
   valid burst streams pre-maturely resulting in gaps in the received
   RTP packets.  RAMS Information (RAMS-I) messages contain fields that
   are critical for the success of the RAMS operation.  Any tampered
   information in the RAMS-I message may easily cause the RTP receiver
   to make wrong decisions.  Consequently, the RAMS operation may fail.

   While most of the denial-of-service attacks can be prevented by the
   integrity and authenticity checks enabled by SRTP, an attack can
   still be started by legitimate endpoints that send several valid
   RAMS-R messages to a particular feedback target in a synchronized
   fashion and very short amount of time.  Since a RAMS operation may
   temporarily consume a large amount of resources, a series of the



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   RAMS-R messages may temporarily overload the Retransmission Server.
   In these circumstances, the Retransmission Server may, for example,
   reject incoming RAMS requests until its resources become available
   again.  One means to ameliorate this threat is to apply a per-
   endpoint policing mechanism on the incoming RAMS requests.  A
   reasonable policing mechanism should consider application-specific
   requirements and minimize false negatives.

   In addition to the denial-of-service attacks, man-in-the-middle and
   replay attacks can also be harmful.  However, RAMS itself does not
   bring any new risks or threats other than the ones discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm].

   [RFC4588] RECOMMENDS that the cryptography mechanisms are used for
   the retransmission payload format to provide protection against known
   plaintext attacks.  As discussed in [RFC4588], the retransmission
   payload format sets the timestamp field in the RTP header to the
   media timestamp of the original packet and this does not compromise
   the confidentiality.  Furthermore, if cryptography is used to provide
   security services on the original stream, then the same services,
   with equivalent cryptographic strength, MUST be provided on the
   retransmission stream per [RFC4588].


12.  IANA Considerations

   The following contact information shall be used for all registrations
   in this document:

   Ali Begen
   abegen@cisco.com

   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA

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

12.1.  Registration of SDP Attributes

   This document registers a new attribute name in SDP.










VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


        SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
        Attribute name:     rams-updates
        Long form:          Support for Updated RAMS Request Messages
        Type of name:       att-field
        Type of attribute:  Media level
        Subject to charset: No
        Purpose:            See this document
        Reference:          [RFCXXXX]
        Values:             None

12.2.  Registration of SDP Attribute Values

   This document registers a new value for the 'nack' attribute to be
   used with the 'rtcp-fb' attribute in SDP.  For more information about
   'rtcp-fb', refer to [RFC4585].


        Value name:     ssli
        Long name:      Stream Synchronization Loss Indication
        Usable with:    nack
        Reference:      [RFCXXXX]

12.3.  Registration of FMT Values

   Within the RTPFB range, the following format (FMT) value is
   registered:


        Name:           RAMS
        Long name:      Rapid Acquisition of Multicast Sessions
        Value:          6
        Reference:      [RFCXXXX]

12.4.  SFMT Values for RAMS Messages Registry

   This document creates a new sub-registry for the sub-feedback message
   type (SFMT) values to be used with the FMT value registered for RAMS
   messages.  The registry is called the SFMT Values for RAMS Messages
   Registry.  This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to
   the Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].

   The length of the SFMT field in the RAMS messages is a single octet,
   allowing 256 values.  The registry is initialized with the following
   entries:







VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


  Value Name                                               Reference
  ----- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
  0     Reserved                                           [RFCXXXX]
  1     RAMS Request                                       [RFCXXXX]
  2     RAMS Information                                   [RFCXXXX]
  3     RAMS Termination                                   [RFCXXXX]
  4-254                                        Specification Reqired
  255   Reserved                                           [RFCXXXX]


   The SFMT values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use.

   Any registration for an unassigned SFMT value MUST contain the
   following information:

   o  Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
      at least name, address, and email.

   o  A detailed description of what the new SFMT represents and how it
      shall be interpreted.

   Note that new RAMS functionality should be introduced by using the
   extension mechanism within the existing RAMS message types not by
   introducing new message types unless it is absolutely necessary.

12.5.  RAMS TLV Space Registry

   This document creates a new IANA TLV space registry for the RAMS
   extensions.  The registry is called the RAMS TLV Space Registry.
   This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to the
   Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].

   The length of the Type field in the TLV elements is a single octet,
   allowing 256 values.  The Type values 0 and 255 are reserved for
   future use.  The Type values between (and including) 128 and 254 are
   reserved for private extensions.

   The registry is initialized with the following entries:













VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 44]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Type Description                                        Reference
   ---- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
   0    Reserved                                           [RFCXXXX]
   1    Requested Media Sender SSRC(s)                     [RFCXXXX]
   2    Min RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement                   [RFCXXXX]
   3    Max RAMS Buffer Fill Requirement                   [RFCXXXX]
   4    Max Receive Bitrate                                [RFCXXXX]
   5    Request for Preamble Only                          [RFCXXXX]
   6-30                                        Specification Reqired
   31   Media Sender SSRC                                  [RFCXXXX]
   32   RTP Seqnum of the First Packet                     [RFCXXXX]
   33   Earliest Multicast Join Time                       [RFCXXXX]
   34   Burst Duration                                     [RFCXXXX]
   35   Max Transmit Bitrate                               [RFCXXXX]
   36-60                                       Specification Reqired
   61   Extended RTP Seqnum of First Multicast Packet      [RFCXXXX]
   62-127                                      Specification Reqired
   128-254                                       No IANA Maintenance
   255  Reserved                                           [RFCXXXX]


   Any registration for an unassigned Type value MUST contain the
   following information:

   o  Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
      at least name, address, and email.

   o  A detailed description of what the new TLV element represents and
      how it shall be interpreted.

12.6.  RAMS Response Code Space Registry

   This document creates a new IANA TLV space registry for the RAMS
   response codes.  The registry is called the RAMS Response Code Space
   Registry.  This registry is to be managed by the IANA according to
   the Specification Required policy of [RFC5226].

   The length of the Response field is two octets, allowing 65536 codes.
   However, the response codes have been classified and registered
   following an HTTP-style code numbering in this document.  New
   response codes SHALL follow the guidelines below:










VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 45]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Code Level Purpose
   ---------- ---------------
   1xx        Informational
   2xx        Success
   3xx        Redirection
   4xx        RTP Receiver Error
   5xx        Retransmission Server Error


   The Response code 65536 is reserved for future use.

   The registry is initialized with the following entries:


  Code  Description                                        Reference
  ----- -------------------------------------------------- -------------
  0     A private response code is included in the message [RFCXXXX]

  100   Parameter update for RAMS session                  [RFCXXXX]

  200   RAMS request has been accepted                     [RFCXXXX]
  201   Unicast burst has been completed                   [RFCXXXX]

  400   Invalid RAMS-R message syntax
  401   Invalid min buffer requirement in RAMS-R message   [RFCXXXX]
  402   Invalid max buffer requirement in RAMS-R message   [RFCXXXX]
  403   Invalid max bitrate requirement in RAMS-R message  [RFCXXXX]

  500   An unspecified RS internal error has occurred      [RFCXXXX]
  501   RS has no bandwidth to start RAMS session          [RFCXXXX]
  502   RS has no CPU available to start RAMS session      [RFCXXXX]
  503   RAMS functionality is not available on RS          [RFCXXXX]
  504   RAMS functionality is not available for RTP_Rx     [RFCXXXX]
  505   RAMS functionality is not available for
        the requested multicast stream                     [RFCXXXX]
  506   RS has no valid starting point available for
        the requested multicast stream                     [RFCXXXX]
  507   RS has no reference information available for
        the requested multicast stream                     [RFCXXXX]
  508   RS has no RTP stream matching the requested SSRC   [RFCXXXX]
  509   RAMS request to acquire the entire session
        has been denied                                    [RFCXXXX]
  510   Only the preamble information is sent              [RFCXXXX]
  511   RAMS request has been denied due to a policy       [RFCXXXX]


   Any registration for an unassigned Response code MUST contain the
   following information:



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 46]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   o  Contact information of the one doing the registration, including
      at least name, address, and email.

   o  A detailed description of what the new Response code describes and
      how it shall be interpreted.


13.  Contributors

   Dave Oran and Magnus Westerlund have contributed significantly to
   this specification by providing text and solutions to some of the
   issues raised during the development of this specification.


14.  Acknowledgments

   The following individuals have reviewed the earlier versions of this
   specification and provided helpful comments:  Colin Perkins, Joerg
   Ott, Roni Even, Dan Wing, Tony Faustini, Peilin Yang, Jeff Goldberg,
   Muriel Deschanel, Orit Levin, Guy Hirson, Tom Taylor, Xavier Marjou,
   Ye-Kui Wang, Zixuan Zou, Ingemar Johansson, Haibin Song, Ning Zong,
   Jonathan Lennox and Sean Sheedy.


15.  Change Log

15.1.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-06

   The following are the major changes compared to version 05:

   o  Comments from WGLC have been addressed.  See the mailing list for
      the list of changes.

   o  Support for multi-stream RTP sessions has been added.

   o  NAT section has been revised.

15.2.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-05

   The following are the major changes compared to version 04:

   o  Editorial changes throughout the document.

15.3.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-04

   The following are the major changes compared to version 03:





VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 47]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   o  Clarifications for the definition of RS.

   o  Response codes have been defined.

15.4.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-03

   The following are the major changes compared to version 02:

   o  Clarifications for the RAMS-I message.

   o  Type values have been assigned.

15.5.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-02

   The following are the major changes compared to version 01:

   o  Port mapping discussion has been removed since it will be
      discussed in a separate draft.

   o  Security considerations section has been added.

   o  Burst shaping section has been completed.

   o  Most of the outstanding open issues have been addressed.

15.6.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-01

   The following are the major changes compared to version 00:

   o  Formal definitions of vendor-neutral and private extensions and
      their IANA registries have been added.

   o  SDP examples were explained in more detail.

   o  The sub-FMT field has been introduced in the RAMS messages for
      message type identification.

   o  Some terminology has been fixed.

   o  NAT considerations section has been added.

15.7.  draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-00

   This is a resubmission of version 03 as a WG item.







VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 48]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


15.8.  draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-03

   The following are the major changes compared to version 02:

   o  The title and message names have been changed.

   o  RTCP message semantics have been added.  RAMS protocol has been
      revised to handle updated requests and responses.

   o  Definitions have been revised.

   o  RTP/RTCP muxing reference has been added.

15.9.  draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-02

   The following are the major changes compared to version 01:

   o  The discussion around MPEG2-TS has been moved to another document.

   o  The RAMS-R, RAMS-I and RAMS-T messages have been extensively
      modified and they have been made mandatory.

   o  IANA Considerations section has been updated.

   o  The discussion of RTCP XR report has been moved to another
      document.

   o  A new section on protocol design considerations has been added.

15.10.  draft-versteeg-avt-rapid-synchronization-for-rtp-01

   The following are the major changes compared to version 00:

   o  The core of the rapid synchronization method is now payload-
      independent.  But, the draft still defines payload-specific
      messages that are required for enabling rapid synch for the RTP
      flows carrying MPEG2-TS.

   o  RTCP APP packets have been removed, new RTCP transport-layer and
      payload-specific feedback messages have been defined.

   o  The step for leaving the current multicast session has been
      removed from Section 6.2.

   o  A new RTCP XR (Multicast Join) report has been defined.

   o  IANA Considerations section have been updated.




VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 49]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   o  Editorial changes to clarify several points.


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
              Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006.

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

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis]
              Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The SDP (Session
              Description Protocol) Grouping Framework",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-04 (work in progress),
              November 2009.

   [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              July 2006.

   [RFC4588]  Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
              Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
              July 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-avt-rtcpssm]
              Ott, J. and J. Chesterfield, "RTCP Extensions for Single-
              Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback",
              draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-19 (work in progress),



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 50]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


              November 2009.

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

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5506]  Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
              Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
              and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.

   [RFC5285]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
              Header Extensions", RFC 5285, July 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync]
              Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
              Flows", draft-ietf-avt-rapid-rtp-sync-09 (work in
              progress), January 2010.

   [I-D.begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp]
              Begen, A. and B. Steeg, "Port Mapping Between Unicast and
              Multicast RTP Sessions",
              draft-begen-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-01 (work in
              progress), October 2009.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [I-D.begen-avt-rams-scenarios]
              Begen, A., "Considerations for RAMS Scenarios",
              draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-00 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [I-D.begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble]
              Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "RTP Payload Format for
              MPEG2-TS Preamble",
              draft-begen-avt-rtp-mpeg2ts-preamble-04 (work in
              progress), December 2009.

   [I-D.begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr]



VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 51]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


              Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "Multicast Acquisition Report
              Block Type for RTCP XR",
              draft-begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr-03 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [I-D.westerlund-avt-ecn-for-rtp]
              Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., and K.
              Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP
              over UDP", draft-westerlund-avt-ecn-for-rtp-02 (work in
              progress), October 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme]
              Begen, A., "RTP Payload Format for 1-D Interleaved Parity
              FEC", draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-09 (work
              in progress), January 2010.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-dccp-rtp]
              Perkins, C., "RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
              Protocol (DCCP)", draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-07 (work in
              progress), June 2007.

   [UPnP-IGD]
              Forum, UPnP., "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet
              Gateway Device (IGD)", November 2001.

   [DLNA]     , DLNA., "http://www.dlna.org/home".

   [IC2009]   Begen, A., Glazebrook, N., and W. VerSteeg, "Reducing
              Channel Change Times in IPTV with Real-Time Transport
              Protocol (IEEE Internet Computing)", May 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Bill VerSteeg
   Cisco
   5030 Sugarloaf Parkway
   Lawrenceville, GA  30044
   USA

   Email:  billvs@cisco.com






VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 52]

Internet-Draft      Rapid Acquisition of RTP Sessions      February 2010


   Ali Begen
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email:  abegen@cisco.com


   Tom VanCaenegem
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerpen,   2018
   Belgium

   Email:  Tom.Van_Caenegem@alcatel-lucent.be


   Zeev Vax
   Microsoft Corporation
   1065 La Avenida
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email:  zeevvax@microsoft.com


























VerSteeg, et al.         Expires August 8, 2010                [Page 53]


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