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

Versions: (draft-lazzaro-avt-rtp-framing-contrans) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 4571

INTERNET-DRAFT                                              John Lazzaro
March 27, 2004                                               CS Division
Expires: September 27, 2004                                  UC Berkeley


    Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-Oriented Transport

              <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-01.txt>


Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


                                Abstract

     This memo defines a method for framing Real Time Protocol (RTP) and
     Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) packets onto connection-oriented
     transport (such as TCP).  The memo also defines how to specify the
     framing method in a session description.










Lazzaro                                                         [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


                            Table of Contents


1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
2. The Framing Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
3. Undefined Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
4. Session Descriptions for RTP/AVP over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
A. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
B. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
C. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
D. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     D.1 Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
E. Author Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
F. Intellectual Property Rights Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
G. Full Copyright Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
H. Change Log for <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-01.txt> . . .   9




1.  Introduction

The Audio/Video Profile (AVP, [1]) for the Real-Time Protocol (RTP, [2])
does not define a method for framing RTP and Real Time Control Protocol
(RTCP) packets onto connection-oriented transport protocols (such as
TCP).  However, earlier versions of RTP/AVP did define a framing method,
and this method is in use in several implementations.

In this memo, we document the method and show how a session description
[4] may specify the use of the method.

1.1 Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [11].


2.  The Framing Method

Figure 1 defines the framing method.








Lazzaro                                                         [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


 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
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
|             LENGTH            |  RTP or RTCP packet ...       |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------


     Figure 1 -- The bitfield definition of the framing method.


A 16-bit unsigned integer LENGTH field, coded in network byte order
(big-endian), begins the frame.  If LENGTH is non-zero, an RTP or RTCP
packet follows the LENGTH field.  The value coded in the LENGTH field
MUST equal the number of octets in the RTP or RTCP packet.  Zero is a
valid value for LENGTH, and codes the null packet.

This framing method does not use frame markers (i.e. an octet of
constant value that would precede the LENGTH field).  Frame markers are
useful for detecting errors in the LENGTH field.  In lieu of a frame
marker, receivers SHOULD monitor the RTP and RTCP header fields whose
values are predictable (for example, the RTP version number).


3.  Undefined Properties

The framing method does not specify properties above the level of a
single packet.  In particular, Section 2 does not specify:

   The number of RTP or RTCP streams on the connection.

      The framing method is commonly used for sending a single
      RTP or RTCP stream over a connection.  However, Section
      2 does not define this common use as normative, so that
      (for example) a memo that defines an RTP SSRC multiplexing
      protocol may use the framing method.

   Bi-directional issues.

      Section 2 defines a framing method for use in one direction
      on a connection.  The relationship between framed packets
      flowing in defined direction and in the reverse direction is
      not specified.









Lazzaro                                                         [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


   Packet loss and reordering.

      The reliable nature of a connection does not imply that a
      framed RTP stream has a contiguous sequence number ordering.
      For example, if the connection is used to tunnel a UDP stream
      through a network middlebox that only passes TCP, the sequence
      numbers in the framed stream reflect any packet loss or
      reordering on the UDP portion of the end-to-end flow.

   Out-of-band semantics.

      Section 2 does not define the RTP or RTCP semantics for closing
      a TCP socket, or of any other "out of band" signal for the
      connection.

Memos that normatively include the framing method MAY specify these
properties.  For example, Section 4 of this memo specifies these
properties for RTP sessions specified in session descriptions.


4.  Session Descriptions for RTP/AVP over TCP

[3] defines how to specify connection-oriented media streams in session
descriptions.  In this section, we show how to use [3] with the framing
method.

Figure 2 shows the syntax of a media (m=) line [4] of a session
description:


      "m=" media SP port ["/" integer] SP proto 1*(SP fmt) CRLF


       Figure 2 -- Syntax for an SDP media (m=) line (from [4]).


[4] defines "TCP" as the <proto> token that specifies TCP transport.  We
now define how to declare that an RTP/AVP stream that uses the framing
method appears on the TCP connection.

At least two <fmt> tokens MUST follow <proto>.  The first <fmt> token
MUST be "RTP/AVP".  Subsequent <fmt> tokens MUST be unique unsigned
integers in the range 0 to 127, that specify an RTP payload type
associated with the stream.

The TCP <port> on the media line exclusively receives RTP packets.  If a
media stream uses RTCP, a second connection exclusively receives the
RTCP packets.  The port for the RTCP connection is chosen using the



Lazzaro                                                         [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


algorithms defined in [4] and in related documents.

The TCP connections MAY carry bi-directional traffic, following the
semantics defined in [3].  Both directions of a connection MUST carry
the same type of packets (RTP or RTCP).  The packets MUST exclusively
code the RTP or RTCP streams specified on the media line(s) associated
with the connection.

The RTP stream MUST have an unbroken sequence number order.  RTCP stream
packets MUST appear as defined in [2], with no lost or re-ordered
packets.  IETF standards-track documents MAY loosen these restrictions
on packet loss and packet ordering.

The out-of-band semantics for the connection MUST comply with [3].


5.  Example

The session descriptions in Figure 3-4 define a TCP RTP/AVT session.


v=0
o=first 2520644554 2838152170 IN IP4 first.example.net
s=Example
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.105
m=audio 9 TCP RTP/AVP 11
a=direction:active

       Figure 3 -- TCP session description for first participant.


v=0
o=second 2520644554 2838152170 IN IP4 second.example.net
s=Example
t=0 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.94
m=audio 16112 TCP RTP/AVP 10 11
a=direction:passive

       Figure 4 -- TCP session description for second participant.


The session descriptions define two parties that participate in a
connection-oriented RTP/AVP session.  The first party (Figure 3) is
capable of receiving stereo L16 streams (static payload type 11).  The
second party (Figure 4) is capable of receiving mono (static payload
type 10) or stereo L16 streams.



Lazzaro                                                         [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


The direction attribute in Figure 3 specifies that the first party is
"active" and initiates connections, and the direction attribute in
Figure 4 specifies that the second party is "passive" and accepts
connections [3].

The first party connects to the network address (192.0.2.94) and port
(16112) of the second party.  Once the connection is established, it is
used bi-directionally: the first party sends framed RTP packets to the
second party on one direction of the connection, and the second party
sends framed RTP packets to the first party in the other direction of
the connection.

The first party also initiates an RTCP TCP connection to port 16113
(16112 + 1, as defined in [4]) of the second party.  Once the connection
is established, the first party sends framed RTCP packets to the second
party on one direction of the connection, and the second party sends
framed RTCP packets to the first party in the other direction of the
connection.


A.  Acknowledgements

This memo, in part, documents discussions on the AVT mailing list about
TCP and RTP.  Thanks to all of the participants in these discussions.


B.  Security Considerations

Attackers may send framed packets with large LENGTH values, to exploit
security holes in applications.  For example, a C implementation may
declare a 1500-byte array as a stack variable, and use LENGTH as the
bound on the loop that reads the framed packet into the array.  This
code would work fine for friendly applications that use Etherframe-sized
RTP packets, but may be open to exploit by an attacker.


C.  IANA Considerations

[4] defines the syntax of session description media lines.  We reproduce
this definition in Figure 2 of Section 4 of this memo.  [4] defines
"TCP" as a token value for the <proto> field of media lines, and permits
other memos to define tokens for the <fmt> fields that follow "TCP" on a
media line.

This memo defines <fmt> tokens for use with the "TCP" token.  At least
two <fmt> tokens MUST follow <proto>.  The first <fmt> token MUST be
"RTP/AVP".  Subsequent <fmt> tokens MUST be unique unsigned integers in
the range 0-127.  Section 4 of this memo specifies the semantics



Lazzaro                                                         [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


associated with the <fmt> tokens.


D.  References

D.1 Normative References

[1] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson.
"RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications", RFC 3550, July
2003.

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

[3] Yon, D.  "Connection-Oriented Media Transport in SDP", work in
progress, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05.txt.

[4] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins.  "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", work in progress,
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-14.txt.

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


E.  Author Address

John Lazzaro
UC Berkeley
CS Division
315 Soda Hall
Berkeley CA 94720-1776
Email: lazzaro@cs.berkeley.edu


F.  Intellectual Property Rights Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general
license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by



Lazzaro                                                         [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the
IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.


G.  Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002-2003).  All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations,
except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in
which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS
IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK
FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

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










Lazzaro                                                         [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT                                            27 March 2004


H.  Change Log for <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-01.txt>

[Note to RFC Editors: this Appendix, and its Table of Contents listing,
should be removed from the final version of the memo]

In preparation for the upcoming draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia revision,
all mention of TLS has been removed from -01.txt.  In addition,
references have been updated.











































Lazzaro                                                         [Page 9]


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