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

Versions: (draft-wenger-avt-rtp-svc) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RFC 6190

Network Working Group                                         S. Wenger
Internet-Draft                                               Y.-K. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Nokia
Expires: May 18, 2008                                        T. Schierl
                                                         Fraunhofer HHI
                                                      November 19, 2007


                   RTP Payload Format for SVC Video
                     draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-03.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


Abstract

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for scalable video coding
   (SVC) defined in_Annex G of the ITU-T Recommendation H.264 video
   codec which is technically identical to Amendment 3 of ISO/IEC
   International Standard 14496-10.  The RTP payload format allows for
   packetization of one or more Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units,
   produced by the video encoder, in each RTP packet payload.  The
   payload format has wide applicability, such as low bit-rate
   conversational, Internet video streaming, or high bit-rate
   entertainment quality video.




































Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 2]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

Table of Content

   RTP Payload Format for SVC Video..................................1
   1.   Introduction.................................................5
   2.   Conventions..................................................5
   3.   The SVC Codec................................................6
   3.1.    Overview..................................................6
   3.2.    Parameter Set Concept.....................................7
   3.3.    Network Abstraction Layer Unit Header.....................8
   4.   Scope.......................................................12
   5.   Definitions and Abbreviations...............................12
   5.1.    Definitions..............................................12
   5.1.1.  Definitions per SVC specification........................12
   5.1.2.  Definitions local to this memo...........................14
   5.2.    Abbreviations............................................16
   6.   RTP Payload Format..........................................16
   6.1.    Design Principles........................................16
   6.2.    RTP Header Usage.........................................17
   6.3.    Common Structure of the RTP Payload Format...............17
   6.4.    NAL Unit Header Usage....................................17
   6.5.    Packetization Modes......................................18
   6.6.    Decoding Order Number (DON)..............................19
   6.7.    Aggregation Packets......................................19
   6.8.    Fragmentation Units (FUs)................................19
   6.9.    Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit.19
   7.   Packetization Rules.........................................26
   8.   De-Packetization Process (Informative)......................29
   8.1.    De-Packetization Process for NAL Units Conveyed using
   Session Multiplexing.............................................29
   8.1.1.  De-Packetization Process for Session Multiplexing using
   non-interleaved mode or Single NAL unit mode without the use of
   CL-DON...........................................................30
   8.1.2.  De-Packetization Process for Session Multiplexing using
   CL-DON.......................................................... 33
   9.   Payload Format Parameters...................................35
   9.1.    Media Type Registration..................................36
   9.2.    SDP Parameters...........................................63
   9.2.1.  Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP................64
   9.2.2.  Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model....................64
   9.2.3.  Usage with Session Multiplexing..........................70
   9.2.4.  Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions................71
   9.3.    Examples.................................................72

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 3]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   9.3.1.  Example for offering a single SVC session................72
   9.3.2.  Example for offering session multiplexing................72
   9.4.    Parameter Set Considerations.............................73
   10.  Security Considerations.....................................73
   11.  Congestion Control..........................................73
   12.  IANA Consideration..........................................74
   13.  Informative Appendix: Application Examples..................74
   13.1.   Introduction.............................................75
   13.2.   Layered Multicast........................................75
   13.3.   Streaming of an SVC scalable stream......................76
   13.4.   Multicast to MANE, SVC scalable stream to endpoint.......77
   13.5.   Scenarios currently not considered for being unaligned
   with IP philosophy...............................................79
   13.6.   SSRC Multiplexing........................................80
   14.  References..................................................81
   14.1.   Normative References.....................................81
   14.2.   Informative References...................................82
   15.  Author's Addresses..........................................83
   16.  Copyright Statement.........................................83
   17.  Disclaimer of Validity......................................83
   18.  Intellectual Property Statement.............................84
   19.  Acknowledgement.............................................84
   20.  RFC Editor Considerations...................................85
   21.  Open Issues.................................................85
   22.  Changes Log.................................................85



















Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 4]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


1. Introduction

   This memo specifies an RTP [RFC3550] payload format for the Scalable
   Video Coding (SVC) extension of the H.264/AVC video coding standard.
   Formally, SVC takes the form of Amendment 3 to ISO/IEC 14496 Part 10
   [MPEG4-10], and Annex G of ITU-T Rec. H.264 [H.264]. The
   specification of SVC is available in [SVC].

   SVC covers the whole application ranges of H.264/AVC, starting with
   low bit-rate Internet streaming applications to HDTV broadcast and
   Digital Cinema with nearly lossless coding and requiring dozens or
   hundreds of MBit/s.

   This memo tries to follow a backward compatible enhancement
   philosophy similar to what the video coding standardization
   committees implement, by keeping as close an alignment to the
   H.264/AVC payload format [RFC3984] as possible.  It documents the
   enhancements relevant from an RTP transport viewpoint, and defines
   signaling support for SVC, including a new media subtype name.

   This memo includes two processes for recovery of NAL unit decoding
   order of NAL units transported using multiple RTP sessions, when
   using of the interleaved mode is not required. The first uses the
   cross-layer decoding order number, as specified in 8.1.2. The second
   uses timestamp etc., as specified in 8.1.1. The first process has
   been agreed by the editors, but having the second process in
   addition has not been agreed by the editors. The editors therefore
   request the AVT to make a decision whether to have the second
   process in addition.

2. Conventions

   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
   [RFC2119].

   This specification uses the notion of setting and clearing a bit
   when bit fields are handled.  Setting a bit is the same as assigning

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 5]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   that bit the value of 1 (On).  Clearing a bit is the same as
   assigning that bit the value of 0 (Off).

3. The SVC Codec

3.1. Overview

   SVC provides scalable video bitstreams.  In SVC, a scalable video
   bitstream contains a base layer conforming to at least one of the
   profiles of H.264/AVC as defined in Annex A of [H.264], and one or
   more enhancement layers, collectively denoted as Layers.  A Layer
   may be the base Layer or enhance the temporal resolution (i.e. the
   frame rate), the spatial resolution, or the quality of the video
   content, relative to the quality represented without the Layer.
   Note, that the definition of Layer in this memo encompasses
   temporal, spatial and fidelity enhancements.

   Each RTP session can carry NAL units belonging to one or more
   Layers.  The NAL unit headers include information associating a
   given NAL unit to a Layer.  Therefore, extracting individual Layers
   from an RTP session containing more than one Layer is a lightweight
   operation, involving only fixed length bit fields in the header, as
   documented in this memo and in [SVC].

   Multiple RTP sessions, regardless of whether each carries a single
   Layer or multiple Layers as discussed above, can be used to
   transport the whole scalable bitstream, or Operation Points thereof.
   An Operation Point consists of only those Layers necessary to
   reconstruct a given quality (in temporal, spatial and fidelity
   dimensions).

   The concept of video coding layer (VCL) and network abstraction
   layer (NAL) is inherited from H.264/AVC.  The VCL contains the
   signal processing functionality of the codec; mechanisms such as
   transform, quantization, motion-compensated prediction, loop
   filtering and inter-layer prediction.  A coded picture in H.264/AVC
   consists of one or more slices.  Within one access unit, a coded
   picture of an Operation Point consists of all the coded slices
   required for decoding up to a particular Layer at the time instance
   corresponding to the access unit.  The Network Abstraction Layer

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 6]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   (NAL) encapsulates each slice generated by the VCL into one or more
   Network Abstraction Layer Units (NAL units).  Please consult RFC
   3984 for a more in-depth discussion of the NAL unit concept.  SVC
   specifies the decoding order of NAL units.

   "Layer" in the terms "Video Coding Layer" and "Network Abstraction
   Layer" refers to a conceptual distinction, and is closely related to
   syntax layers (block, macroblock, slice, ... layers).  "Layer" here
   describes a syntax level of the bitstream in contrast to a part of
   the layered bitstream, which may be discarded.  It should not be
   confused with base and enhancement Layers.

   The concept of temporal scalability is not newly introduced by SVC,
   as profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264] already support it.  In
   [H.264], sub-sequences have been introduced in order to allow
   optional use of temporal layers.  SVC extends this approach by
   advertising the temporal scalability information within the NAL unit
   header, or prefix NAL units, as discussed in section 3.3 of this
   memo and in [SVC].

   The concept of scaling the visual content quality in the granularity
   of complete enhancement Layers, i.e. through omitting the transport
   and decoding of entire Layers, is denoted as spatial scalability or
   Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) scalability, the latter is also know as
   Coarse-Grained Scalability (CGS).  This is what is commonly
   understood as scalability in the IETF community.  In addition, SVC
   also offers the concept of another type of SNR scalability, the
   Medium-Grained Scalability (MGS).  MGS involves selectively omitting
   the decoding of NAL units belonging to MGS layers.  The selection of
   the NAL units to omit can be based on fixed length fields in the NAL
   unit header.

3.2. Parameter Set Concept

   The parameter set concept is inherited from [H.264].  Please refer
   to section 1.2 of RFC 3984 for more details.

   SVC introduced a new type of sequence parameter set, referred to as
   subset sequence parameter set.  Subset sequence parameter sets have
   NAL unit type equal to 15, which is different from the NAL unit type

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 7]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   value (7) of sequence parameter set. VCL NAL units of NAL unit type
   1 to 5 must only (indirectly) refer to sequence parameter sets,
   while VCL NAL units of NAL unit type 20 must only (indirectly) refer
   to subset sequence parameter sets.  Subset sequence parameter sets
   use a separate identifier value space than sequence parameter sets.

   In SVC, pictures from different Layers, defined as layer
   representations in [SVC] (Note: A layer representation in [SVC] is
   identified by a single combination of dependency_id and quality_id
   values), may use the same sequence or picture parameter set, but may
   also use different sequence or picture parameter sets.  If different
   sequence parameter sets are used, then, at any time instant during
   the decoding process, there may be one active sequence parameter set
   (for the layer representation with the highest value of
   (dependency_id * 16 + quality_id)) and one or more active layer
   sequence parameter set(s) (for layer representations with lower
   values of (dependency_id * 16 + quality_id)).  Any specific active
   sequence parameter set or active layer sequence parameter set
   remains unchanged throughout a coded video sequence in the Layer in
   which the active sequence parameter set or active layer sequence
   parameter set is referred to.  This means that the referred sequence
   parameter set or subset sequence parameter set can only change at
   IDR access units for any Layer. [Ed. May need to have a "layer"
   definition to be used here, such as 'dependency layer' identified by
   dependency_id, or "quality layer", identified by quality_id. One
   issue with the current Layer definition is that, a Layer of
   temporal_id greater than 0 would not contain an IDR access unit. And
   the SPS application scope includes all temporal Layers.]  The active
   picture parameter set remains unchanged within a layer
   representation.

3.3. Network Abstraction Layer Unit Header

   An SVC NAL unit consists of a header of four octets and the payload
   byte string.  SVC NAL units of type 20 encapsulate VCL data as
   defined in Annex G of [SVC].  A special type of an SVC NAL unit is
   the prefix NAL unit (type 14) that includes descriptive information
   of the associated H.264/AVC VCL NAL unit (type 1 or 5) that
   immediately follows the prefix NAL unit.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 8]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   SVC extends the one-byte H.264/AVC NAL unit header by three
   additional octets.  The header indicates the type of the NAL unit,
   the (potential) presence of bit errors or syntax violations in the
   NAL unit payload, information regarding the relative importance of
   the NAL unit for the decoding process, the layer identification
   information, and other fields as discussed below.

   This RTP payload specification is designed to be unaware of the
   octet string in the NAL unit payload.  The NAL unit header co-serves
   as the payload header of this RTP payload format.  The payload of a
   NAL unit follows immediately.

   The syntax and semantics of the NAL unit header are formally
   specified in [SVC], but the essential properties of the NAL unit
   header are summarized below.

   The first byte of the NAL unit header has the following format (the
   bit fields are the same as defined for the one-byte H.264/AVC NAL
   unit header, while the semantics of some fields have changed
   slightly, in a backward compatible way):

         +---------------+
         |0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |F|NRI|  Type   |
         +---------------+

   F: 1 bit
   forbidden_zero_bit.  H.264/AVC declares a value of 1 as a syntax
   violation.

   NRI: 2 bits
   nal_ref_idc.  A value of '00' (in binary form) indicates that the
   content of the NAL unit is not used to reconstruct reference
   pictures for future prediction.  Such NAL units can be discarded
   without risking the integrity of the reference pictures in the same
   Layer.  A value greater than '00' indicates that the decoding of the
   NAL unit is required to maintain the integrity of reference pictures
   in the same Layer, or that the NAL unit contains parameter sets.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 9]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   Type: 5 bits
   nal_unit_type.  This component specifies the NAL unit type as
   defined in table 7-1 of [SVC], and later within this memo.  For a
   reference of all currently defined NAL unit types and their
   semantics, please refer to section 7.4.1 in [SVC].

   In H.264/AVC, NAL unit types 14, 15 and 20 are reserved for future
   extensions.  SVC uses these three NAL unit types.  NAL unit type 14
   is used for prefix NAL unit, NAL unit type 15 is used for subset
   sequence parameter set and NAL unit type 20 is used for coded slice
   in scalable extension (see section 7.4.1 in [SVC]).  NAL unit types
   14 and 20 indicate the presence of three additional octets in the
   NAL unit header, as shown below.

            +---------------+---------------+---------------+
            |0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            |R|I|   PRID    |N| DID |  QID  | TID |U|D|O| RR|
            +---------------+---------------+---------------+

   R: 1 bit
   reserved_one_bit.  Reserved bit for future extension.  R MUST be
   equal to 1.  Receivers SHOULD discard NAL units with R equal to 0.

   I: 1 bit
   idr_flag.  This component specifies whether the layer representation
   is an instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) layer representation
   (when equal to 1) or not (when equal to 0).

   PRID: 6 bits
   priority_id.  This flag specifies a priority identifier for the NAL
   unit.  A lower value of PRID indicates a higher priority.

   N: 1 bit
   no_inter_layer_pred_flag.  This flag specifies, when present in a
   coded slice NAL unit, whether inter-layer prediction may be used for
   decoding the coded slice (when equal to 1) or not (when equal to 0).

   DID: 3 bits


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 10]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   dependency_id.  This component denotes the inter-layer coding
   dependency hierarchy.  At any access unit, a layer representation
   with a less dependency_id may be used for inter-layer prediction for
   coding of a layer representation with a greater dependency_id, while
   a layer representation with a greater dependency_id shall not be
   used for inter-layer prediction for coding of a layer representation
   with a less dependency_id.

   QID: 4 bits
   quality_id.  This component designates the quality level hierarchy
   of a MGS layer representation.  At any access unit and with
   identical dependency_id value, a layer representation with
   quality_id equal to ql uses a layer representation with quality_id
   equal to ql-1 for inter-layer prediction.

   TID: 3 bits
   temporal_id.  This component indicates the temporal layer (or frame
   rate) hierarchy.  Informally put, a layer consisting of layer
   representations with a less temporal_id corresponds to a lower frame
   rate.  A given temporal layer typically depends on the lower
   temporal layers (i.e. the temporal layers with less temporal_id) but
   never depends on any higher temporal layer.

   U: 1 bit
   use_ref_base_pic_flag.  A value of 1 indicates that only reference
   base pictures are used during the inter prediction process.  A value
   of 0 indicates that the reference base pictures are not used during
   the inter prediction process.

   D: 1 bit
   discardable_flag.  A value of 1 indicates that the current NAL unit
   is not used for decoding NAL units with greater dependency_id than
   the current NAL unit in the current and all subsequent access units.
   Such NAL units can be discarded without risking the integrity of
   higher layers with greater dependency_id.  discardable_flag equal to
   0 indicates that the decoding of the NAL unit is required to
   maintain the integrity of higher layers with greater dependency_id.

   O: 1 bit


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 11]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   output_flag: Affects the decoded picture output process as defined
   in Annex C of [SVC].

   RR: 2 bits
   reserved_three_2bits.  Reserved bits for future extension.  RR MUST
   be equal to '11' (in binary form).  Receivers SHOULD discard NAL
   units with RR not equal to '11'.

   This memo reuses the same additional NAL unit types introduced in
   RFC 3984, which are presented in section 6.3.  In addition, this
   memo introduces one OPTIONAL NAL unit type, 30, as specified in
   section 6.9. These NAL unit types are marked as unspecified in [SVC]
   and intentionally reserved for use in systems specifications like
   this memo.  Moreover, this specification extends the semantics of F,
   NRI, I, PRID, DID, QID, TID, U, and D as described in section 6.4.

4. Scope

   This payload specification can only be used to carry the "naked" NAL
   unit stream over RTP, and not the byte stream format according to
   Annex B of [SVC].  Likely, the applications of this specification
   will be in the IP based multimedia communications fields including
   conversational multimedia, video telephony or video conferencing,
   Internet streaming and TV over IP.

   This specification allows, in a given RTP session, to encapsulate
   NAL units belonging to
     o the base Layer only, detailed specification in [RFC3984], or
     o one or more enhancement Layers, or
     o the base Layer and one or more enhancement Layers


5. Definitions and Abbreviations

5.1. Definitions

5.1.1.    Definitions per SVC specification

   This document uses the definitions of [SVC].  The following terms,
   defined in [SVC], are summed up for convenience:

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 12]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   access unit:  A set of NAL units pertaining to a certain temporal
   location.  An access unit includes the coded slices of all the
   scalable layers at that temporal location and possibly other
   associated data, e.g. supplemental enhancement information (SEI)
   messages and parameter sets.

   coded video sequence:  A sequence of access units that consists, in
   decoding order, of an instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) access
   unit followed by zero or more non-IDR access units including all
   subsequent access units up to but not including any subsequent IDR
   access unit.  The coded video sequence is a Layer specific concept.
   See below the definition of IDR access unit.

   IDR access unit:  An access unit in which the coded picture is an
   IDR picture.  For a certain SVC bitstream, an access unit may be an
   IDR access unit for a Layer A but not an IDR access unit for Layer
   B, subject to the maximum present value of dependency_id within the
   access unit, which depends on which Layer is decoded.

   IDR picture:  A coded picture in which all slices with the maximum
   present value of dependency_id within the access unit are I or EI
   slices that causes the decoding process to mark all reference
   pictures as "unused for reference" immediately after decoding the
   IDR picture.  After the decoding of an IDR picture all following
   coded pictures in decoding order can be decoded without inter
   prediction from any picture decoded prior to the IDR picture.  The
   first picture of each coded video sequence is an IDR picture.

   layer representation:  A subset of VCL NAL units within an access
   unit that are associated with identical values of dependency_id and
   quality_id, which are provided as part of the VCL NAL unit header or
   by an associated prefix NAL unit.

   prefix NAL unit:  A NAL unit with nal_unit_type equal to 14 that
   immediately precedes a NAL unit with nal_unit_type equal to 1, 5,
   or 12.  The NAL unit that succeeds the prefix NAL unit is also
   referred to as the associated NAL unit.  The prefix NAL unit
   contains data associated with the associated NAL unit, which are
   considered to be part of the associated NAL unit.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 13]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   reference base picture: A decoded representation of an access unit
   that is only used for inter prediction reference but not for output.
   A reference base picture is constructed only when the
   store_base_rep_flag as specified in the SVC specification is equal
   to 1.

   scalable bitstream:  A bitstream with the property that one or more
   bitstream subsets that are not identical to the scalable bitstream
   form another bitstream that conforms to the SVC specification.

5.1.2.    Definitions local to this memo

   anchor layer representation:  An anchor layer representation is such
   a layer representation that, if decoding of the Layer starts from
   the layer representation, all the following layer representations of
   the Layer, in output order, can be correctly decoded.  An anchor
   layer representation is a random access point to the Layer the
   anchor layer representation belongs to.  However, some layer
   representations, succeeding an anchor layer representation in
   decoding order but preceding the anchor layer representation in
   output order, may refer to earlier layer representations for inter
   prediction, hence may not be correctly decoded if random access is
   performed at the anchor layer representation.

   base Layer:  The base Layer is typically representing the minimal
   spatial resolution, the minimal fidelity, and the minimal frame rate
   of an SVC bitstream.  In other words, the base Layer consists of all
   the VCL NAL units with dependency_id, quality_id and temporal_id
   equal to 0 and the associated non-VCL NAL units.  The base Layer is
   independently decodable without the requirement of using any other
   Layer of the SVC bitstream.  Note that this definition is different
   from the definition of "base layer" in Annex G of [SVC].

   cross-layer decoding order number (CL-DON): An OPTIONAL field in the
   payload structure, or a derived variable indicating NAL unit
   decoding order over all the NAL units transported in all the RTP
   sessions for transporting the SVC bitstream.



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 14]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   enhancement Layer:  An SVC enhancement Layer is a Layer with any of
   temporal_id, dependency_id, and quality_id greater than 0.

   full base Layer:  The bitstream containing the base Layer and the
   temporal enhancement Layers with dependency_id and quality_id both
   equal to 0. The full base Layer must conform to one of the profiles
   defined in Annex A of [H.264].  In SVC context each slice NAL unit
   in the full base Layer is associated with a prefix NAL unit, which
   has a four bytes NAL unit header containing all the syntax elements
   described in section 3.3.  The full base layer is equivalent to the
   definition of "base layer" in Annex G of [SVC].

   intra layer representation:  A layer representation that contains
   only intra coded slices hence does not refer to any earlier layer
   representation in decoding order in the same layer for inter
   prediction. However, an intra layer representation may use inter-
   layer prediction for its decoding.

   Layer:  A Layer may be the base Layer or an enhancement Layer that
   enhances the temporal resolution (i.e. the frame rate), the spatial
   resolution, or the quality of the video content, relative to the
   quality represented without the Layer.

   Operation Point:  An Operation Point of an SVC bitstream represents
   a certain level of temporal, spatial and quality scalability.  An
   Operation Point contains only those NAL units required for a valid
   bitstream (conforming to at least one of the profiles defined in
   Annex A or Annex G of [SVC]) to represent a certain quality.  The
   Operation Point is described by the maximum present value of
   dependency_id, and, within that maximum present value of
   dependency_id, by the maximum quality_id and temporal_id, within the
   bitstream subset representing the Operation Point.

   RTP packet stream: A sequence of RTP packets with increasing
   sequence numbers (except for wrap-around), identical PT  and
   identical SSRC (Synchronization Source), carried in one RTP session.
   Within the scope of this memo, one RTP packet stream is utilized to
   transport an integer number of SVC Layers.



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 15]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   Session multiplexing:  The scalable SVC bitstream is distributed
   onto different RTP sessions, whereby each RTP session carries a
   single RTP packet stream.  Each RTP session requires a separate
   signaling and has a separate Timestamp, Sequence Number, and SSRC
   space.  Dependency between sessions MUST be signaled according to
   [I-D.schierl-mmusic-layered-codec] and this memo.

   SVC NAL unit:  A NAL unit of NAL unit type 14 or 20 as specified in
   Annex G of [SVC]. An SVC NAL unit has a four-byte NAL unit header.

5.2. Abbreviations

   In addition to the abbreviations defined in [RFC3984], the following
   ones are defined.

   CGS:       Coarse-Grain Scalability
   CL-DON:    Cross-Layer Decoding Order Number
   MGS:       Medium-Grain Scalability
   PACSI:     Payload Content Scalability Information
   SVC:       Scalable Video Coding

6. RTP Payload Format

6.1. Design Principles

   The following design principles have been observed:

   o Backward compatibility with [RFC3984] wherever possible.

   o As the SVC full base Layer is H.264/AVC compatible, the full base
     Layer or any subset, when transmitted in its own session, MUST be
     encapsulated using [RFC3984].  Requiring this has the desirable
     side effect that it can be used by [RFC3984] legacy devices.

   o MANEs are signaling aware and rely on signaling information.
     MANEs have state.

   o MANEs can aggregate multiple RTP streams, possibly from multiple
   RTP sessions.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 16]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   o MANEs can perform media-aware stream thinning.  By using the
   payload
     header information identifying Layers within an RTP session,
     MANEs are able to remove packets from the incoming RTP packet
   stream.  This implies rewriting
     the RTP headers of the outgoing packet stream and rewriting of
     RTCP Receiver Reports.

6.2. RTP Header Usage

   Please see section 5.1 of [RFC3984].

6.3. Common Structure of the RTP Payload Format

   Please see section 5.2 of [RFC3984].

6.4. NAL Unit Header Usage

   The structure and semantics of the NAL unit header were introduced
   in section 3.3.  This section specifies the semantics of F, NRI, I,
   PRID, DID, QID, TID, U, and D according to this specification.

   The semantics of F specified in section 5.3 of [RFC3984] also
   applies herein.

   For NRI, for the bitstream conforming to one of the profiles defined
   in Annex A of [H.264] and transported using [RFC3984], the semantics
   specified in section 5.3 of [RFC3984] are applicable, i.e., NRI also
   indicates the relative importance of NAL units.  In SVC context, in
   addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC] are
   applicable, NRI also indicate the relative importance of NAL units
   within a Layer.

   For I, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
   according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to protect
   NAL units with I equal to 1 better than NAL units with I equal to 0.
   MANEs MAY also utilize information of NAL units with I equal to 1 to
   decide when to forward more packets for an RTP packet stream. For
   example, when it is sensed that spatial Layer switching has happened
   such that the Operation Point has changed to a higher value of DID,

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 17]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   MANEs MAY start to forward NAL units with the higher value of DID
   only after forwarding a NAL unit with I equal to 1 with the higher
   value of DID.

   Note that, in the context of this section, "protecting a NAL unit"
   means any RTP or network transport mechanism that could improve the
   probability of success delivery of the packet conveying the NAL
   unit, including applying a QoS-enabled network, FEC,
   retransmissions, and advanced scheduling behavior, whenever
   possible.

   For PRID, the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC] applies.
   Note, that MANEs implementing unequal error protection MAY use this
   information to protect NAL units with smaller PRID values better
   than those with larger PRID values, for example by including only
   the more important NAL units in a forward error correction (FEC)
   protection mechanism.  The importance for the decoding process
   decreases as the PRID value increases.

   For DID, QID, TID, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G
   of [SVC], according to this memo, values of DID, QID, or TID
   indicate the relative importance in their respective dimension.  A
   lower value of DID, QID, or TID indicates a higher importance if the
   other two components are identical.  MANEs MAY use this information
   to protect more important NAL units better than less important NAL
   units.

   For U, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
   according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to protect
   NAL units with U equal to 1 better than NAL units with U equal to 0.

   For D, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [SVC],
   according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to determine
   whether a given NAL unit is required for successfully decoding a
   certain Operation Point of the SVC bitstream, hence to decide
   whether to forward the NAL unit.

6.5. Packetization Modes

   Please see section 5.4 of [RFC3984].

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 18]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


6.6. Decoding Order Number (DON)

   Please see section 5.5 of [RFC3984].  The following applies in
   addition.

   If different Layers of a SVC bitstream are transported in more than
   one RTP session, the DON values of all the NAL units in the RTP
   sessions using interleaved mode MUST indicate CL-DON values.

   When Session multiplexing is used and at least one STAP-A packet is
   present in any of the RTP sessions, the following applies.
   - A PACSI NAL unit MUST be present in each STAP-A packet.
   - A CL-DON field MUST be present in the PACSI NAL unit included in
     each STAP-A.
   - The DON values for the NAL units in each STAP-A packet MUST be
     derived as follows and indicate CL-DON values.
        o The CL-DON field in the PACSI NAL unit specifies the value
          of DON for the first NAL unit in the STAP-A in transmission
          order.  For each successive NAL unit in appearance order in
          the STAP-A, the value of DON is equal to (the value of DON
          of the previous NAL unit in the STAP-A + 1) % 65536, wherein
          '%' stands for modulo operation.

6.7. Aggregation Packets

   Please see section 5.7 of [RFC3984].

6.8. Fragmentation Units (FUs)

   Please see section 5.8 of [RFC3984].

6.9. Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit

   A new NAL unit type is specified in this memo, and referred to as
   payload content scalability information (PACSI) NAL unit.  The
   OPTIONAL PACSI NAL unit, if present, MUST be the first NAL unit in
   an aggregation packet, and it MUST NOT be present in other types of
   packets.  The PACSI NAL unit indicates scalability information and
   other characteristics that are common for all the remaining NAL

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 19]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   units in the payload of the aggregation packet. Furthermore, a PACSI
   NAL unit MAY contain zero or more SEI NAL units.  PACSI NAL unit
   makes it easier for MANEs to decide whether to
   forward/process/discard the aggregation packet containing the PACSI
   NAL unit.  Other reasons to use PACSI NAL units are explained later
   when specifying the semantics of the fields.  Senders MAY create
   PACSI NAL units and receivers MAY ignore them, or use them as hints
   to enable efficient aggregation packet processing.  Note that the
   NAL unit type for the PACSI NAL unit is selected among those values
   that are unspecified in [SVC] and [RFC3984].

   When the first aggregation unit of an aggregation packet contains a
   PACSI NAL unit, there MUST be at least one additional aggregation
   unit present in the same packet.  The RTP header and payload header
   fields of the aggregation packet are set according to the remaining
   NAL units in the aggregation packet.

   When a PACSI NAL unit is included in a multi-time aggregation packet
   (MTAP), the decoding order number (DON) for the PACSI NAL unit MUST
   be set to indicate that the PACSI NAL unit has an identical DON to
   the first NAL unit in decoding order among the remaining NAL units
   in the aggregation packet.

   The structure of a PACSI NAL unit is as follows.  The first four
   octets are exactly the same as the four-byte SVC NAL unit header as
   discussed in section 3.3.  They are followed by one always present
   octet, five optional octets, and zero or more SEI NAL units, each
   SEI NAL unit preceded by a 16-bit unsigned size field (in network
   byte order) that indicates the size of the following NAL unit in
   bytes (excluding these two octets, but including the NAL unit type
   octet of the SEI NAL unit).  Figure 1 illustrates the PACSI NAL unit
   structure and an example of a PACSI NAL unit containing two SEI NAL
   units.

   The bits A, P, C, S, and E are specified only if the bit X is equal
   to 1.  The fields TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID are present only if the bit
   Y is equal to 1.  The fields TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID MUST NOT be
   present if the bit Y is equal to 0.  The field CL-DON is present
   only if the bit T is equal to 1.  The field T MUST be equal to 0 if


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 20]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   the aggregation packet containing the PACSI NAL unit is not an STAP-
   A packet.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |F|NRI|  Type   |R|I|   PRID    |N| DID |  QID  | TID |U|D|O| RR|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |X|Y|T|A|P|C|S|E| TL0PICIDX (o.)|        IDRPICID (o.)          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        CL-DON (o.)            |        NAL unit size 1        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                 SEI NAL unit 1                                |
      |                                                               |
      |                         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         |        NAL unit size 2        |     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     |
      |                                                               |
      |            SEI NAL unit 2                                     |
      |                                           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 1.  PACSI NAL unit structure.  Fields suffixed by
                    "(o.)" are OPTIONAL.

   The values of the fields in PACSI NAL unit MUST be set as follows.

   o The F bit MUST be set to 1 if the F bit in at least one of the
     remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the
     F bit MUST be set to 0.

   o The NRI field MUST be set to the highest value of NRI field among
     all the remaining NAL units in the payload.

   o The Type field MUST be set to 30.

   o The R bit MUST be set to 1.




Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 21]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   o The I bit MUST be set to 1 if the I bit of at least one of the
     remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the
   I bit MUST be set to 0.

   o The PRID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the PRID values
     of all the remaining NAL units in the payload.

   o The N bit MUST be set to 1 if the N bit of all the remaining NAL
     units in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the N bit MUST be
     set to 0.

   o The DID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the DID values
     of all the remaining NAL units in the payload.

   o The QID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the QID values
     of all the remaining NAL units with the lowest value of DID in the
     payload.

   o The TID field MUST be set to the lowest value of the TID values
     of all the remaining NAL units with the lowest value of DID in the
     payload.

   o The U bit MUST be set to 1 if the U bit of at least one of the
     remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the
     U bit MUST be set to 0.

   o The D bit MUST be set to 1 if the D value of all the remaining NAL
     unit in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the D bit MUST be
     set to 0.

   o The O bit MUST be set to 1 if the O bit of at least one of the
     remaining NAL units in the payload is equal to 1.  Otherwise, the
     O bit MUST be set to 0.

   o The RR field MUST be set to '11' (in binary form).

   o If the X bit is equal to 1, the bits A, P, C, S, and E are
   specified as in below. Otherwise, the bits A, P, C, S, and E are
   unspecified, and receivers MUST ignore these bits.  The X bit SHOULD


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 22]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   be identical for all the PACSI NAL units involved in all the RTP
   sessions conveying an SVC bitstream.

   o If the Y bit is equal to 1, the OPTIONAL fields TL0PICIDX and
   IDRPICID MUST be present and specified as in below. Otherwise, the
   fields TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID MUST NOT be present.  The Y bit SHOULD
   be identical for all the PACSI NAL units involved in all the RTP
   sessions conveying an SVC bitstream.

   o If the T bit is equal to 1, the OPTIONAL field CL-DON MUST be
   present and specified as in below. Otherwise, the field CL-DON MUST
   NOT be present.

   o The A bit MUST be set to 1 if all the target NAL units belong to
   anchor layer representations.  Otherwise, the A bit MUST be set to
   0.  The target NAL units are such NAL units contained in the
   aggregation packet, but not included in the PACSI NAL unit, that are
   within the access unit to which the first NAL unit following the
   PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet belongs.  The A bit SHOULD
   be identical for all the PACSI NAL units for which the target NAL
   units belong to the same access unit.

      Informative note: The A bit indicates whether CGS or spatial
      layer switching at a non-IDR layer representation (a layer
      representation with nal_unit_type not equal to 5 and idr_flag not
      equal to 1) can be performed.  When the coded pattern like IBBP
      is in use, non-IDR intra layer representation can be used for
      random access.  Compared to using only IDR layer representations,
      higher coding efficiency can be achieved.  The H.264/AVC or SVC
      solution to indicate the random accessibility of a non-IDR intra
      layer representation is using recovery point SEI message.
      However, with this A bit it is much easier to parse than to parse
      the recovery point SEI message, which may even be buried deeply
      in an SEI NAL unit.  Furthermore, the SEI message may not be
      present in the bitstream.

   o The T bit MUST be set to 1 if all the target NAL units (as defined
   above) belong to temporal scalable layer switching points.
   Otherwise, the T bit MUST be set to 0.  The T bit SHOULD be
   identical for all the PACSI NAL units for which the target NAL units

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 23]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   belong to the same access unit.

      Informative note: The T bit indicates whether switching to the
      next higher temporal layer (i.e. upgrading of frame rate) can be
      performed at the layer representation.  SVC specifies temporal
      layer switching point SEI message for signaling of temporal layer
      switching points when needed.  However, with this T bit it is
      much easier to parse than to parse the recovery point SEI
      message, which may even be buried deeply in an SEI NAL unit.
      Furthermore, the SEI message may not be present in the bitstream.

   o The P bit MUST be set to 1 if all the target NAL units (as defined
   above) are with redundant_pic_cnt greater than 0, i.e. the slices
   are redundant slices.  Otherwise, the P bit MUST be set to 0.  The P
   bit SHOULD be identical for all the PACSI NAL units for which the
   target NAL units belong to the same access unit.

      Informative note: The P bit indicates whether the packet can be
      discarded because it contains redundant slice NAL units.  Without
      this bit, the corresponding information can be concluded from the
      syntax element redundant_pic_cnt, which is buried in the slice
      header, which is not in the fixed-length coded NAL unit header.

   o The C bit MUST be set to 1 if the target NAL units (as defined
   above) belong to an access unit for which the layer representation
   having the greatest value of dependency_id among all the layer
   representations containing the target NAL units is an intra layer
   representation.  Otherwise, the C bit MUST be set to 0.  The C bit
   SHOULD be identical for all the PACSI NAL units for which the target
   NAL units belong to the same access unit.

      Informative note: The C bit indicates whether the packet contains
      intra slices which may be the only packets to be forwarded for a
      fast forward playback, e.g. when the network condition is
      extremely bad.

   o The S bit MUST be set to 1, if the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding
   order, of the layer representation containing the first NAL unit
   following the PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet is present in
   the payload.  Otherwise, the S bit MUST be set to 0.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 24]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   o The E bit MUST be set to 1, if the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding
   order, of the layer representation containing the first NAL unit
   following the PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet is present in
   the payload.  Otherwise, the E field MUST be set to 0.

      Informative note: The S or E bit indicates whether the first or
      last slice, in decoding order, of a layer representation is in
      the packet, to enable a MANE to detect slice loss and take proper
      action such as requesting a retransmission as soon as possible,
      as well as to allow an efficient playout buffer handling
      similarly as the M bit in the RTP header.  The M bit in the RTP
      header still indicates the end of an access unit, not the end of
      a layer representation.

   o When present, the TL0PICIDX field MUST be set to equal to
   tl0_dep_rep_idx as specified in Annex G of [SVC] for the layer
   representation containing the first NAL unit following the PACSI NAL
   unit in the aggregation packet.

   o When present, the IDRPICID field MUST be set to equal to
   effective_idr_pic_id as specified in Annex G of [SVC] for the layer
   representation containing the first NAL unit following the PACSI NAL
   unit in the aggregation packet.

      Informative note: The TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID fields enable the
      detection of the loss of layer representations in the most
      important temporal layer, by receivers as well as MANEs.  SVC
      includes a solution by using SEI messages, which are harder to
      parse and may not be present in the bitstream at all.

   o When present, the field CL-DON indicates the cross-layer decoding
   order number for the first NAL unit in the STAP-A in transmission
   order.

   SEI NAL units included in the PACSI NAL unit, if any, MUST contain a
   subset of the SEI messages associated with the access unit of the
   first NAL unit following the PACSI NAL unit within the aggregation
   packet.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 25]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

      Informative note: Senders may repeat such SEI NAL units in the
      PACSI NAL unit the presence of which in more than one packet is
      essential for packet loss robustness.  Receivers may use the
      repeated SEI messages in place of missing SEI messages.  In
      H.264/AVC and SVC, within each access unit, SEI NAL units must
      appear before any VCL NAL unit in decoding order.  Therefore,
      without using PACSI NAL units, SEI messages are typically only
      conveyed in the first packet of those packets conveying an access
      unit.

   An SEI message SHOULD NOT be included in a PACSI NAL unit and
   included in one of the remaining NAL units contained in the same
   aggregation packet at the same time.

7. Packetization Rules

   Please see section 6 of [RFC3984].  The following rules apply in
   addition.

   All receivers MUST support the single NAL unit packetization mode to
   provide backward compatibility to endpoints supporting only the
   single NAL unit mode of RFC 3984. However, the single NAL unit
   packetization mode SHOULD NOT be used whenever possible, because
   encapsulating NAL units of small sizes, e.g. small NAL units
   containing parameter sets or SEI messages, in their own packets is
   typically less efficient because of the relatively big overhead.

   All receivers MUST support the non-interleaved mode of [RFC3984].

     Informative note: The non-interleaved mode allows an application
     to encapsulate a single NAL unit in a single RTP packet.
     Historically, the single NAL unit mode has been included into
     [RFC3984] only for compatibility with ITU-T Rec. H.241 Annex A
     [H.241].  There is no point in carrying this historic ballast
     towards a new application space such as the one provided with SVC.
     More technically speaking, the implementation complexity increase
     for providing the additional mechanisms of the non-interleaved
     mode (namely STAP-A) is so minor, and the benefits are so great,
     that STAP-A implementation is required.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 26]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   A NAL unit of small size SHOULD be encapsulated in an aggregation
   packet together with one or more other NAL units. For example, non-
   VCL NAL units such as access unit delimiter, parameter set, or SEI
   NAL unit are typically small.

   A prefix NAL unit SHOULD be aggregated to the same packet as the
   associated NAL unit following the prefix NAL unit in decoding order.

      Informative note: When either the prefix NAL unit or the
      associated NAL unit containing an H.264/AVC coded slice is lost,
      the remaining one would be hardly useful in SVC context, wherein
      the prefix NAL unit must be available for decoded picture buffer
      management operations of the decoding process.

   When the first aggregation unit of an aggregation packet contains a
   PACSI NAL unit, there MUST be at least one additional aggregation
   unit present in the same packet.

          Non-VCL NAL units SHOULD be conveyed in the same session as
          the associated VCL NAL units.  To meet this, SEI messages
          that are contained in scalable nesting SEI message and are
          applicable to more than one session SHOULD be separated and
          contained into multiple scalable nesting SEI messages.  The
          CL-DON values MUST indicate the cross-layer decoding order
          number values as if all these SEI messages were in separate
          scalable nesting SEI messages and contained in the beginning
          of the corresponding access units as specified in [SVC].

   When Session multiplexing is used, the following applies.  The two
   options I. and II. are available:

  I.  In all RTP Sessions non-interleaved mode or single NAL unit mode
        MUST be used and CL-DON MUST NOT be present:

         a. If an access unit of sampling time instance X is present
            in RTP session A, this access unit MUST be also present in
            any RTP session, which depends on RTP session A.




Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 27]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

         b. RTP sessions MUST have a one-dimensional dependency
            structure, i.e. an RTP session can be enhanced by exactly
            one other RTP session only.

         c. M-bit of the RTP header SHALL be set according to
            [RFC3550], i.e. the end of an access unit MUST be
            indicated in each of the RTP sessions.

         d. All RTP sessions MUST use the same RTP Timestamp scale and
            MUST use the same RTP timestamp for packets in the
            different RTP session containing NAL units of the same
            sampling time instance.

         e. At least one of the following parameters MUST be present
            in the RTP sessions indicating buffering values for each
            RTP session of the RTP session multiplex:
            - sprop-prebuf-size
            - sprop-prebuf-time

        Informative note:  Restriction a. allows only for multiplexing
        of RTP session with the same frame rate or requires in RTP
        sessions with higher frame rate also NAL units of the access
        units, which are also present in RTP sessions which the
        session in question depends on.  An example algorithm for
        packet and NAL unit reordering is given in 8.1.1.

 II.     CL-DON MUST be used

         a. An RTP session that does not use interleaved mode MUST be
            constrained as follows.

              i. Non-interleaved mode MUST be used.
             ii. STAP-A MUST be used, and any other type of packets
                 MUST NOT be used.
            iii. Each STAP-A MUST contain a PACSI NAL unit and the CL-
                 DON field MUST be present in the PACSI NAL unit.

          Informative note: The motivation for these constraints is to
          allow the use of non-interleaved mode for the session
          conveying the H.264/AVC compatible (full) base layer, such

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 28]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

          that RFC 3984 receivers without interleaved mode
          implementation can subscribe to the (full) base layer
          session.


8. De-Packetization Process (Informative)

   For a single RTP session, the de-packetization process specified in
   section 7 of [RFC3984] applies [with some fixes to section 7 of RFC
   3984 and some changes/additions to section 7.3 (Additional De-
   Packetization Guidelines) of RFC 3984 -- TBD].

   For receiving more than one of multiple RTP sessions conveying a
   scalable bitstream, an example of a suitable implementation of the
   de-packetization process is specified in section 8.1.

8.1. De-Packetization Process for NAL Units Conveyed using Session
Multiplexing

   As for a single RTP session, the general concept behind these de-
   packetization rules is to reorder NAL units from transmission order
   to the NAL unit decoding order.

   In this section, "the RTP sessions" refer to the RTP sessions for
   which the NAL units are de-packetized.

   The receiver includes a receiver buffer, which is used to compensate
   for different session initiation times, transmission delay jitter
   and to reorder NAL units from transmission order to the NAL unit
   decoding order.  In this section, the receiver operation is
   described under the assumption that all the RTP sessions initiate at
   the same time, and there is no transmission delay jitter.  However,
   receivers SHOULD also prepare for both different session initiation
   times and transmission delay jitter.  Receivers can either reserve
   separate buffers for session initiation variation buffering,
   transmission delay jitter buffering, and de-session-multiplexing
   buffering, or use a receiver buffer for all the aforementioned
   purposes.  Moreover, receivers SHOULD take session initiation
   variation and transmission delay jitter into account in the


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 29]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   buffering operation; e.g., by additional initial buffering before
   starting of decoding and playback.


8.1.1.    De-Packetization Process for Session Multiplexing using non-
interleaved mode or Single NAL unit mode without the use of CL-DON

   In this section, NAL unit reordering is described for the
   constraints of section 7 using the non-interleaved mode or Single
   NAL unit mode for all RTP sessions, i.e. no CL-DON is used within
   any of these sessions.  The reordering process is based on RTP
   session dependency, RTP sequence numbers, RTP timestamp and RTP
   header marker bit.  In the following, in-session packet reordering
   refers to the process of reordering RTP packets according to their
   sequence number within the receiver buffer of an RTP session.
   Inter-session packet reordering refers to the process of NAL unit
   reordering between sessions in case of using Session multiplexing.

   The following example is used to explain the reordering process.
   The example refers to three RTP sessions A, B and C as shown in
   Figure 2.  In the example, the dependency signaling as described in
   9.2.3, indicates, that Session A does not depend on any other of the
   sessions; B depends on A; C depends on A and B as restricted in
   section 7.  Session A has the lowest frame rate and Session B and C
   have the same, but a higher frame rate.

   Informative note: The reordering process described in this
   subsection can be applied on RTP session with the same or different
   frame rates. The latter case is only valid, if NAL units of the same
   time instances of an RTP session are also present in the RTP session
   which depends on this RTP session.  For describing the reordering
   process no packet loss is assumed.

   For each of the RTP sessions a receiver buffer according to one of
   the parameters: sprop-prebuf-size or sprop-prebuf-time is used to
   buffer RTP packets for each session and in-session packet reordering
   is applied according to the RTP sequence numbers before starting
   inter-session packet reordering.  sprop-prebuf-size and sprop-
   prebuf-time should be selected such that buffering each of the
   sessions according to these parameters allows for an inter-session

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 30]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   packet reordering with detection of at least two S0 Synchronization
   Points, as defined later, in each session.

   Inter-session packet reordering is started from the lowest RTP
   session S0.  This is the session with the lowest number of
   dependencies in the one-dimensional dependency tree (in the example:
   RTP session A).  This session is referred to as the lowest session.
   The session with the next higher number of dependencies is called
   the next higher session Sn, where n is in the integer rage of 1 and
   m-1.  The highest session Sm-1 is the session with the highest
   number of dependencies in the one-dimensional dependency tree, where
   m is the number of RTP sessions in the session multiplex.

   In the following, a packet loss free transmission is assumed.
   Starting from Session S0, the first RTP timestamp in the receiver
   buffer after in-session packet reordering referred to as TS_S0_0_is
   searched in all the RTP sessions Sn starting with the first packet
   in each receiver buffer.  If TS_S0_0_is found in all sessions, this
   point is referred to as the S0 Synchronization Point (see Figure 2)
   If such a point is not found all packets with TS_S0_0 are removed
   from the receiver buffer of session S0 only.  The search as
   described above is repeated with TS_S0_i until the first S0
   Synchronization Point is found, where i gives the counter of RTP
   timestamps within a RTP session's receiver buffer in RTP sequence
   number order.

   Informative note: The RTP timestamp order following the RTP packet
   order is not the same as the order of increasing RTP timestamp
   value.

   A Synchronization Point of session Sn is called the Sn
   Synchronization Point and defined by matching RTP timestamps in all
   sessions Sy >= Sn, i.e. TS_Sy_i must be same over the RTP session Sy
   >= Sn.  If the an Sn Synchronization Point is found, that access
   unit with RTP timestamp TS_Sn_i is restored by depacketizing RTP
   packets following the rules of [RFC3984] starting from session Sn up
   to Sm-1.  The restored NAL units of the sessions are reassembled and
   place into access unit with RTP timestamp TS_Sn_i in the order of
   the RTP sessions Sn to Sm-1.  Note: Sm-1 does not necessarily have
   to be the highest available RTP session, but the highest subscribed

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 31]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   session using Layered Multicast.   When reassembling an access unit
   for TS_Sn_i Synchronization Point, the packets with TS_Sn_i are
   removed in RTP sessions Sy >= Sn.

   After finding the very first S0 Synchronization Point, all RTP
   packets preceding the TS_S0_i packets in RTP sequence order are
   removed from the receiver buffers in all sessions.

   After reassembling a Synchronization Point, the process described
   above is repeated.

   Before proceeding to a Synchronization Point in any RTP session
   starting from the lowest session:
   If a Synchronization Point is found in any higher session, the
   access unit represented by such a Synchronization Point has to be
   reassembled first.

   Informative note: In case of packet loss, the essential connection
   between RTP sessions and packets cannot be kept, for that reason, we
   propose the reduce the reordering process only up to the session
   which the packet loss contains.  After finding a S0 Synchronization
   point, the reordering can be applied without restrictions.

   Decoding order and dependency of NAL units per RTP session:

   C: -(1)---(2)--(3,4)-(5,6)--(7)---(8)-(9,10)(11,12)-(13)--(14)----
        |     |     :     :     |     |      :    :     |      |
   B: -(1,2)-(3,4)-(5)---(6)--(7,8)-(9,10)-(11)-(12)--(13,14)(15,15)-
        |     |                 |     |                 |      |
   A: -(1)---(2)---------------(3)---(4)---------------(5)----(6)----
   ------------------------------------------------------------------->
   TS: [4]   [2]   [1]   [3]   [8]   [6]   [5]   [7]   [12]   [10]


   Key:
   A, B, C                - RTP sessions
   Integer values in '()' - NAL unit decoding order per RTP session
   '( )'                  - groups the NAL units of an access unit in
                            an RTP session


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 32]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   '|'                    - indicates layer dependency and the S0
                            Synchronization Points
   ':'                    - indicates layer dependency and the S1
                            Synchronization Points
   Integer values in '[]' - RTP Timestamp (TS), sampling time

   Figure 2. Synchronization Points in Session multiplexing without CL-
   DON

8.1.2.    De-Packetization Process for Session Multiplexing using CL-
DON

   As present option in section 7, when more than one RTP session is
   used to convey an SVC Bitstream, for each NAL unit a CL-DON value
   can be derived.  This enables a NAL unit decoding order recovery
   process without individual deinterleaving process for each RTP
   session, irrespective of whether any of the sessions uses interleave
   mode.  Excluding the session initiation variation buffer and the
   transmission delay jitter buffer, the receiver buffer is called the
   de-session-multiplexing buffer.

   The de-packetization process for NAL units conveyed in multiple RTP
   sessions is similar to the single RTP session de-packetization
   process for interleaved mode as specified in subsection 7.2 of RFC
   3984.

   It is RECOMMENDED to set the size of the de-session-multiplexing
   buffer, in terms of number of bytes, equal to or greater than the
   value of the sprop-deint-buf-req media type parameter of the RTP
   session conveying the SVC Layer for which the decoding requires the
   presence of the SVC Layers conveyed in all the other RTP sessions,
   referred to the highest RTP session.

   There are two buffering states in the receiver: initial buffering
   and buffering while playing.  Initial buffering occurs when the RTP
   sessions are initialized.  After initial buffering, decoding and
   playback are started, and the buffering-while-playing mode is used.

   Regardless of the buffering state, the receiver stores incoming NAL
   units, in reception order, in the de-session-multiplexing buffer as

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 33]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   follows.  NAL units of aggregation packets are stored in the de-
   session-multiplexing buffer individually.  The value of DON (i.e.
   CL-DON) is calculated and stored for each NAL unit.

   The receiver operation is described below with the help of the
   following functions and constants:

      o  Function AbsDON is specified in section 9.1 of this
   specification.

      o  Function don_diff is specified in section 5.5 of RFC 3984.

      o  Constant N is the value of the OPTIONAL sprop-interleaving-
   depth media type parameter of the highest RTP session incremented by
   1.

   Initial buffering lasts until one of the following conditions is
   fulfilled:

      o  There are N or more VCL NAL units in the de-session-
   multiplexing buffer.

      o  If sprop-max-don-diff of the highest RTP session is present,
   don_diff(m,n) is greater than the value of sprop-max-don-diff of the
   highest RTP session, in which n corresponds to the NAL unit having
   the greatest value of AbsDON among the received NAL units and m
   corresponds to the NAL unit having the smallest value of AbsDON
   among the received NAL units.

      o  Initial buffering has lasted for the duration equal to or
   greater than the value of the OPTIONAL sprop-init-buf-time media
   type parameter of the highest RTP session.

   The NAL units to be removed from the de-session-multiplexing buffer
   are determined as follows:

      o  If the de-session-multiplexing buffer contains at least N VCL
   NAL units, NAL units are removed from the de-session-multiplexing
   buffer and passed to the decoder in the order specified below until
   the buffer contains N-1 VCL NAL units.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 34]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


      o  If sprop-max-don-diff of the highest RTP session is present,
   all NAL units m for which don_diff(m,n) is greater than sprop-max-
   don-diff of the highest RTP session are removed from the de-session-
   multiplexing buffer and passed to the decoder in the order specified
   below.  Herein, n corresponds to the NAL unit having the greatest
   value of AbsDON among the NAL units in the de-session-multiplexing
   buffer.

   The order in which NAL units are passed to the decoder is specified
   as follows:

      o  Let PDON be a variable that is initialized to 0 at the
   beginning of the RTP sessions.

      o  For each NAL unit associated with a value of DON, a DON
   distance is calculated as follows.  If the value of DON of the NAL
   unit is larger than the value of PDON, the DON distance is equal to
   DON - PDON.  Otherwise, the DON distance is equal to 65535 - PDON +
   DON + 1.

      o  NAL units are delivered to the decoder in ascending order of
   DON distance.  If several NAL units share the same value of DON
   distance, they can be passed to the decoder in any order.

      o  When a desired number of NAL units have been passed to the
   decoder, the value of PDON is set to the value of DON for the last
   NAL unit passed to the decoder.

9. Payload Format Parameters

   This section specifies the parameters that MAY be used to select
   optional features of the payload format and certain features of the
   bitstream.  The parameters are specified here as part of the media
   type registration for the SVC codec.  A mapping of the parameters
   into the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] is also
   provided for applications that use SDP.  Equivalent parameters could
   be defined elsewhere for use with control protocols that do not use
   SDP.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 35]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   Some parameters provide a receiver with the properties of the stream
   that will be sent.  The names of all these parameters start with
   "sprop" for stream properties.  Some of these "sprop" parameters are
   limited by other payload or codec configuration parameters.  For
   example, the sprop-parameter-sets parameter is constrained by the
   profile-level-id parameter.  The media sender selects all "sprop"
   parameters rather than the receiver.  This uncommon characteristic
   of the "sprop" parameters may not be compatible with some signaling
   protocol concepts, in which case the use of these parameters SHOULD
   be avoided.

9.1. Media Type Registration

   The media subtype for the SVC codec is allocated from the IETF tree.

   The receiver MUST ignore any unspecified parameter.

     Informative note: Requiring ignoring unspecified parameter allows
     for backward compatibility of future extensions.  For example, if
     a future specification that is backward compatible to this
     specification specifies some new parameters, then a receiver
     according to this specification is capable of receiving data per
     the new payload but ignoring those parameters newly specified in
     the new payload specification.  This sentence is also present in
     RFC 3984.

   Media Type name:     video

   Media subtype name:  H264-SVC or H264

   The media subtype "H264" MUST be used for RTP streams using RFC
   3984, i.e. not using any of the new features introduced by this
   specification compared to RFC 3984.  [Ed. The new features are to be
   listed herein.]  For RTP streams using any of the new features
   introduced by this specification compared to RFC 3984, the media
   subtype "H264-SVC" SHOULD be used, and the media subtype 'H264' MAY
   be used.  Use of the media subtype "H264" for RTP streams using the
   new features allows for RFC 3984 receivers to negotiate and receive
   H.264/AVC or SVC streams packetized according to this specification,


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 36]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   but to ignore media parameters and NAL unit types it does not
   recognize.

   Required parameters: none

   OPTIONAL parameters:

          profile-level-id:
                           A base16 [RFC3548] (hexadecimal)
   representation of
                           the following three bytes in the sequence
                           parameter set NAL unit specified in [SVC]:
   1)
                           profile_idc, 2) a byte herein referred to as
                           profile-iop, composed of the values of
                           constraint_set0_flag, constraint_set1_flag,
                           constraint_set2_flag, constraint_set3_flag,
   and
                           reserved_zero_4bits
                           in bit-significance order, starting from the
                           most significant bit, and 3) level_idc.
   Note
                           that reserved_zero_4bits is required to be
                           equal to 0 in [SVC], but other values for it
   may
                           be specified in the future by ITU-T or
   ISO/IEC.

                           If the profile-level-id parameter is used to
                           indicate properties of a NAL unit stream, it
                           indicates the profile and level that a
   decoder
                           has to support in order to comply with [SVC]
   when
                           it decodes the NAL unit stream.  The
   profile-iop
                           byte indicates whether the NAL unit stream
   also
                           obeys all the constraints as specified in
                           subsection 7.4.2.1.1 of [SVC].  Herein the

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 37]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   NAL
                           unit stream refers to the one consisting of
   all
                           NAL units conveyed in the current RTP
   session,
                           and all NAL units conveyed in other RTP
   sessions,
                           if present, the current RTP session depends
   on.
                           The current RTP session MAY depend on other
   RTP
                           sessions when a scalable bitstream is
   transported
                           with more than one RTP session and the
   current
                           session is not an independent RTP session.

                           If the profile-level-id parameter is used
   for
                           capability exchange or session setup
   procedure,
                           it indicates the profile that the codec
                           supports and the highest level
                           supported for the signaled profile.  The
                           profile-iop byte indicates whether the codec
                           has additional limitations whereby only the
                           common subset of the algorithmic features
   and
                           limitations signaled with the
                           profile-iop byte is supported by the codec.
   For
                           example, if a codec supports only the common
                           subset of the coding tools of the Baseline
                           profile and the Main profile at level 2.1
   and
                           below, the profile-level-id becomes 42E015,
   in
                           which 42 stands for the Baseline profile, E0
                           indicates that only the common subset for
   all

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 38]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           profiles is supported, and 15 indicates
   level
                           2.1.

                               Informative note: Capability exchange
   and
                               session setup procedures should provide
                               means to list the capabilities for each
                               supported codec profile separately.  For
                               example, the one-of-N codec selection
                               procedure of the SDP Offer/Answer model
   can
                               be used (section 10.2 of [RFC4566]).

                           If no profile-level-id is present, the
   Baseline
                           Profile without additional constraints at
   Level
                           1 MUST be implied.

          max-mbps, max-fs, max-cpb, max-dpb, and max-br:
   [Ed. If these parameters may also be used to signal properties of a
   NAL unit stream, as in ILLEGAL 0xa7 ILLEGAL8.2.2 of RFC 3984, which
   is contradictory
   with the semantics, then we need to say that the NAL unit stream is
   the one containing also those from the RTP sessions (if present) the
   current depends on. Furthermore, then for max-br, it might be useful
   to have two versions, one for the current session only, and one for
   the current session and the sessions it depends on.]
                           These parameters MAY be used to signal the
                           capabilities of a receiver or a sender
                           implementation.
                           These parameters MUST NOT be used for any
   other
                           purpose.  The profile-level-id parameter
   MUST
                           be present in the same receiver capability
                           description that contains any of these
                           parameters.  The level conveyed in the value
   of
                           the profile-level-id parameter MUST be such

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 39]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           that the receiver is fully capable of
                           supporting.  max-mbps, max-fs, max-cpb, max-
                           dpb, and max-br MAY be used to indicate
                           capabilities of the receiver that extend the
                           required capabilities of the signaled level,
   as
                           specified below.

                           When more than one parameter from the set
   (max-
                           mbps, max-fs, max-cpb, max-dpb, max-br) is
                           present, the receiver MUST support all
   signaled
                           capabilities simultaneously.  For example,
   if
                           both max-mbps and max-br are present, the
                           signaled level with the extension of both
   the
                           frame rate and bit rate is supported.  That
   is,
                           the receiver is able to decode NAL unit
                           streams in which the macroblock processing
   rate
                           is up to max-mbps (inclusive), the bit rate
   is
                           up to max-br (inclusive), the coded picture
                           buffer size is derived as specified in the
                           semantics of the max-br parameter below, and
                           other properties comply with the level
                           specified in the value of the profile-level-
   id
                           parameter.

                           A receiver MUST NOT signal values of max-
                           mbps, max-fs, max-cpb, max-dpb, and max-br
   that
                           meet the requirements of a higher level,
                           referred to as level A herein, compared to
   the
                           level specified in the value of the profile-

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 40]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           level-id parameter, if the receiver can
   support
                           all the properties of level A.

                               Informative note: When the OPTIONAL
   media
                               type parameters are used to signal the
                               properties of a NAL unit stream, max-
   mbps,
                               max-fs, max-cpb, max-dpb, and max-br are
                               not present, and the value of profile-
                               level-id must always be such that the
   NAL
                               unit stream complies fully with the
                               specified profile and level.

          max-mbps:        The value of max-mbps is an integer
   indicating
                           the maximum macroblock processing rate in
   units
                           of macroblocks per second.  The max-mbps
                           parameter signals that the receiver is
   capable
                           of decoding video at a higher rate than is
                           required by the signaled level conveyed in
   the
                           value of the profile-level-id parameter.
   When
                           max-mbps is signaled, the receiver MUST be
   able
                           to decode NAL unit streams that conform to
   the
                           signaled level, with the exception that the
                           MaxMBPS value in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC]
                           for the
                           signaled level is replaced with the value of
                           max-mbps.  The value of max-mbps MUST be
                           greater than or equal to the value of
   MaxMBPS

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 41]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           for the level given in Table A-1 or Table G-
   n of
                           [SVC].
                           Senders MAY use this knowledge to send
   pictures
                           of a given size at a higher picture rate
   than
                           is indicated in the signaled level.

          max-fs:          The value of max-fs is an integer indicating
                           the maximum frame size in units of
   macroblocks.
                           The max-fs parameter signals that the
   receiver
                           is capable of decoding larger picture sizes
                           than are required by the signaled level
   conveyed
                           in the value of the profile-level-id
   parameter.
                           When max-fs is signaled, the receiver MUST
   be
                           able to decode NAL unit streams that conform
   to
                           the signaled level, with the exception that
   the
                           MaxFS value in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC]
                           for the
                           signaled level is replaced with the value of
                           max-fs.  The value of max-fs MUST be greater
                           than or equal to the value of MaxFS for the
                           level given in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC].
                           Senders MAY
                           use this knowledge to send larger pictures
   at a
                           proportionally lower frame rate than is
                           indicated in the signaled level.



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 42]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

          max-cpb          The value of max-cpb is an integer
   indicating
                           the maximum coded picture buffer size in
   units
                           of 1000 bits for the VCL HRD parameters (see
                           A.3.1 item i or G.n item m of [SVC]) and in
   units
                           of 1200 bits
                           for the NAL HRD parameters (see A.3.1 item j
   or
                           G.n item m of
                           [SVC]).  The max-cpb parameter signals that
   the
                           receiver has more memory than the minimum
                           amount of coded picture buffer memory
   required
                           by the signaled level conveyed in the value
   of
                           the profile-level-id parameter.  When max-
   cpb
                           is signaled, the receiver MUST be able to
                           decode NAL unit streams that conform to the
                           signaled level, with the exception that the
                           MaxCPB value in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC]
                           for the
                           signaled level is replaced with the value of
                           max-cpb.  The value of max-cpb MUST be
   greater
                           than or equal to the value of MaxCPB for the
                           level given in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC].
                           Senders MAY
                           use this knowledge to construct coded video
                           streams with greater variation of bit rate
                           than can be achieved with the
                           MaxCPB value in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC].



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 43]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                               Informative note: The coded picture
   buffer
                               is used in the hypothetical reference
                               decoder (Annex C) of SVC.  The use of
   the
                               hypothetical reference decoder is
                               recommended in SVC encoders to verify
                               that the produced bitstream conforms to
   the
                               standard and to control the output
   bitrate.
                               Thus, the coded picture buffer is
                               conceptually independent of any other
                               potential buffers in the receiver,
                               including de-interleaving and de-jitter
                               buffers.  The coded picture buffer need
   not
                               be implemented in decoders as specified
   in
                               Annex C of SVC, but rather standard-
                               compliant decoders can have any
   buffering
                               arrangements provided that they can
   decode
                               standard-compliant bitstreams.  Thus, in
                               practice, the input buffer for video
                               decoder can be integrated with de-
                               interleaving and de-jitter buffers of
   the
                               receiver.

          max-dpb:         The value of max-dpb is an integer
   indicating
                           the maximum decoded picture buffer size in
                           units of 1024 bytes.  The max-dpb parameter
                           signals that the receiver has more memory
   than
                           the minimum amount of decoded picture buffer
                           memory required by the signaled level
   conveyed

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 44]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           in the value of the profile-level-id
   parameter.
                           When max-dpb is signaled, the receiver MUST
   be
                           able to decode NAL unit streams that conform
   to
                           the signaled level, with the exception that
   the
                           MaxDPB value in Table A-1 or Table G-n of
   [SVC]
                           for the
                           signaled level is replaced with the value of
                           max-dpb.  Consequently, a receiver that
   signals
                           max-dpb MUST be capable of storing the
                           following number of decoded frames,
                           complementary field pairs, and non-paired
                           fields in its decoded picture buffer:

                           Min(1024 * max-dpb / ( PicWidthInMbs *
                           FrameHeightInMbs * 256 * ChromaFormatFactor
   ),
                           16)

                           PicWidthInMbs, FrameHeightInMbs, and
                           ChromaFormatFactor are defined in [SVC].

                           The value of max-dpb MUST be greater than or
                           equal to the value of MaxDPB for the level
                           given in Table A-1 or Table G-n of [SVC].
                           Senders MAY use
                           this knowledge to construct coded video
   streams
                           with improved compression.

                               Informative note: This parameter was
   added
                               primarily to complement a similar
   codepoint


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 45]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                               in the ITU-T Recommendation H.245, so as
   to
                               facilitate signaling gateway designs.
   The
                               decoded picture buffer stores
   reconstructed
                               samples.  There is no relationship
                               between the size of the decoded picture
                               buffer and the buffers used in RTP,
                               especially de-interleaving and de-jitter
                               buffers.

          max-br:          The value of max-br is an integer indicating
                           the maximum video bit rate in units of 1000
                           bits per second for the VCL HRD parameters
   (see
                           A.3.1 item i or G.n item m of [SVC]) and in
   units
                           of 1200 bits
                           per second for the NAL HRD parameters (see
                           A.3.1 item j or G.n item m of [SVC]).

                           The max-br parameter signals that the video
                           decoder of the receiver is capable of
   decoding
                           video at a higher bit rate than is required
   by
                           the signaled level conveyed in the value of
   the
                           profile-level-id parameter.

                           When max-br is signaled, the video codec of
   the
                           receiver MUST be able to decode NAL unit
                           streams that conform to the signaled level,
                           conveyed in the profile-level-id parameter,
                           with the following exceptions in the limits
                           specified by the level:
                           o The value of max-br replaces the MaxBR
   value

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 46]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                             of the signaled level (in Table A-1 of or
   Table
                             G-n of [SVC]).
                           o When the max-cpb parameter is not present,
                             the result of the following formula
   replaces
                             the value of MaxCPB in Table A-1 or Table
   G-n
                             of [SVC]:
                             (MaxCPB of the signaled level) * max-br /
                             (MaxBR of the signaled level).

                           For example, if a receiver signals
   capability
                           for Level 1.2 with max-br equal to 1550,
   this
                           indicates a maximum video bitrate of 1550
                           kbits/sec for VCL HRD parameters, a maximum
                           video bitrate of 1860 kbits/sec for NAL HRD
                           parameters, and a CPB size of 4036458 bits
                           (1550000 / 384000 * 1000 * 1000).

                           The value of max-br MUST be greater than or
                           equal to the value MaxBR for the signaled
   level
                           given in Table A-1 or Table G-n of [SVC].

                           Senders MAY use this knowledge to send
   higher
                           bitrate video as allowed in the level
                           definition of SVC, to achieve
                           improved video quality.

                               Informative note: This parameter was
   added
                               primarily to complement a similar
   codepoint
                               in the ITU-T Recommendation H.245, so as
   to


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 47]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                               facilitate signaling gateway designs.
   No
                               assumption can be made from the value of
                               this parameter that the network is
   capable
                               of handling such bit rates at any given
                               time.  In particular, no conclusion can
   be
                               drawn that the signaled bit rate is
                               possible under congestion control
                               constraints.

         redundant-pic-cap:
                           This parameter signals the capabilities of a
                           receiver implementation.  When equal to 0,
   the
                           parameter indicates that the receiver makes
   no
                           attempt to use redundant coded pictures to
                           correct incorrectly decoded primary coded
                           pictures.  When equal to 0, the receiver is
   not
                           capable of using redundant slices;
   therefore, a
                           sender SHOULD avoid sending redundant slices
   to
                           save bandwidth.  When equal to 1, the
   receiver
                           is capable of decoding any such redundant
   slice
                           that covers a corrupted area in a primary
                           decoded picture (at least partly), and
   therefore
                           a sender MAY send redundant slices.  When
   the
                           parameter is not present, then a value of 0
                           MUST be used for redundant-pic-cap.  When
                           present, the value of redundant-pic-cap MUST
   be
                           either 0 or 1.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 48]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


                           When the profile-level-id parameter is
   present
                           in the same capability signaling as the
                           redundant-pic-cap parameter, and the profile
                           indicated in profile-level-id is such that
   it
                           disallows the use of redundant coded
   pictures
                           (e.g., Main Profile), the value of
   redundant-
                           pic-cap MUST be equal to 0.  When a receiver
                           indicates redundant-pic-cap equal to 0, the
                           received stream SHOULD NOT contain redundant
                           coded pictures.

                               Informative note: Even if redundant-pic-
   cap
                               is equal to 0, the decoder is able to
                               ignore redundant codec pictures provided
                               that the decoder supports such a profile
                               (Baseline, Extended) in which redundant
                               coded pictures are allowed.

                               Informative note: Even if redundant-pic-
   cap
                               is equal to 1, the receiver may also
   choose
                               other error concealment strategies to
                               replace or complement decoding of
   redundant
                               slices.

          sprop-parameter-sets:
                           This parameter MAY be used to convey
                           any sequence and picture parameter set NAL
                           units (herein referred to as the initial
                           parameter set NAL units) that MUST be placed
   in
                           the NAL unit stream to precede any

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 49]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           other NAL units in decoding order by the
   receiver.
                           The parameter MUST NOT be used to indicate
   codec
                           capability in any capability exchange
                           procedure.  The value of the parameter is
   the
                           base64 [RFC3548] representation of the
   initial
                           parameter set NAL units as specified in
                           sections 7.3.2.1, 7.3.2.2 and G.7.3.2.1.3 of
                           [SVC].  The
                           parameter sets are conveyed in decoding
   order,
                           and no framing of the parameter set NAL
   units
                           takes place.  A comma is used to separate
   any
                           pair of parameter sets in the list.  Note
   that
                           the number of bytes in a parameter set NAL
   unit
                           is typically less than 10, but a picture
                           parameter set NAL unit can contain several
                           hundreds of bytes.

                              Informative note: When several payload
                              types are offered in the SDP Offer/Answer
                              model, each with its own sprop-parameter-
                              sets parameter, then the receiver cannot
                              assume that those parameter sets do not
   use
                              conflicting storage locations (i.e.,
                              identical values of parameter set
                              identifiers).  Therefore, a receiver
   should
                              double-buffer all sprop-parameter-sets
   and
                              make them available to the decoder
   instance

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 50]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                              that decodes a certain payload type.

          parameter-add:   This parameter MAY be used to signal whether
                           the receiver of this parameter is allowed to
                           add parameter sets in its signaling response
                           using the sprop-parameter-sets media
   parameter.
                           The value of this parameter is either 0 or
   1.
                           0 is equal to false; i.e., it is not allowed
   to
                           add parameter sets.  1 is equal to true;
   i.e.,
                           it is allowed to add parameter sets.  If the
                           parameter is not present, its value MUST be
   1.

          packetization-mode:
                           This parameter signals the properties of an
                           RTP payload type or the capabilities of a
                           receiver implementation.  Only a single
                           configuration point can be indicated; thus,
                           when capabilities to support more than one
                           packetization-mode are declared, multiple
                           configuration points (RTP payload types)
   must
                           be used.

                           When the value of packetization-mode is
   equal
                           to 0 or packetization-mode is not present,
   the
                           single NAL mode, as defined in section 6.2
   of
                           RFC 3984, MUST be used.  This mode is in use
   in
                           standards using ITU-T Recommendation H.241
                           [H.241] (see section 12.1 of RFC 3984).
   When the
                           value of

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 51]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           packetization-mode is equal to 1, the non-
                           interleaved mode, as defined in section 6.3
   of
                           RFC 3984, MUST be used.  When the value of
                           packetization-mode is equal to 2, the
                           interleaved mode, as defined in section 6.4
   of
                           RFC 3984, MUST be used.  The value of
                           packetization mode MUST be an integer in the
                           range of 0 to 2, inclusive.

          sprop-interleaving-depth:
                           This parameter MUST NOT be present when the
                           current RTP session does not depend on any
   other
                           RTP session, and packetization-mode is not
   present
                           or the value of packetization-mode is equal
   to 0
                           or 1.  This parameter MUST be present when
   the
                           the current RTP session depends on any other
   RTP
                           session or the value of packetization-mode
   is equal
                           to 2.

                           This parameter signals the properties of a
   NAL
                           unit stream.  It specifies the maximum
   number
                           of VCL NAL units that precede any VCL NAL
   unit
                           in the NAL unit stream in transmission order
                           and follow the VCL NAL unit in decoding
   order.
                           Consequently, it is guaranteed that
   receivers
                           can reconstruct NAL unit decoding order when
                           the buffer size for NAL unit decoding order

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 52]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           recovery is at least the value of sprop-
                           interleaving-depth + 1 in terms of VCL NAL
                           units.  Herein the NAL
                           unit stream refers to the one consisting of
   all
                           NAL units conveyed in the current RTP
   session,
                           and all NAL units conveyed in other RTP
   sessions,
                           if present, the current RTP session depends
   on.

                           The value of sprop-interleaving-depth MUST
   be
                           an integer in the range of 0 to 32767,
                           inclusive.

          sprop-deint-buf-req:
                           This parameter MUST NOT be present when the
                           current RTP session does not depend on any
   other
                           RTP session, and packetization-mode is not
   present
                           or the value of packetization-mode is equal
   to 0
                           or 1.  This parameter MUST be present when
   the
                           the current RTP session depends on any other
   RTP
                           session or the value of packetization-mode
   is equal
                           to 2.

                           sprop-deint-buf-req signals the required
   size
                           of the deinterleaving buffer for the NAL
   unit
                           stream.  The value of the parameter MUST be
                           greater than or equal to the maximum buffer


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 53]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           occupancy (in units of bytes) required in
   such
                           a deinterleaving buffer that is specified in
                           section 8 of this specification.  It is
                           guaranteed that receivers can perform the
                           deinterleaving of
                           interleaved NAL units into NAL unit decoding
                           order, when the deinterleaving buffer size
   is
                           at least the value of sprop-deint-buf-req in
                           terms of bytes.  Herein the NAL
                           unit stream refers to the one consisting of
   all
                           NAL units conveyed in the current RTP
   session,
                           and all NAL units conveyed in other RTP
   sessions,
                           if present, the current RTP session depends
   on.

                           The value of sprop-deint-buf-req MUST be an
                           integer in the range of 0 to 4294967295,
                           inclusive.

                               Informative note: sprop-deint-buf-req
                               indicates the required size of the
                               deinterleaving buffer only.  When
   network
                               jitter can occur, an appropriately sized
                               jitter buffer has to be provisioned for
                               as well.  When a scalable bitstream is
                               conveyed in more than one RTP session,
   and
                               the sessions initiates at different
   time, the
                               session initiation variation has also to
   be
                               compensated by an appropriately sized
   buffer.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 54]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

          deint-buf-cap:   This parameter signals the capabilities of a
                           receiver implementation and indicates the
                           amount of deinterleaving buffer space in
   units
                           of bytes that the receiver has available for
                           reconstructing the NAL unit decoding order,
   and
                           that the receiver is able to handle any
   stream
                           for which
                           the value of the sprop-deint-buf-req
   parameter
                           is smaller than or equal to this parameter.

                           If the parameter is not present, then a
   value
                           of 0 MUST be used for deint-buf-cap.  The
   value
                           of deint-buf-cap MUST be an integer in the
                           range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.

                               Informative note: deint-buf-cap
   indicates
                               the maximum possible size of the
                               deinterleaving buffer of the receiver
   only.
                               When network jitter can occur, an
                               appropriately sized jitter buffer has to
                               be provisioned for as well.

          sprop-init-buf-time:
                           This parameter MAY be used to signal the
                           properties of a NAL unit stream.  Herein
                           the NAL unit stream refers to the one
   consisting
                           of all NAL units conveyed in the current RTP
                           session, and all NAL units conveyed in other
   RTP
                           sessions, if present, the current RTP
   session

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 55]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           depends on.

                           The parameter signals the initial buffering
                           time for a receiver before
                           starting to recover the NAL unit
                           decoding order from the transmission order.
                           The parameter is the maximum value of
                           (transmission time of a NAL unit - decoding
                           time of the NAL unit), assuming reliable and
                           instantaneous transmission, the same
                           timeline for transmission and decoding, and
                           that decoding starts when the first packet
                           arrives.

                           An example of specifying the value of sprop-
                           init-buf-time follows.  A NAL unit stream is
                           sent in the following interleaved order, in
                           which the value corresponds to the decoding
                           time and the transmission order is from left
   to
                           right:

                           0  2  1  3  5  4  6  8  7 ...

                           Assuming a steady transmission rate of NAL
                           units, the transmission times are:

                           0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ...

                           Subtracting the decoding time from the
                           transmission time column-wise results in the
                           following series:

                           0 -1  1  0 -1  1  0 -1  1 ...

                           Thus, in terms of intervals of NAL unit
                           transmission times, the value of
                           sprop-init-buf-time in this
                           example is 1.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 56]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           The parameter is coded as a non-negative
   base10
                           integer representation in clock ticks of a
   90-
                           kHz clock.  If the parameter is not present,
                           then no initial buffering time value is
                           defined.  Otherwise the value of sprop-init-
                           buf-time MUST be an integer in the range of
   0
                           to 4294967295, inclusive.

                           In addition to the signaled sprop-init-buf-
                           time, receivers SHOULD take into account the
                           transmission delay jitter buffering,
   including
                           buffering for the delay jitter caused by
                           mixers, translators, gateways, proxies,
                           traffic-shapers, and other network elements.
   Yet
                           another aspect receivers SHOULD take into
   account
                           is the session initiation variation when a
                           scalable bitstream is conveyed in more than
   one
                           session, including buffering the variation.

          sprop-max-don-diff:
                           This parameter MAY be used to signal the
                           properties of a NAL unit stream.  It MUST
   NOT
                           be used to signal transmitter or receiver or
                           codec capabilities.  sprop-max-don-diff is
   an
                           integer in the range of 0 to 32767,
   inclusive.
                           If sprop-max-don-diff is not present, the
   value
                           of the parameter is unspecified.  Herein the
   NAL


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 57]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           unit stream refers to the one consisting of
   all
                           NAL units conveyed in the current RTP
   session,
                           and all NAL units conveyed in other RTP
   sessions,
                           if present, the current RTP session depends
   on.

                           sprop-max-don-diff is calculated as follows:

                           sprop-max-don-diff = max{AbsDON(i) -
                           AbsDON(j)},
                           for any i and any j>i,

                           where i and j indicate the index of the NAL
                           unit in the transmission order and AbsDON
                           denotes a decoding order number of the NAL
                           unit that does not wrap around to 0 after
                           65535.  In other words, AbsDON is calculated
   as
                           follows: Let m and n be consecutive NAL
   units
                           in transmission order.  For the very first
   NAL
                           unit in transmission order (whose index is
   0),
                           AbsDON(0) = DON(0).  For other NAL units,
                           AbsDON is calculated as follows:

                           If DON(m) == DON(n), AbsDON(n) = AbsDON(m)

                           If (DON(m) < DON(n) and DON(n) - DON(m) <
                           32768),
                           AbsDON(n) = AbsDON(m) + DON(n) - DON(m)

                           If (DON(m) > DON(n) and DON(m) - DON(n) >=
                           32768),
                           AbsDON(n) = AbsDON(m) + 65536 - DON(m) +
   DON(n)

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 58]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


                           If (DON(m) < DON(n) and DON(n) - DON(m) >=
                           32768),

                           AbsDON(n) = AbsDON(m) - (DON(m) + 65536 -
                           DON(n))

                           If (DON(m) > DON(n) and DON(m) - DON(n) <
                           32768),
                           AbsDON(n) = AbsDON(m) - (DON(m) - DON(n))

                           where DON(i) is the decoding order number of
                           the NAL unit having index i in the
   transmission
                           order.  The decoding order number is
   specified
                           in section 6.6 of this specification.

                               Informative note: Receivers may use
   sprop-
                               max-don-diff to trigger which NAL units
   in
                               the receiver buffer can be passed to the
                               decoder.

        max-rcmd-nalu-size:
                           This parameter MAY be used to signal the
                           capabilities of a receiver.  The parameter
   MUST
                           NOT be used for any other purposes.  The
   value
                           of the parameter indicates the largest NALU
                           size in bytes that the receiver can handle
                           efficiently.  The parameter value is a
                           recommendation, not a strict upper boundary.
                           The sender MAY create larger NALUs but must
   be
                           aware that the handling of these may come at
   a
                           higher cost than NALUs conforming to the

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 59]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

                           limitation.

                           The value of max-rcmd-nalu-size MUST be an
                           integer in the range of 0 to 4294967295,
                           inclusive.  If this parameter is not
   specified,
                           no known limitation to the NALU size exists.
                           Senders still have to consider the MTU size
                           available between the sender and the
   receiver
                           and SHOULD run MTU discovery for this
   purpose.

                           This parameter is motivated by, for example,
   an
                           IP to H.223 video telephony gateway, where
                           NALUs smaller than the H.223 transport data
                           unit will be more efficient.  A gateway may
                           terminate IP; thus, MTU discovery will
   normally
                           not work beyond the gateway.

                               Informative note: Setting this parameter
   to
                               a lower than necessary value may have a
                               negative impact.

   sprop-prebuf-size:
   With this parameter, CL-DON MUST NOT be present in the current RTP
   session.
   This parameter MUST be present when the the current RTP session
   depends on any other RTP session.

   sprop-prebuf-size signals the required size of the receiver buffer
   for the NAL unit stream.  It is guaranteed that receivers can
   perform the inter-session packet reordering as described in section
   8.1.1 into NAL unit decoding order, when the receiver buffer size is
   at least the value of sprop-prebuf-size in terms of bytes.  Herein
   the NAL unit stream refers to the one consisting of all NAL units
   conveyed in the current RTP session,

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 60]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   The value of sprop-prebuf-size MUST be an integer in the range of 0
   to 4294967295, inclusive.

          Informative note: sprop-prebuf-size indicates the required
          size of the prebuffering receiver buffer only.  When network
          jitter can occur, an appropriately sized jitter buffer has to
          be provisioned for as well.  When a scalable bitstream is
          conveyed in more than one RTP session, and the sessions
          initiates at different time, the session initiation variation
          has also to be compensated by an appropriately sized buffer.

   sprop-prebuf-time:
   With this parameter, CL-DON MUST NOT be present in the current RTP
   session. This parameter MAY be used to signal the properties of a
   NAL unit stream within a session multiplexing.  Herein the NAL unit
   stream refers to the one consisting of all NAL units conveyed in the
   current RTP session.

   The parameter signals the initial buffering time is used for a
   receiver before starting to recover the NAL unit decoding order from
   the transmission order. The parameter is the maximum value of
   (transmission time of a NAL unit - decoding time of the NAL unit),
   assuming reliable and instantaneous transmission, the same timeline
   for transmission and decoding, and that decoding starts when the
   first packet arrives.

   The parameter is coded as a non-negative base10 integer
   representation in clock ticks of a 90-kHz clock.  If the parameter
   is not present, then no initial buffering time value is defined.
   Otherwise the value of sprop-prebuf-time MUST be an integer in the
   range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.

   In addition to the signaled sprop-prebuf-time, receivers SHOULD take
   into account the transmission delay jitter buffering, including
   buffering for the delay jitter caused by mixers, translators,
   gateways, proxies, traffic-shapers, and other network elements.  Yet
   another aspect receivers SHOULD take into account is the session
   initiation variation when a scalable bitstream is conveyed in more
   than one session, including buffering the variation.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 61]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   sprop-scalability-info:
   This parameter MAY be used to convey the NAL unit containing the
   scalability information SEI message as specified in Annex G of
   [SVC].  This parameter MAY be used to signal the contained Layers of
   an SVC bitstream.  The parameter MUST NOT be used to indicate codec
   capability in any capability exchange procedure.  The value of the
   parameter is the base64 representation of the NAL unit containing
   the scalability information SEI message.  If present, the NAL unit
   MUST contain only a scalability information SEI message.

   This parameter MAY be used in an offering or declarative SDP message
   to indicate what Layers can be provided.  A receiver MAY indicate
   its choice of one Layer using the optional media type parameter
   scalable-layer-id.

   sprop-layer-range:
   This parameter MAY be used to signal the minimum and maximum value
   of layer identification value(s).  It is concatenated as the minimal
   and maximal values of DID, QID, and TID of the SVC NAL unit header
   as defined in [SVC], conveyed in the RTP session.  An layer
   identification is a base16 representation of a four-character value.
   The minimum and maximum values are comma separated.

   scalable-layer-id:
   This parameter MAY be used to signal a receiver's choice of the
   offers or declared Operation Points or Layers using sprop-
   scalability-info.  The value of scalable-layer-id is a base16
   representation of the layer_id[ i ] syntax element in the
   scalability information SEI message as specified in [SVC].

   sprop-spatial-resolution: [Ed. I know that framerate and bitrate SDP
   parameters are already available, but failed to find a spatial
   resolution SDP parameter. It would be good if this is already
   defined. Otherwise, it would be better to be defined somewhere else
   because it is a generic parameter.]

   This parameter MAY be used to indicate the property of a stream or
   the capability of a receiver or sender implementation.  The value is


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 62]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   a base16 of the width and height of the spatial resolution, in
   pixels, separated by a comma.


      Encoding considerations:
                           This type is only defined for transfer
                           via RTP (RFC 3550).

      Security considerations:
                           See section 10 of RFC XXXX.

      Public specification:
                           Please refer to RFC XXXX and its section 14.

      Additional information:
                           None

      File extensions:     none
      Macintosh file type code: none
      Object identifier or OID: none
      Person & email address to contact for further information:
      Intended usage:      COMMON
      Author:
      Change controller:
                           IETF Audio/Video Transport working group
                           delegated from the IESG.

9.2. SDP Parameters

   [Ed. For agreeing on a Layer or OP in unicast, an SDP can contain
   multiple m lines with bitrate, framerate and spatial resolution
   parameters available, in addition to sprop-scalability-info. The
   receive can select one of the m lines, or, for operation points that
   are not included in the m lines, one of the "scalable layers"
   specified by sprop-scalabiltiy-info using scalable-layer-id.

   For layered multicast, then the grouping signaling in I-D.schierl-
   mmusic-layered-codec is needed.



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 63]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   The above would conveniently support also the normal ROI use cases
   (with a few ROIs each indicated as a "scalable layer") but not the
   interactive ROI use cases.  The quality layer using priority_id use
   cases are not supported either. That would need one more optional
   media type parameter, to identify a quality layer.  The lightweight
   transcoding use cases should be supported well by using (multiple)
   normal AVC SDP offering messages.

   ]


9.2.1.    Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP

   The media type video/H264-SVC string is mapped to fields in the
   Session Description Protocol (SDP) as follows:

   *  The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.

   *  The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be
      H264-SVC (the media subtype).

   *  The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.

   *  The OPTIONAL parameters "profile-level-id", "max-mbps", "max-fs",
      "max-cpb", "max-dpb", "max-br", "redundant-pic-cap", "sprop-
      parameter-sets", "parameter-add", "packetization-mode", "sprop-
interleaving-depth", "deint-buf-cap", "sprop-deint-buf-req",
"sprop-init-buf-time", "sprop-max-don-diff",
"max-rcmd-nalu-size", "sprop-prebuf-size", "sprop-prebuf-time",
"sprop-layer-range", "sprop-scalability-info",
"scalable-layer-id", and
      "sprop-spatial-resolution", when present, MUST be included in the
      "a=fmtp" line of SDP.  These parameters are expressed as a media
      type string, in the form of a semicolon separated list of
      parameter=value pairs.

9.2.2.    Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model

   When H.264 or SVC is offered over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer
   model [RFC3264] for negotiation for unicast usage, the following
   limitations and rules apply:

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 64]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   o  The parameters identifying a media format configuration for H.264
   or SVC are "profile-level-id", "packetization-mode", and, if
   required by "packetization-mode", "sprop-deint-buf-req".  These
   three parameters MUST be used symmetrically; i.e., the answerer MUST
   either maintain all configuration parameters or remove the media
   format (payload type) completely, if one or more of the parameter
   values are not supported.

      Informative note: The requirement for symmetric use applies only
      for the above three parameters and not for the other stream
      properties and capability parameters.


   To simplify handling and matching of these configurations, the same
   RTP payload type number used in the offer SHOULD also be used in the
   answer, as specified in [RFC3264].  An answer MUST NOT contain a
   payload type number used in the offer unless the configuration
   ("profile-level-id", "packetization-mode", and, if present, "sprop-
   deint-buf-req") is the same as in the offer.

       Informative note: An offerer, when receiving the answer, has to
       compare payload types not declared in the offer based on media
       type (i.e., video/H264-SVC) and the above three parameters with
       any payload types it has already declared, in order to determine
       whether the configuration in question is new or equivalent to a
       configuration already offered.

   An answerer MAY select from the layers offered in the "sprop-
   scalability-information" parameter by including "scalable-layer-id"
   or "scalable-layer-id" in the answer.[Ed. do we need to additionally
   define behavior with snd/rcvonly parameter?]

   o  The parameters "sprop-parameter-sets", "sprop-deint-buf-req",
   "sprop-interleaving-depth", "sprop-max-don-diff", "sprop-init-buf-
   time", "sprop-prebuf-size", "sprop-prebuf-time", "sprop-scalability-
   information", "sprop-layer-range" describe the properties of the NAL
   unit stream that the offerer or answerer is sending for this media
   format configuration.  This differs from the normal usage of the
   Offer/Answer parameters: normally such parameters declare the

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 65]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   properties of the stream that the offerer or the answerer is able to
   receive.  When dealing with H.264 or SVC, the offerer assumes that
   the answerer will be able to receive media encoded using the
   configuration being offered.

       Informative note: The above parameters apply for any stream sent
       by the declaring entity with the same configuration; i.e., they
       are dependent on their source.  Rather then being bound to the
       payload type, the values may have to be applied to another
       payload type when being sent, as they apply for the
       configuration.

   o  The capability parameters ("max-mbps", "max-fs", "max-cpb", "max-
   dpb", "max-br", ,"redundant-pic-cap", "max-rcmd-nalu-size") MAY be
   used to declare further capabilities.  Their interpretation depends
   on the direction attribute.  When the direction attribute is
   sendonly, then the parameters describe the limits of the RTP packets
   and the NAL unit stream that the sender is capable of producing.
   When the direction attribute is sendrecv or recvonly, then the
   parameters describe the limitations of what the receiver accepts.

   o  As specified above, an offerer has to include the size of the
   deinterleaving buffer in the offer for an interleaved H.264 or SVC
   stream.  To enable the offerer and answerer to inform each other
   about their capabilities for deinterleaving buffering, both parties
   are RECOMMENDED to include "deint-buf-cap".  This information MAY be
   used when the value for "sprop-deint-buf-req" is selected in a
   second round of offer and answer.  For interleaved streams, it is
   also RECOMMENDED to consider offering multiple payload types with
   different buffering requirements when the capabilities of the
   receiver are unknown.

   o  The "sprop-parameter-sets" parameter is used as described above.
   In addition, an answerer MUST maintain all parameter sets received
   in the offer in its answer.  Depending on the value of the
   "parameter-add" parameter, different rules apply: If "parameter-add"
   is false (0), the answer MUST NOT add any additional parameter sets.
   If "parameter-add" is true (1), the answerer, in its answer, MAY add
   additional parameter sets to the "sprop-parameter-sets" parameter.
   The answerer MUST also, independent of the value of "parameter-add",

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 66]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   accept to receive a video stream using the sprop-parameter-sets it
   declared in the answer.

       Informative note: care must be taken when parameter sets are
       added not to cause overwriting of already transmitted parameter
       sets by using conflicting parameter set identifiers.

   For streams being delivered over multicast, the following rules
   apply in addition:

   o  The stream properties parameters ("sprop-parameter-sets", "sprop-
   deint-buf-req", "sprop-interleaving-depth", "sprop-max-don-diff",
   "sprop-init-buf-time", "sprop-prebuf-size", "sprop-prebuf-time",
   "sprop-scalability-information", and "sprop-layer-range") MUST NOT
   be changed by the answerer.  Thus, a payload type can either be
   accepted unaltered or removed.

   o  The receiver capability parameters "max-mbps", "max-fs", "max-
   cpb", "max-dpb", "max-br", and "max-rcmd-nalu-size" MUST be
   supported by the answerer for all streams declared as sendrecv or
   recvonly; otherwise, one of the following actions MUST be performed:
   the media format is removed, or the session rejected.

   o  The receiver capability parameter redundant-pic-cap SHOULD be
   supported by the answerer for all streams declared as sendrecv or
   recvonly as follows:  The answerer SHOULD NOT include redundant
   coded pictures in the transmitted stream if the offerer indicated
   redundant-pic-cap equal to 0.  Otherwise (when redundant_pic_cap is
   equal to 1), it is beyond the scope of this memo to recommend how
   the answerer should use redundant coded pictures.

   Below are the complete lists of how the different parameters shall
   be interpreted in the different combinations of offer or answer and
   direction attribute.

   o  In offers and answers for which "a=sendrecv" or no direction
   attribute is used, or in offers and answers for which "a=recvonly"
   is used, the following interpretation of the parameters MUST be
   used.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 67]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   Declaring actual configuration or properties for receiving:

     - profile-level-id
     - packetization-mode

   Declaring actual properties of the stream to be sent (applicable
   only when "a=sendrecv" or no direction attribute is used):

     - sprop-deint-buf-req
     - sprop-interleaving-depth
     - sprop-parameter-sets
     - sprop-max-don-diff
     - sprop-init-buf-time
     - sprop-prebuf-size
     - sprop-prebuf-time
     - sprop-scalability-information
     - sprop-layer-range
     - scalable-layer-id

   Declaring receiver implementation capabilities:

     - max-mbps
     - max-fs
     - max-cpb
     - max-dpb
     - max-br
     - redundant-pic-cap
     - deint-buf-cap
     - max-rcmd-nalu-size

   Declaring how Offer/Answer negotiation shall be performed:

     - parameter-add

   o  In an offer or answer for which the direction attribute
   "a=sendonly" is included for the media stream, the following
   interpretation of the parameters MUST be used:

   Declaring actual configuration and properties of stream proposed to
   be sent:

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 68]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


     - profile-level-id
     - packetization-mode
     - sprop-deint-buf-req
     - sprop-max-don-diff
     - sprop-init-buf-time
     - sprop-parameter-sets
     - sprop-interleaving-depth
     - sprop-prebuf-size
     - sprop-prebuf-time
     - sprop-scalability-information
     - sprop-layer-range
     - sprop-spatial-resoltuion

   Declaring the capabilities of the sender when it receives a stream:

     - max-mbps
     - max-fs
     - max-cpb
     - max-dpb
     - max-br
     - redundant-pic-cap
     - deint-buf-cap
     - max-rcmd-nalu-size

   Declaring how Offer/Answer negotiation shall be performed:

     - parameter-add

   Furthermore, the following considerations are necessary:

   o  Parameters used for declaring receiver capabilities are in
   general downgradable; i.e., they express the upper limit for a
   sender's possible behavior.  Thus a sender MAY select to set its
   encoder using only lower/lesser or equal values of these parameters.
   "sprop-parameter-sets" MUST NOT be used in a sender's declaration of
   its capabilities, as the limits of the values that are carried
   inside the parameter sets are implicit with the profile and level
   used.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 69]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   o  Parameters declaring a configuration point are not downgradable,
   with the exception of the level part of the "profile-level-id"
   parameter.  This expresses values a receiver expects to be used and
   must be used verbatim on the sender side.

   o  When a sender's capabilities are declared, and non-downgradable
   parameters are used in this declaration, then these parameters
   express a configuration that is acceptable.  In order to achieve
   high interoperability levels, it is often advisable to offer
   multiple alternative configurations; e.g., for the packetization
   mode.  It is impossible to offer multiple configurations in a single
   payload type.  Thus, when multiple configuration offers are made,
   each offer requires its own RTP payload type associated with the
   offer.

   o  A receiver SHOULD understand all MIME parameters, even if it only
   supports a subset of the payload format's functionality.  This
   ensures that a receiver is capable of understanding when an offer to
   receive media can be downgraded to what is supported by receiver of
   the offer.

   o  An answerer MAY extend the offer with additional media format
   configurations.  However, to enable their usage, in most cases a
   second offer is required from the offerer to provide the stream
   properties parameters that the media sender will use.  This also has
   the effect that the offerer has to be able to receive this media
   format configuration, not only to send it.

   o  If an offerer wishes to have non-symmetric capabilities between
   sending and receiving, the offerer has to offer different RTP
   sessions; i.e., different media lines declared as "recvonly" and
   "sendonly", respectively.  This may have further implications on the
   system.

9.2.3.    Usage with Session Multiplexing

   If Session multiplexing is used, the rules on signaling media
   decoding dependency in SDP as defined in [I-D.schierl-mmusic-
   layered-codec] apply.


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 70]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

9.2.4.    Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions

   When H.264 or SVC over RTP is offered with SDP in a declarative
   style, as in RTSP [RFC2326] or SAP [RFC2974], the following
   considerations are necessary.

   o  All parameters capable of indicating the properties of both a NAL
   unit stream and a receiver are used to indicate the properties of a
   NAL unit stream.  For example, in this case, the parameter "profile-
   level-id" declares the values used by the stream, instead of the
   capabilities of the sender.  This results in that the following
   interpretation of the parameters MUST be used:

   Declaring actual configuration or properties:

   - profile-level-id
   - sprop-parameter-sets
   - packetization-mode
   - sprop-interleaving-depth
   - sprop-deint-buf-req
   - sprop-max-don-diff
   - sprop-init-buf-time
   - sprop-prebuf-size
   - sprop-prebuf-time
   - sprop-layer-range
   - sprop-spatial-resolution
   - sprop-scalability-info

   Not usable:

   - max-mbps
   - max-fs
   - max-cpb
   - max-dpb
   - max-br
   - redundant-pic-cap
   - max-rcmd-nalu-size
   - parameter-add
   - deint-buf-cap
   - scalable-layer-id

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 71]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007


   o  A receiver of the SDP is required to support all parameters and
   values of the parameters provided; otherwise, the receiver MUST
   reject (RTSP) or not participate in (SAP) the session.  It falls on
   the creator of the session to use values that are expected to be
   supported by the receiving application.

9.3. Examples

9.3.1.    Example for offering a single SVC session

   m = video 20000 RTP/AVP 96 97 98
   a = rtpmap:96 AVC/90000
   a = fmtp:97 profile-level-id=4d400a; packetization-mode=1; \
        sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,aP4Eag= =;
   a = rtpmap:97 SVC/90000
   a = fmtp:97 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=1; \
        sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==, \
        aEvgRqA=,aGvgRiA=;
   a = rtpmap:98 SVC/90000
   a = fmtp:98 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2; \
        init-buf-time=156320; sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg, \
        Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag= =,aEvgRqA=,aGvgRiA=;

9.3.2.    Example for offering session multiplexing

   m = video 20000 RTP/AVP 96 97
   a = rtpmap:96 H264/90000
   a = fmtp:96 profile-level-id=4d400a; packetization-mode=2; \
        init-buf-time=156320; sprop-parameter-
   sets=Z01ACprLFicg,aP4Eag==;
   a = rtpmap:97 SVC/90000
   a = fmtp:97 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2; \
        init-buf-time=156320; sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg, \
        Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag= =,aEvgRqA=,aGvgRiA=;
   a = mid:1
   m = video 20002 RTP/AVP 98
   a = rtpmap:98 SVC/90000
   a = fmtp:98 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2; \
        init-buf-time=156320; sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg, \

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 72]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

        Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag= =,aEvgRqA=,aGvgRiA=;
   a = mid:2
   a = depend:98 lay 96

9.4. Parameter Set Considerations

   Please see section 8.4 of [RFC3984].

10.  Security Considerations

   Section 9 of [RFC3984] applies.  Additionally, the following
   applies.

   Decoders MUST exercise caution with respect to the handling of
   reserved NAL unit types and reserved SEI messages, particularly if
   they contain active elements, and MUST restrict their domain of
   applicability to the presentation containing the stream.  The safest
   way is to simply discard these NAL units and SEI messages.

   When integrity protection is applied, care MUST be taken that the
   stream being transported may be scalable; hence a receiver may be
   able to access only part of the entire stream.

          Informative note: Other security aspects, including
          confidentiality, authentication, and denial-of-service
          threat, for SVC are similar as H.264/AVC, as discussed in
          section 9 of [RFC3984].

11.  Congestion Control

   Within any given RTP session carrying payload according to this
   specification, the provisions of section 12 of [RFC3984] apply.
   Reducing the session bandwidth is possible by one or more of the
   following means, listed in an order that, in most cases, will assure
   the least negative impact to the user experience:

   a) within the highest Layer identified by the DID field, utilize the
      TID and/or QID fields in the NAL unit header to drop NAL units
      with lower importance for the decoding process or human
      perception.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 73]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   b) drop all NAL units belonging to the highest enhancement Layer as
      identified by the highest DID value.
   c) dropping NAL units according to their importance for the decoding
      process, as indicated by the fields in the NAL unit header of the
      NAL units or in the prefix NAL units.
   d) dropping NAL units or entire packets not according to the
      aforementioned rules (media-unaware stream thinning).  This
      results in the reception of a non-compliant bitstream and, most
      likely, in very annoying artifacts

          Informative note: The discussion above is centered on NAL
          units and not on packets, primarily because that is the level
          where senders can meaningfully manipulate the scalable
          bitstream.  The mapping of NAL units to RTP packets is fairly
          flexible when using aggregation packets.  Depending on the
          nature of the congestion control algorithm, the "dimension"
          of congestion measurement (packet count or bitrate) and
          reaction to it (reducing packet count or bitrate or both) can
          be adjusted accordingly.

   All aforementioned means are available to the RTP sender, regardless
   whether that sender is located in the sending endpoint or in a mixer
   based MANE.

   When a translator-based MANE is employed, then the MANE MAY
   manipulate the session only on the MANE's outgoing path, so that the
   sensed end-to-end congestion falls within the permissible envelope.
   As all translators, in this case the MANE needs to rewrite RTCP RRs
   to reflect the manipulations it has performed on the session.

      Informative note: Applications MAY also implement, in addition or
      separately, other congestion control mechanisms, e.g. as
      described in [RFC3450] and [Yan].

12.  IANA Consideration

   [Edt. Note: A new media type should be registered from IANA.]

13.  Informative Appendix: Application Examples


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 74]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

13.1.     Introduction

   Scalable video coding is a concept that has been around at least
   since MPEG-2 [MPEG2], which goes back as early as 1993.
   Nevertheless, it has never gained wide acceptance; perhaps partly
   because applications didn't materialize in the form envisioned
   during standardization.

   MPEG and JVT, respectively, performed a requirement analysis before
   the SVC project was launched.  Dozens of scenarios have been
   studied.  While some of the scenarios appear not to follow the most
   basic design principles of the Internet, e.g. as discussed in
   section 13.5, -- and are therefore not appropriate for IETF
   standardization -- others are clearly in the scope of IETF work.  Of
   these, this draft chooses the following subset for immediate
   consideration.  Note that we do not reference the MPEG and JVT
   documents directly; partly, because at least the MPEG documents have
   a limited lifespan and are not publicly available, and partly
   because the language used in these documents is inappropriately
   video centric and imprecise, when it comes to protocol matters.

   With these remarks, we now introduce three main application
   scenarios that we consider as relevant, and that are implementable
   with this specification.

13.2.     Layered Multicast

   This well-understood form of the use of layered coding [McCanne]
   implies that all layers are individually conveyed in their own RTP
   packet streams, each carried in its own RTP session using the IP
   (multicast) address and port number as the single demultiplexing
   point.  Receivers "tune" into the layers by subscribing to the IP
   multicast, normally by using IGMP [IGMP].

   Layered Multicast has the great advantage of simplicity and easy
   implementation.  However, it has also the great disadvantage of
   utilizing many different transport addresses.  While we consider
   this not to be a major problem for a professionally maintained
   content server, receiving client endpoints need to open many ports
   to IP multicast addresses in their firewalls.  This is a practical

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 75]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   problem from a firewall and network address translation (NAT)
   viewpoint.  Furthermore, even today IP multicast is not as widely
   deployed as many wish.

   We consider layered multicast an important application scenario for
   the following reasons.  First, it is well understood and the
   implementation constraints are well known.  Second, there may well
   be large scale IP networks outside the immediate Internet context
   that may wish to employ layered multicast in the future.  One
   possible example could be a combination of content creation and
   core-network distribution for the various mobile TV services, e.g.
   those being developed by 3GPP (MBMS) [MBMS] and DVB (DVB-H) [DVB-H].

13.3.     Streaming of an SVC scalable stream

   In this scenario, a streaming server has a repository of stored SVC
   coded layers for a given content.  At the time of streaming, and
   according to the capabilities, connectivity, and congestion
   situation of the client(s), the streaming server generates and
   serves a scalable stream.  Both unicast and multicast serving is
   possible.  At the same time, the streaming server may use the same
   repository of stored layers to compose different streams (with a
   different set of layers) intended for other audiences.

   As every endpoint receives only a single SVC RTP session, the number
   of firewall pinholes can be optimized to one.

   The main difference between this scenario and straightforward
   simulcasting lies in the architecture and the requirements of the
   streaming server, and is therefore out of the scope of IETF
   standardization.  However, compelling arguments can be made why such
   a streaming server design makes sense.  One possible argument is
   related to storage space and channel bandwidth.  Another is
   bandwidth adaptability without transcoding -- a considerable
   advantage in a congestion controlled network.  When the streaming
   server learns about congestion, it can reduce sending bitrate by
   choosing fewer layers, when composing the layered stream; see
   section 11.  SVC is designed to gracefully support both bandwidth
   rampdown and bandwidth rampup with a considerable dynamic range.
   This payload format is designed to allow for bandwidth flexibility

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 76]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   in the mentioned sense.  While, in theory, a transcoding step could
   achieve a similar dynamic range, the computational demands are
   impractically high and video quality is typically lowered --
   therefore, few (if any) streaming servers implement full
   transcoding.

13.4.     Multicast to MANE, SVC scalable stream to endpoint

   This scenario is a bit more complex, and designed to optimize the
   network traffic in a core network, while still requiring only a
   single pinhole in the endpoint's firewall.  One of its key
   applications is the mobile TV market.

   Consider a large private IP network, e.g. the core network of 3GPP.
   Streaming servers within this core network can be assumed to be
   professionally maintained.  We assume that these servers can have
   many ports open to the network and that layered multicast is a real
   option.  Therefore, we assume that the streaming server multicasts
   SVC scalable layers, instead of simulcasting different
   representations of the same content at different bit rates.

   Also consider many endpoints of different classes.  Some of these
   endpoints may not have the processing power or the display size to
   meaningfully decode all layers; others may have these capabilities.
   Users of some endpoints may not wish to pay for high quality and are
   happy with a base service, which may be cheaper or even free.  Other
   users are willing to pay for high quality.  Finally, some connected
   users may have a bandwidth problem in that they can't receive the
   bandwidth they would want to receive -- be it through congestion,
   connectivity, change of service quality, or for whatever other
   reasons.  However, all these users have in common that they don't
   want to be exposed too much, and therefore the number of firewall
   pinholes need to be small.

   This situation can be handled best by introducing middleboxes close
   to the edge of the core network, which receive the layered multicast
   streams and compose the single SVC scalable bit stream according to
   the needs of the endpoint connected.  These middleboxes are called
   MANEs throughout this specification.  In practice, we envision the
   MANE to be part of (or at least physically and topologically close

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 77]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   to) the base station of a mobile network, where all the signaling
   and media traffic necessarily are multiplexed on the same physical
   link.  This is why we do not worry too much about decomposition
   aspects of the MANE as such.

   MANEs necessarily need to be fairly complex devices.  They certainly
   need to understand the signaling, so, for example, to associate the
   PT octet in the RTP header with the SVC payload type.

   A MANE may aggregate multiple RTP streams, possibly from multiple
   RTP sessions, thus to reduce the number of firewall pinholes
   required at the endpoints. This type of MANEs is conceptually easy
   to implement and can offer powerful features, primarily because it
   necessarily can "see" the payload (including the RTP payload
   headers), utilize the wealth of layering information available
   therein, and manipulate it.

   While such an MANE operation in its most trivial form (combining
   multiple RTP packet streams into a single one) can be implemented
   comparatively simply -- reordering the incoming packets according to
   the DON and sending them in the appropriate order -- more complex
   forms can also be envisioned.  For example, a MANE can be optimizing
   the outgoing RTP stream to the MTU size of the outgoing path by
   utilizing the aggregation and fragmentation mechanisms of this memo.

   A MANE can also perform stream thinning, so to adhere to congestion
   control principles as discussed in section 11.  While the
   implementation of the forward (media) channel of such a MANE appears
   to be comparatively simple, the need to rewrite RTCP RRs makes even
   such a MANE a complex device.

   While the implementation complexity of either case of a MANE, as
   discussed above, is fairly high, the computational demands are
   comparatively low.  In particular, SVC and/or this specification
   contain means to easily generate the correct inter-layer decoding
   order of NAL units.  No serious bit-oriented processing is required
   and no significant state information (beyond that of the signaling
   and perhaps the SVC sequence parameter sets) need to be kept.



Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 78]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

13.5.     Scenarios currently not considered for being unaligned with
          IP philosophy

   Remarks have been made that the current draft does not take into
   consideration at least one application scenario which some JVT folks
   considered important.  In particular, their idea was to make the RTP
   payload format (or the media stream itself) self-contained enough
   that a stateless, non-signaling-aware device can "thin" an RTP
   session to meet the bandwidth demands of the endpoint.  They called
   this device a "Router" or "Gateway", and sometimes a MANE.
   Obviously, it's not a Router or Gateway in the IETF sense.  To
   distinguish it from a MANE as defined in RFC 3984 and in this
   specification, let's call it an MDfH (Magic Device from Heaven).

   To simplify discussions, let's assume point-to-point traffic only.
   The endpoint has a signaling relationship with the streaming server,
   but it is known that the MDfH is somewhere in the media path (e.g.
   because the physical network topology ensures this).  It has been
   requested, at least implicitly through MPEG's and JVT's requirements
   document, that the MDfH should be capable to intercept the SVC
   scalable bit stream, modify it by dropping packets or parts thereof,
   and forwarding the resulting packet stream to the receiving
   endpoint.  It has been requested that this payload specification
   contains protocol elements facilitating such an operation, and the
   argument has been made that the NRI field of RFC 3984 serves exactly
   the same purpose.

   The authors of this I-D do not consider the scenario above to be
   aligned with the most basic design philosophies the IETF follows,
   and therefore have not addressed the comments made (except through
   this section).  In particular, we see the following problems with
   the MDfH approach):

   - As the very minimum, the MDfH would need to know which RTP
     streams are carrying SVC.  We don't see how this could be
     accomplished but by using a static payload type.  None of the
     IETF defined RTP profiles envision static payload types for SVC,
     and even the de-facto profiles developed by some application
     standard organizations (3GPP for example) do not use this


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 79]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

     outdated concept.  Therefore, the MDfH necessarily needs to be at
     least "listening" to the signaling.
   - If the RTP packet payload were encrypted, it would be impossible
     to interpret the payload header and/or the first bytes of the
     media stream.  We understand that there are crypto schemes under
     discussion that encrypt only the last n bytes of an RTP payload,
     but we are more than unsure that this is fully in line with the
     IETF's security vision.

   Even if the above two problems would have been overcome through
   standardization outside of the IETF, we still foresee serious design
   flaws:

   - An MDfH can't simply dump RTP packets it doesn't want to forward.
     It either needs to act as a full RTP Translator (implying that it
     rewrites RTCP RRs and such), or it needs to patch the RTP
     sequence numbers to fulfill the RTP specification.  Not doing
     either would, for the receiver, look like the gaps in the
     sequence numbers occurred due to unintentional erasures, which
     has interesting effects on congestion control (if implemented),
     will break pretty much every meta-payload ever developed, and so
     on.  (Many more points could be made here).

   In summary, based on our current knowledge we are not willing to
   specify protocol mechanisms that support an operation point that has
   so little in common with classic RTP use.

13.6.     SSRC Multiplexing

   The authors have played with the idea of introducing SSRC
   multiplexing, i.e. allowing sending multiple RTP packet streams
   containing layers in the same RTP session, differentiated by SSRC
   values.  Our intention was to minimize the number of firewall
   pinholes in an endpoint to one, by using MANEs to aggregate multiple
   outgoing sessions stemming from a server into a single session (with
   SSRC multiplexed packet streams).  We were hoping that would be
   feasible even with encrypted packets in an SRTP context.

   While an implementation along these lines indeed appears to be
   feasible for the forward media path, the RTCP RR rewrite cannot be

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 80]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   implemented in the way necessary for this scheme to work.  This
   relates to the need to authenticate the RTCP RRs as per SRTP
   [RFC3711].  While the RTCP RR itself does not need to be rewritten
   by the scheme we envisioned, its transport addresses needs to be
   manipulated.  This, in turn, is incompatible with the mandatory
   authentication of RTCP RRs.  As a result, there would be a
   requirement that a MANE needs to be in the RTCP security context of
   the sessions, which was not envisioned in our use case.

   As the envisioned use case cannot be implemented, we refrained to
   add the considerable document complexity to support SSRC
   multiplexing herein.

14.  References

14.1.     Normative References

[H.264]     ITU-T Recommendation H.264, "Advanced video coding for
            generic audiovisual services", Version 4, July 2005.
[I-D.schierl-mmusic-layered-codec]
            Schierl, T., and Wenger, S., "Signaling media decoding
            dependency in Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
            draft-schierl-mmusic-layered-codec-04 (work in progress),
            June 2007.
[MPEG4-10]  ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10:2005.
[RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3264]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with
            Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[RFC3548]   Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings",
            RFC 3548, July 2003.
[RFC3550]   Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and
            Jacobson, V., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
            Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3984]   Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M., Stockhammer, T., Westerlund,
M.,
            and Singer, D., "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC
            3984, February 2005.

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 81]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

[RFC4566]   Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and Perkins, C., "SDP: Session
            Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[SVC]       Joint Video Team, "Joint Draft 11 of SVC Amendment",
            available from http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site
            /2007_06_Geneva/JVT-X201.zip, Geneva, Switzerland, June
            2007.

14.2.     Informative References

[DVB-H]     DVB - Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); DVB-H
            Implementation Guidelines, ETSI TR 102 377, 2005.
[H.241]     ITU-T Rec. H.241, "Extended video procedures and control
            signals for H.300-series terminals", May 2006.
[IGMP]      Cain, B., Deering S., Kovenlas, I., Fenner, B., and
            Thyagarajan, A., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
            Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[McCanne]   McCanne, S., Jacobson, V., and Vetterli, M., "Receiver-
            driven layered multicast", in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM'96,
pages
            117--130, Stanford, CA, August 1996.
[MBMS]      3GPP - Technical Specification Group Services and System
            Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS);
            Protocols and codecs (Release 6), December 2005.
[MPEG2]     ISO/IEC International Standard 13818-2:1993.
[RFC2326]   Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
Streaming
            Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.
[RFC2974]   Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
Announcement
             Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[RFC3450]   Luby, M., Gemmell, J., Vicisano, L., Rizzo, L., and
Crowcroft, J.,
            "Asynchronous layered coding (ALC) protocol instantiation",
RFC
            3450, December 2002.
[RFC3711]   Baugher, M., McGrew, D, Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and
            Norrman, K., "The secure real-time transport protocol
            (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.
[Yan]       Yan, J., Katrinis, K., May, M., and Plattner, R., "Media-
and

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 82]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

            TCP-friendly congestion control for scalable video
streams", in
            IEEE Trans. Multimedia, pages 196--206, April 2006.

15.  Author's Addresses

   Stephan Wenger                 Phone: +1-650-862-7368
   Nokia                          Email: stewe@stewe.org
   955 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94304
   USA

   Ye-Kui Wang                    Phone: +358-50-486-7004
   Nokia Research Center          Email: ye-kui.wang@nokia.com
   P.O. Box 100
   FIN-33721 Tampere
   Finland

   Thomas Schierl                 Phone: +49-30-31002-227
   Fraunhofer HHI                 Email: schierl@hhi.fhg.de
   Einsteinufer 37
   D-10587 Berlin
   Germany

16.  Copyright Statement

   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

17.  Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 83]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST
AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE
OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

18.  Intellectual Property Statement

   Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

19.  Acknowledgement


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 84]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
   Further, the author Thomas Schierl of Fraunhofer HHI is sponsored
   by the European Commission under the contract number
   FP6-IST-0028097, project ASTRALS.

20.  RFC Editor Considerations

   none

21.  Open Issues

   1. Packetization rules need work.
   2. Alignment with the SVC specification (ongoing)


22.  Changes Log

Version 00

- 29.08.2005, YkW: Initial version
- 29.09.2005, Miska: Reviewed and commented throughout the document
- 05.10.2006, StW: Editorial changes through the document, and
formatted the document in RFC payload format style

From -00 to -01

- 04.02.2006, StW: Added details to scope
- 04.02.2006, StW: Added short subsection 6.1 "Design Principles"
- 04.02.2006, StW: Added section 15, "Application Examples"
- 06.02 - 03.03.2006, YkW: Various modifications throughout the
document
- 13.02.2006 - 03.03.2006 , ThS: Added definitions and additional
information to section 3.3, 5.1, 7 and 8, parameters in section 9.1 and
added section 14 for NAL unit re-ordering for layered multicast.
Further modifications throughout the document

From -01 to -02

- 06.03.2006, StW: Editorial improvements

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 85]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

- 26.05.2006, YkW: Updated NAL unit header syntax and semantics
according to the latest draft SVC spec
- 20.06.2006, Miska/YkW: Added section 6.10 "Payload Content
Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit"
- 20.06.2006, YkW: Updated the NAL unit reordering process for layered
multicast (removed the old section 14 "Informative Appendix: NAL Unit
Re-ordering for Layered Multicast" and added the new section 13 "NAL
Unit Reordering for Layered Multicast")

From -02 to -03

- 05.09.2006, YkW: Updated the NAL unit header syntax, definitions,
etc., according to the foreseen July JVT output.  Updated possible MANE
adaptation operations according to SPID, TL, DID and QL.  Clarified the
removal of single NAL unit packetiztaion mode.  Added the support of
SSRC multiplexing in layered multicast.
- 08.09.2006, StW: Editorial changes throughout the document
- 08.09.2006, YkW: Added the packetization rule for suffix NAL unit.
- 19.09.2006, YkW: Moved/updated SSRC multiplexing support to section
6.2 ``RTP header usage". Moved/updated the cross layer DON constraint
to Section 6.6 ``Decoding order number". Moved/updated the
packetization rule when a SVC bistream is transported over more than
one RTP session to Section 7 ``Packetization rules". Removed Section
13 "Support of layered multicast".
- 16.10, TS: Added detailed four-byte NAL unit header description.
Change "AVC" to "H.264" conforming to 3984. Modifications throughout
the document. Extended description of 3rd byte of PACSI NAL unit.
Corrected terms RTP session and RTP packet stream in case of SSRC
multiplexing. Added terms in definition section on RTP multiplexing.
Constraints on optional media type parameters of 3984 for cross-layer
DON (DON section and media type parameters). Copied parts of SI paper
regarding mixer, translator and SSRC mux with SRTP to section
application examples. Added section on SDP usage with Session and SSRC
multiplexing. Added points in Design principles on translator/mixer and
RTP multiplexing. Added additional founding information in Ack-
section. Corrected reference for SVC and added reference for generic
signaling.
17.10, StW: Fixed many editorials, clarified MANE, mixer, translator
and RTP packet stream throughout doc (hopefully consistently)


Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 86]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

18.10., removed comments, clarified B-Bit, changed definition of base-
layer (do not need to be of the lowest temporal resolution),

From -03 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-00

   - 23.11.06, StW: Editorials throughout the memo
   - 23.11.06, StW: removed all occurrences of the security
     discussions, as they are incorrect.  When using SRTP, the RTCP is
     authenticated, implying that a translator cannot rewrite RTCP
     RRs, implying that RRs would be incorrect as soon as the session
     is modified (i.e. packets are being removed), implying that SSRC-
     mux does not work in multicast.
   - 23.11.06, StW: rewrote congestion control
   - 23.11.06, StW: removed application scenario related to SRTP, as
     this does not work (see above
   - 23.11.06, StW: added informative reference to H.241
   - 27/29.11.06, YkW: editorial changes throughout the document
   - 27/29.11.06, YkW: alignment with the SVC specification
   - 19.12.06, TS:
     TS: [SVC] is now the complete Joint Draft of H.264
     TS: Removed SSRC Multiplexing
     TS: Changed use cases for MANE as a translator
     TS: Editorials throughout the document, alignment with SVC spec.
   - 20-28.12.06, StW/TS/YkW: editorial changes throughout the
     document

From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-00 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-01
   - 23.02.07, YkW/Miska Hannuksela: Added enhancements to PACSI NAL
     unit
   - 01.03.07, Jonathan Lennox/YkW: Added recommendatory packetization
     rules for SEI messages and non-VCL NAL units
   - 05.03.07, Thomas Wiegand/YkW: Added the fields of picture start,
     picture end, and Tl0PicIdx to PACSI NAL unit
   - 05.03.07, TS: Draft conforms to new I-D style

From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-01 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-02
     25-June-2007: TS
     Clarified definitions Layer, Operation Points,
     Removed FGS
     Aligned with JVT-W201 spec

Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 87]

Internet-Draft       RTP Payload Format for SVC Video     November 2007

     Use of DON in de-packetization
     Congestion control
     25-June-2007: YkW
     Edit throughout the spec, aligned with JVT-X201 SVC spec
     09-July-2007: TS
     Further modifications and alignments with JVT-X201.











































Wenger, Wang, Schierl     Expires May 18, 2008          [page 88]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/