[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

Audio/Video Transport WG                                      S. Wenger
Internet Draft                                               Y.-K. Wang
Intended status: Standards track                                  Nokia
Expires: December 2008                                       T. Schierl
                                                         Fraunhofer HHI
                                                       A. Eleftheriadis
                                                                  Vidyo
                                                          June 30, 2008




                     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video
                      draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-12.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 December 30, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


Abstract

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for Scalable Video Coding
   (SVC) as defined in_Annex G of ITU-T Recommendation H.264, 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 H.264 Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each
   RTP packet payload, supporting both single-session as well as multi-
   session streams.  For single-session streams the packetization modes
   of RFC 3984 are used, whereas for multi-session streams four
   different packetization modes are defined in this memo.  The payload
   format is backwards compatible to RFC 3984, and has wide
   applicability in conversational applications such as
   videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and high bit-rate
   entertainment-quality video, among others.



Table of Contents


   Status of this Memo ............................................ 1
   Copyright Notice ............................................... 1
   Abstract ....................................................... 2
   Table of Contents .............................................. 2
   1. Introduction ................................................ 4
   2. Conventions ................................................. 6
   3. Scope ....................................................... 7
   4. Definitions and Abbreviations ............................... 7
      4.1 Definitions ............................................. 7
         4.1.1 Definitions from the SVC Specification ............. 7
         4.1.2 Definitions Specific to This Memo .................. 9
      4.2 Abbreviations .......................................... 12
   5. The SVC Codec .............................................. 12
      5.1 Overview ............................................... 12
      5.2 Parameter Sets ......................................... 15
      5.3 Network Abstraction Layer Units ........................ 16
   6. RTP Payload Format ......................................... 20
      6.1 Design Principles ...................................... 20
      6.2 RTP Header Usage ....................................... 20
      6.3 Common Structure of the RTP Payload Format ............. 20
      6.4 NAL Unit Header Usage .................................. 20
      6.5 Packetization Modes .................................... 22
         6.5.1 Packetization Modes for Single-Source
               Transmission ...................................... 22
         6.5.2 Packetization Modes for Multi-Source
               Transmission ...................................... 22


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      6.6 Aggregation Packets .................................... 25
      6.7 Fragmentation Units (FUs) .............................. 25
      6.8 Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI)
          NAL Unit ............................................... 25
      6.9 Non-Interleaved Multi-Time Aggregation Packets
          (NI-MTAPs) ............................................. 32
      6.10 Decoding Order Number (DON) ........................... 34
         6.10.1 Cross-Session DON (CS-DON) for Multi-Source
         Transmission ............................................ 35
   7. Packetization Rules ........................................ 36
      7.1 Packetization Rules for Multi-Source Transmission ...... 37
         7.1.1 NI-T / NI-TC Packetization Rules .................. 38
         7.1.2 NI-C / NI-TC Packetization Rules .................. 38
         7.1.3 I-C Packetization Rules ........................... 40
         7.1.4 Packetization Rules for Non-VCL NAL Units ......... 40
         7.1.5 Packetization Rules for Prefix NAL Units .......... 40
   8. De-Packetization Process ................................... 41
      8.1 De-Packetization Process for Multi-Source Transmission . 41
         8.1.1 Decoding Order Recovery for the NI-T and
               NI-TC Modes ....................................... 42
            8.1.1.1 Informative Algorithm for NI-T Decoding Order
                    Recovery within an Access Unit ............... 45
         8.1.2 Decoding Order Recovery for the NI-C, NI-TC and I-C
               Modes ............................................. 48
   9. Payload Format Parameters .................................. 50
      9.1 Media Type Registration ................................ 50
      9.2 SDP Parameters ......................................... 60
         9.2.1 Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP ......... 61
         9.2.2 Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model.............. 61
         9.2.3 Usage with Multi-Source Transmission .............. 66
         9.2.4 Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions ......... 66
      9.3 Examples ............................................... 67
         9.3.1 Example for Offering A Single SVC Session ......... 67
         9.3.2 Example for Offering Session Multiplexing ......... 68
      9.4 Parameter Set Considerations ........................... 69
   10. Security Considerations ................................... 69
   11. Congestion Control ........................................ 69
   12. IANA Consideration ........................................ 70
   13. Informative Appendix: Application Examples................. 71
      13.1 Introduction .......................................... 71
      13.2 Layered Multicast ..................................... 71
      13.3 Streaming of an SVC Scalable Stream ................... 72
      13.4 Multicast to MANE, SVC Scalable Stream to Endpoint .... 73
      13.5 Scenarios Currently Not Considered .................... 74
      13.6 SSRC Multiplexing ..................................... 76
   14. References ................................................ 76
      14.1 Normative References................................... 76


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      14.2 Informative References................................. 77
   15. Authors' Addresses......................................... 78
   Intellectual Property Statement ............................... 79
   Disclaimer of Validity......................................... 79
   Copyright Statement............................................ 80
   Acknowledgement................................................ 80
   16. Open Issues................................................ 80
   17. Changes Log................................................ 81
   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-08 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-09 ... 81
   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-09 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-10 ... 82
   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-10 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-11 ... 83
   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-11 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-12 ... 83



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.
   SVC is specified in Amendment 3 to ISO/IEC 14496 Part 10 [MPEG4-10],
   and Annex G of ITU-T Rec. H.264/AVC [H.264].

   SVC covers the entire application range of H.264/AVC, from low
   bitrate Internet streaming applications, to HDTV broadcasting, and
   even Digital Cinema that requires nearly lossless coding and
   hundreds of Mbps. The payload format specified in this memo is a
   backwards compatible enhancement to the H264/AVC payload format
   (H264, [RFC3984]), in which the specific features introduced by SVC
   are taken into account. It is assumed that the reader is familiar
   with the terminology and concepts defined in RFC 3984.

   SVC provides a coded representation of a video signal as a set of
   hierarchical components, composed of a base layer and one or more
   enhancement layers, as explained in Section 5 All data produced by
   an SVC encoder are structured in H.264 Network Abstraction Layer
   (NAL) units. This payload specification can only be used to carry
   the raw H.264 NAL unit stream over RTP, and not the byte stream
   format specified in Annex B of [H.264].

   Depending on the packetization mode used, one or more than one NAL
   unit may be present in a single RTP packet. The base layer is, by
   design, compatible to H264, but may be formatted either according to
   RFC 3984 ("AVC base layer") or according to this memo ("SVC base
   layer").  Furthermore, the base layer may have multiple temporal
   components (i.e., supporting different frame rates).  As a result,
   we distinguish the lowest temporal component ("T0") of the base
   layer (either AVC or SVC) as the starting point of the SVC bitstream


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   hierarchy.  The difference of an SVC base layer as compared to an
   AVC base layer is that additional NAL unit types may be present in
   the RTP stream in the SVC base layer case, which, however, are
   ignored by a receiver conforming to RFC 3984.

   This specification allows to encapsulate in a given RTP stream NAL
   units belonging to either:

   o  the T0 AVC base layer or the T0 SVC base layer only;

   o  one or more enhancement layers; or

   o  the T0 SVC base layer, and one or more enhancement layers.

   Furthermore, this specification allows the packetization of SVC data
   for either single-source or multi-source transmission.  In the case
   of single-source transmission (SST) all SVC data are carried in a
   single RTP session with the same SSRC.  In the case of Multi-Source
   Transmission (MST), two or more RTP sessions are used to carry the
   SVC data, using distinct SSRC's, in accordance with the
   packetization modes defined in this memo and in RFC 3984.  Each RTP
   session is associated with one RTP stream, which MAY carry one or
   more layers, structured according to one of the three cases
   indicated above.

   When MST is not used, the following applies.

   o  When an H.264/AVC compatible subset of the SVC base layer is
      transmitted, the subset SHOULD be carried in one RTP stream that
      MUST be encapsulated according to RFC 3984.  This way, an RFC
      3984 receiver will be able to receive the H.264/AVC compatible
      bitstream subset.

   o  When a set of layers including one or more SVC enhancement layers
      is transmitted, the set SHOULD be carried in one RTP stream that
      SHOULD be encapsulated according to this memo.

   When MST is used, this memo defines four different packetization
   modes. The modes differ depending on if the SVC data are allowed to
   be interleaved, i.e., to be transmitted in an order different than
   the intended decoding order, and they also differ in the mechanisms
   provided in order to recover the correct decoding order of the NAL
   units across the multiple RTP sessions. These four MST modes re-use
   the packetization modes introduced in RFC 3984 for the packetization
   of NAL units in each of their individual RTP sessions.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   MST SHOULD be used in a multicast session when different receivers
   may request different layers of the scalable bitstream.  An
   operation point for an SVC bit stream, as defined in this memo,
   corresponds to a set of layers that together conform to one of the
   profiles defined in Annex A or G of [H.264] and, when decoded, offer
   a representation of the original video at a certain fidelity.  The
   number of streams used in MST SHOULD be at least equal to the number
   of operation points that may be requested by the receivers.
   Depending on the application, this may result in each layer being
   carried in its own RTP session, or in having multipe layers
   encapsulated within one RTP session.

         Informative note: Layered multicast is a term commonly used to
         describe the application where multicast is used to transmit
         layered or scalable data that has been encapsulated into more
         than one RTP session.  This application allows different
         receivers in the multicast session to receive different
         operation points of the scalable bitstream.  Layered
         multicast, among other application examples, is discussed in
         more detail in Section 13.2

   This RTP payload specification is designed to be unaware of the  NAL
   unit payload defined in [H.264]. Similar to RFC 3984, this memo
   introduces two new NAL unit types, using unit type numbers from the
   space explicitly left unspecified in [H.264] and not used in RFC
   3984.  When the single NAL unit packetization mode is used, where
   one NAL unit always corresponds to one RTP packet, the NAL unit
   header defined in [H.264] co-serves as the payload header of this
   RTP payload format.  In this case, the payload of the NAL unit
   follows immediately. In all other modes data from multiple NAL units
   may be present in an RTP packet, either through nesting (a NAL unit
   is contained in another one) or serialization (NAL units appear in
   sequence in an RTP packet).

   This memo also also defines signaling support for SVC, including a
   new media subtype name (H264-SVC).

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, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


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

3. Scope

   o  The scalability features that SVC adds to the H.264 specification
      enable several system-level functionalities related to the
      ability of a system to adapt the signal to different system
      conditions with no or minimal processing. The adaptation relates
      both to the capabilities of potentially heterogenous receivers
      (screen resolution, processing speed, etc.), as well as differing
      or time-varying network conditions. The adaptation can be
      performed at the source, the destination, or in intermediate
      media-aware network elements. This payload specification exposes
      these system-level functionalities so that system designers can
      take direct advantage of these features. The likely applications
      of this specification are in the IP-based multimedia
      communication fields, including conversational multimedia, video
      telephony or video conferencing, Internet streaming, and IPTV.

4. Definitions and Abbreviations

4.1 Definitions

4.1.1 Definitions from the SVC Specification

   This document uses the terms and definitions of [H.264].  The
   following terms are relevant to this memo, and their definitions are
   copied here from [H.264] for convenience.

      access unit: A set of NAL units always containing exactly one
      primary coded picture.  In addition to the primary coded picture,
      an access unit may also contain one or more redundant coded
      pictures, one auxiliary coded picture, or other NAL units not
      containing slices or slice data partitions of a coded picture.
      The decoding of an access unit always results in a decoded
      picture.

      base layer: A bitstream subset that contains all the NAL units
      with the nal_unit_type syntax element equal to 1 or 5 of the
      bitstream and does not contain any NAL unit with the
      nal_unit_type syntax element equal to 14, 15, or 20 and conforms
      to one or more of the profiles specified in Annex A of [H.264].

      base quality layer representation: The layer representation of
      the target dependency representation of an access unit that is
      associated with the quality_id syntax element equal to 0.


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      coded video sequence: A sequence of access units that consists,
      in decoding order, of an 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.

      dependency representation: A subset of VCL NAL units within an
      access unit that are associated with the same value of the
      dependency_id syntax element, which is provided as part of the
      NAL unit header or by an associated prefix NAL unit.  A
      dependency representation consist of one or more layer
      representations.

      IDR access unit: An access unit in which the primary coded
      picture is an IDR picture.

      IDR picture: A coded picture in which all slices of the target
      dependency representation 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 the same values of the
      dependency_id and quality_id syntax elements, which are provided
      as part of the VCL NAL unit header or by an associated prefix NAL
      unit.  One or more layer representations represent a dependency
      representation.

      prefix NAL unit: A NAL unit with nal_unit_type equal to 14 that
      immediately precedes in decoding order a NAL unit with
      nal_unit_type equal to 1, 5, or 12.  The NAL unit that
      immediately succeeds in decoding order the prefix NAL unit is
      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.

      reference base picture: A reference picture that is obtained by
      decoding a base quality layer representation with the nal_ref_idc
      syntax element not equal to 0 and the store_ref_base_pic_flag
      syntax element equal to 1 of an access unit and all layer
      representations of the access unit that are referred to by inter-
      layer prediction of the base quality layer representation.  A
      reference base picture is not an output of the decoding process,
      but the samples of a reference base picture may be used for inter


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      prediction in the decoding process of subsequent pictures in
      decoding order.  Reference base picture is a collective term for
      a reference base field or a reference base frame.

      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[SVC].

      target dependency representation: The dependency representation
      of an access unit that is associated with the largest value of
      the dependency_id syntax element for all dependency
      representations of the access unit.

      target layer representation: The layer representation of the
      target dependency representation of an access unit that is
      associated with the largest value of the quality_id syntax
      element for all layer representations of the target dependency
      representation of the access unit.

4.1.2 Definitions Specific to This Memo

      anchor layer representation: An anchor layer representation is
      such a layer representation that, if decoding of the operation
      point corresponding to the layer starts from the access unit
      containing this 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, and hence may not be
      correctly decoded if random access is performed at the anchor
      layer representation.

      AVC base layer: The subset of the SVC base layer in which all
      prefix NAL units (type 14) are removed. Note that this is
      equivalent to the term "base layer" as defined in Annex G of
      [H.264].

      base RTP session: When multi-source transmission is used, the RTP
      session that carries the RTP stream containing the T0 AVC base
      layer or the T0 SVC base layer, and zero or more enhancement
      layers.  This RTP session does not depend on any other RTP
      session as indicated by mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      decoding-dependency].  The base RTP session may carry NAL units
      of NAL unit type equal to 14 and 15.

      effective NAL unit timestamp: The value that the RTP timestamp
      would have if the particular NAL unit was transported in its own
      RTP packet. (The NAL unit time is different than that actual RTP
      timestamp of the packet containing the particular NAL unit in the
      case of MTAPs.)

      enhancement RTP session: When multi-source transmission is used,
      an RTP session that is not the base RTP session.  An enhancement
      RTP session typically contains an RTP stream that depends on at
      least one other RTP session as indicated by mechanisms defined in
      [I-D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency].  A lower RTP session to an
      enhancement RTP session is an RTP session which the enhancement
      RTP session depends on. The lowest RTP session for a receiver is
      the RTP session that does not depend on any other RTP session
      received by the receiver.  The highest RTP session for a receiver
      is the RTP session which no other RTP session received by the
      receiver depends on.

      cross-session decoding order number (CS-DON): A derived variable
      indicating NAL unit decoding order number over all NAL units
      within all the session-multiplexed RTP sessions that carry the
      same SVC bitstream.

      enhancement layer: A layer in which at least one of the values of
      dependency_id or quality_id is higher than 0, or a layer in which
      none of the NAL units is associated with the value of temporal_id
      equal to 0.  An operation point constructed using the maximum
      temporal_id, dependency_id, and quality_id values associated with
      an enhancement layer may or may not conform to one or more of the
      profiles specified in Annex A of [H.264].

      H.264/AVC compatible: A biststream subset that conforms to one or
      more of the profiles specified in Annex A of [H.264].

      intra layer representation:  A layer representation that contains
      only slices that use intra prediction, and hence do not refer to
      any earlier layer representation in decoding order in the same
      layer.  Note that in [SVC] intra prediction includes intra-layer
      intra prediction as well as inter-layer intra prediction.

      layer: A bistream subset in which all NAL units of type 1, 5, 12,
      14, or 20 have the same values of dependency_id and quality_id,
      either directly through their NAL unit header (for NAL units of
      type 14 or 20) or through association to a prefix (type 14) NAL


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      unit (for NAL unit types 1, 5, or 12).  A layer may contain NAL
      units associated with more than one values of temporal_id.

      multi-source transmission: This specifies that the SVC bitstream
      is distributed across multiple RTP sessions, with each stream
      having a distinct SSRC, and consequently its own timestamp and
      sequence number spaces.  Those multiple streams can be associated
      using the RTCP CNAME, or explicit signalling of the SSRC used.
      [Ed. (AE): Is the single transport connection mode supported? It
      does not appear to, as seen by the definitions of base and
      enhancement RTP sessions, and the rest of the text. I modified
      the definition so that it is not allowed.] Dependency between RTP
      sessions MUST be signaled according to [I-D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-
      dependency] and this memo.

      operation point: An operation point is identified by a set of
      values of temporal_id, dependency_id, and quality_id. A bistream
      corresponding to an operation point can be constructed by
      removing all NAL units associated with a higher value of
      dependency_id, and all NAL units associated with the same value
      of dependency_id but higher values of quality_id or temporal_id.
      Additional NAL units may be removed (with lower dependency_id or
      same dependency_id but lower quality_id) if they are not required
      for decoding the bitstream at the particular operation point. An
      operation point bitstream conforms to at least one of the
      profiles defined in Annex A or Annex G of [H.264], and offers a
      representation of the original video signal at a certain
      fidelity. [Ed.Note(YkW): Need to check whether a bitstream subset
      with those additional NAL units removed is a conforming
      bitstream.]

      operation point representation: The set of all NAL units of an
      operation point within the same access unit.

      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 one or more layers.

      SVC base layer: The layer that includes all NAL units associated
      with dependency_id and quality_id values both equal to 0,
      including prefix NAL units (NAL unit type 14).

      SVC enhancement layer: A layer in which at least one of the
      values of dependency_id or quality_id is higher than 0.  An
      operation point constructed using the maximum dependency_id and


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      quality_id values and any temporal_id value associated with an
      SVC enhancement layer does not conform to any of the profiles
      specified in Annex A of [H.264].

      SVC NAL unit: A NAL unit of NAL unit type 14, 15, or 20 as
      specified in Annex G of [H.264].

      SVC NAL unit header: A four-byte header resulting from the
      addition of a three-byte SVC-specific header extension added in
      NAL unit types 14, 15 and 20.

      SVC RTP session: Either the base RTP session or an enhancement
      RTP session.

      T0 AVC base layer: A subset of the AVC base layer constructed by
      removing all VCL NAL units associated with temporal_id values
      higher than 0.

      T0 SVC base layer: A subset of the SVC base layer constructed by
      removing all VCL NAL units associated with temporal_id values
      higher than 0 as well as their associated prefix NAL units.

4.2 Abbreviations

   In addition to the abbreviations defined in [RFC3984], the following
   abbrevations are used in this memo.

      CGS:        Coarse-Grain Scalability
      CS-DON:     Cross-Session Decoding Order Number
      ETS:        Effective Timestamp (of a NAL unit)
      MGS:        Medium-Grain Scalability
      MST:       Multi-Source Transmission
      PACSI:      Payload Content Scalability Information
      SST:       Single-Source Transmission
      SNR:       Signal-to-Noise Ratio
      SVC:        Scalable Video Coding



5. The SVC Codec

5.1 Overview

   SVC [H.264]defines a coded video representation in which a given
   bitstream offers representations of the source material at different
   levels of fidelity (hence the term "scalable").  Scalable video
   coding bitstreams, or scalable bitstreams, are constructed in a


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   pyramidal fashion: the coding process creates bitstream components
   that improve the fidelity of hierarchically lower components.

   The fidelity dimensions offered by SVC are spatial (picture size),
   quality (or Signal-to-Noise Ratio - SNR), as well as temporal
   (pictures per second).  Bitstream components associated with a given
   level of spatial, quality, and temporal fidelity are identified
   using corresponding parameters in the bitstream: dependency_id,
   quality_id, and temporal_id (see also Section 5.3).  The fidelity
   identifiers have integer values, where higher values designate
   components that are higher in the hierarchy.  It is noted that SVC
   offers significant flexibility in terms of how an encoder may choose
   to structure the dependencies between the various components.
   Decoding of a particular component requires the availability of all
   the components it depends upon, either directly, or indirectly.  An
   operation point of an SVC bitstream consists of the bistream
   components required to be able to decode a particular dependency_id,
   quality_id, and temporal_id combination.

   SVC maintains the bitstream organization introduced in H.264/AVC.
   Specifically, all bitstream components are encapsulated in Network
   Abstraction Layer (NAL) units which are organized as Access Units
   (AU).  An AU is associated with a single sampling instance in time.
   A subset of the NAL unit types correspond to the Video Coding Layer
   (VCL), and contain the coded picture data associated with the source
   content.  Non-VLC NAL units carry ancillary data that may be
   necessary for decoding (e.g., parameter sets as explained below), or
   that facilitate certain system operations but are not needed by the
   decoding process itself. Coded picture data at the various fidelity
   dimensions are organized in slices.  Within one AU, a coded picture
   of an operation point consists of all the coded slices required for
   decoding up to the particular combination of dependency_id and
   quality_id values  at the time instance corresponding to the AU.
   The NAL encapsulates each slice generated by the VCL into one or
   more NAL units. RFC 3984 provides a more in-depth discussion of the
   NAL unit concept.  SVC specifies the decoding order of NAL units.

   It is noted that the concept of temporal scalability is already
   present in H.264/AVC, as profiles defined in Annex A of [H.264]
   already support it.  Specifically, in [H.264] sub-sequences have
   been introduced in order to allow optional use of temporal layers.
   SVC extends this approach by exposing the temporal scalability
   information using the temporal_id parameter, alongside (and unified
   with) the dependency_id and quality_id values that are used for
   spatial and quality scalability.  For coded picture data defined in
   Annex G of [H.264] this is accomplished by using a new type of NAL
   unit where the fidelity parameters are part of its header.  For


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   coded picture data that follow H.264/AVC, and to ensure
   compatibility with existing H.264/AVC receivers, a new type of
   "prefix" NAL unit has been defined to carry this header information.
   This prefix NAL unit type is among those ignored by H.264/AVC
   receivers as explained in [RFC3984].

   Within an AU, the VCL NAL units associated with a given
   dependency_id and quality_id are referred to as a "layer
   representation".  The layer representation corresponding to the
   lowest values of dependency_id and quality_id (i.e., zero) is
   referred to as the base layer representation and is compliant by
   design to H.264/AVC.  The set of VCL and associated non-VCL NAL
   units across all AUs in a bitstream associated with a particular
   combination of values of dependency_id and quality_id, and
   regardless of the value of temporal_id, is conceptually a scalable
   layer.  Due to the backwards compatibility with H.264/AVC, it is
   important to differentiate, however, whether or not SVC-specific NAL
   units are present in a given bitstream or not.  This is particularly
   important for the lowest fidelity values in terms of dependency_id
   and quality_id (zero for both), as the corresponding VCL data are
   compliant to H.264/AVC, and may or may not be accompanied by
   associated prefix NAL units.  This memo therefore uses the term "AVC
   base layer" to designate the layer that contains only H.264/AVC VCL
   NAL units, and "SVC base layer" to designate the same layer but with
   the addition of the associated SVC prefix NAL units.  Note that the
   SVC specification  uses the term "base layer" for what in this memo
   will be referred to as "AVC base layer".  Similarly, it is also
   important to be able to differentiate, within a layer, the temporal
   fidelity components it contains.  This memo uses the term "T0" to
   indicate, within a particular layer, the subset that contains the
   NAL units associated with temporal_id equal to 0.

   The term "layer" is used in various contexts in this memo.  For
   example, in the terms "Video Coding Layer" and "Network Abstraction
   Layer" it refers to conceptual organization levels.  When referring
   to bitstream syntax elements such as block layer or macroblock
   layer, it refers to hierarchical bitstream structure levels.  When
   used in the context of bitstream scalability, e.g., "AVC base
   layer", it refers to a level of representation fidelity of the
   source signal with a specific set of NAL units included.  The
   correct interpretation is supported by providing the appropriate
   context.

   SNR scalability in SVC is offered in two different ways.  In what is
   called Coarse-Grained Scalability (CGS), scalability is provided by
   including or excluding a complete layer when decoding a particular
   bitstream.  In contrast, in Medium-Grained Scalability (MGS),


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   scalability is provided by selectively omitting the decoding of
   specific NAL units belonging to MGS layers.  The selection of the
   NAL units to omit can be based on fixed length fields present in the
   NAL unit header.

5.2 Parameter Sets

   The parameter set concept is defined in [H.264].  Please refer to
   Section 1.2 of RFC 3984 for more details.

   SVC introduces a new type of sequence parameter set, referred to as
   a subset sequence parameter set [H.264].  Subset sequence parameter
   sets have NAL unit type equal to 15, which is different from the NAL
   unit type value (7) of sequence parameter sets.  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.  The
   references are indirect because VCL NAL units refer to picture
   parameter sets (in their slice header), which in turn refer to
   sequence parameter sets. Subset sequence parameter sets use a
   separate identifier value space than sequence parameter sets.  An
   overview of the NAL unit and packet types used in this memo can be
   found in Table 1  in Section 5.3.

   In SVC, coded picture data from different layers may use the same or
   different sequence and picture parameter sets.  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
   SVC sequence parameter set(s) (for layer representations with lower
   values of (dependency_id * 16 + quality_id)).  The active sequence
   parameter set or an active layer SVC sequence parameter set remains
   unchanged throughout a coded video sequence in the scalable layer in
   which the active sequence parameter set or active layer SVC 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.  At any time instant during the
   decoding process there may be one active picture parameter set (for
   the layer representation with the highest value of (dependency_id *
   16 + quality_id)) and one or more active layer picture parameter
   set(s) (for layer representations with lower values of
   (dependency_id * 16 + quality_id)).  The active picture parameter
   set or an active layer picture parameter set remains unchanged
   throughout a layer representation in which the active picture
   parameter set or active layer picture parameter set is referred to,
   but may change from one AU to the next.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


5.3 Network Abstraction Layer Units

   The NAL unit organization is central to [ H.264], RFC 3984, as well
   as this memo. In addition to the NAL unit types defined originally
   for H.264/AVC, [H.264]introduces two new NAL unit types for SVC
   (among others): SVC VCL NAL units ("slice in scalable extension",
   type 20), and prefix NAL units (type 14). SVC VCL NAL units
   encapsulate VCL data as defined in Annex G of [H.264].  The prefix
   NAL unithas no payload of its own, and instead includes descriptive
   information of the associated H.264/AVC VCL NAL unit (type 1 or 5)
   that immediately follows the prefix NAL unit.

   In addition to the NAL unit types introduced for packetization
   purposes in RFC 2984, this memo also introduces two new NAL unit
   types to facilitate packetization (PACSI and NI-MTAP, specified in
   detail later on). The following table gives an overview of NAL unit
   and packet types used in this memo and also provides references to
   the appropriate document and section where their use is defined.

   Table 1.  Summary of NAL unit and packet types used in this memo



   Type  Description                Definition in: [RC3984] / this memo

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   0     unspecified                                  -     / -

   1-23  NAL unit per [H.264]/Single NAL unit packet  5.2   / 6.3

   14    Prefix NAL unit per [SVC]                    -     / 5.1

   15    Subset sequence parameter set per [SVC]      -     / 5.2

   20    Slice in scalable extensions per [SVC]       -     / 5.3

   24    Single-time aggregation packet (STAP-A)      5.7.1 / 6.6

   25    Single-time aggregation packet (STAP-B)      5.7.1 / 6.6

   26    Multi-time aggregation packet (MTAP16)       5.7.2 / 6.6

   27    Multi-time aggregation packet (MTAP24)       5.7.2 / 6.66.7

   28    Fragmentation unit (FU-A)                    5.8   / 6.7



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   29    Fragmentation unit with DON (FU-B)           5.8   / 6.7

   30    Payload Content Scalability Info. (PACSI)    -     / 6.8

   31    unspecified                                  -     / -



   SVC extends the one-byte H.264/AVC NAL unit header by three
   additional octets for NAL units of type 14 and 20.  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.

   The syntax and semantics of the NAL unit header are specified in
   [H.264], but the essential properties of the NAL unit header are
   summarized below for convenience.

   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   |
         +---------------+

   The semantics of the components of the NAL unit type octet, as
   specified in the H.264 specification, are described briefly below.

   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, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   Type: 5 bits
      nal_unit_type.  This component specifies the NAL unit type as
      defined in Table 7-1 of [H.264], 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 [H.264].

      In H.264/AVC, NAL unit types 14, 15 and 20 are reserved for
      future extensions.  SVC uses these three NAL unit types as
      follows: 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 data in scalable extension (see
      Section 7.4.1 in [H.264]).  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 ignore the value of R.

   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
      dependency_id.  This component indicates the inter-layer coding
      dependency level of a layer representation.  At any access unit,
      a layer representation with a given dependency_id may be used for
      inter-layer prediction for coding of a layer representation with
      a higher dependency_id, while a layer representation with a given



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      dependency_id shall not be used for inter-layer prediction for
      coding of a layer representation with a lower dependency_id.

   QID: 4 bits
      quality_id.  This component indicates the quality level of an MGS
      layer representation.  At any access unit and for identical
      dependency_id values, 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 level of a
      layer representation.  The temporal_id is associated with the
      frame rate, with lower values of _temporal_id corresponding to
      lower frame rates.  A layer representation at a given temporal_id
      typically depends on layer representations with lower temporal_id
      values, but it never depends on layer representations with higher
      temporal_id values.

   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 values of
      dependency_id higher than the one of the current NAL unit, in the
      current and all subsequent access units.  Such NAL units can be
      discarded without risking the integrity of layers with higher
      dependency_id values.  discardable_flag equal to 0 indicates that
      the decoding of the NAL unit is required to maintain the
      integrity of layers with higher dependency_id.

   O: 1 bit
      output_flag: Affects the decoded picture output process as
      defined in Annex C of [H.264].

   RR: 2 bits
      reserved_three_2bits.  Reserved bits for future extension.  RR
      MUST be equal to '11' (in binary form).  Receivers SHOULD ignore
      the value of RR.

   This specification extends the semantics of F, NRI, I, PRID, DID,
   QID, TID, U, and D per [H.264] as described in Section 6.4.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


6. RTP Payload Format

6.1Design Principles

   The following design principles have been observed:

   o  Backward compatibility with [RFC3984] wherever possible.

   o  The SVC base layer or any H.264/AVC compatible subset of the SVC
      base layer, when transmitted in its own RTP stream, MUST be
      encapsulated using [RFC3984].  This ensures that such an RTP
      stream can be understood by RFC 3984 receivers.

   o  Media-Aware Network Elements (MANEs) as defined in [RFC3984] are
      signaling-aware and rely on signaling information.  MANEs have
      state.

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

   o  MANEs can perform media-aware stream thinning (selective
      elimination of packets or portions thereof).  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 5.3.  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 apply
   in this memo.

   For NRI, for a 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] apply, i.e., NRI also


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   indicates the relative importance of NAL units.  For a bitstream
   conforming to one of the profiles defined in Annex G of [H.264] and
   transported using this memo, in addition to the semantics specified
   in Annex G of [H.264], NRI also indicates the relative importance of
   NAL units within a layer.

   For I, in addition to the semantics specified in Annex G of [H.264],
   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,
   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, Forward Error
   Correction (FEC), retransmissions, and advanced scheduling behavior,
   whenever possible.

   For PRID, the semantics specified in Annex G of [H.264] 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 an 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 [H.264], 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 [H.264],
   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 [H.264],
   according to this memo, MANEs MAY use this information to determine
   whether a given NAL unit is required for successfully decoding a


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   certain Operation Point of the SVC bitstream, hence to decide
   whether to forward the NAL unit.

6.5 Packetization Modes

6.5.1Packetization Modes for Single-Source Transmission

   Section 5.4 of RFC 3984 applies when using single-source
   transmission.  The packetization modes specified in Section 5.4 of
   RFC 3984 are also referred to as session-specific packetization
   modes.



6.5.2 Packetization Modes for Multi-Source  Transmission

   When multi-source transmission (MST) is used this memo specifies
   four cases of MST  packetization modes:

   o  Non-interleaved timestamp based mode (NI-T);

   o  Non-interleaved cross-session decoding order number (CS-DON)
      based mode (NI-C);

   o  Non-interleaved combined timestamp and CS-DON mode (NI-TC); and

   o  Interleaved CS-DON (I-C) mode.

   These four modes differ in two ways. First, they differ in terms of
   if they require that the NAL units are transmited in NAL unit
   decoding order (non-interleaved) or if they allow them to be
   transmitted in an arbitrary order (interleaved). Second, they differ
   in the mechanisms they provide in order to recover the correct
   decoding order of the NAL units across all RTP sessions involved.

   The NI-T, NI-C, and NI-TC modes do not allow interleaving, and are
   thus targeted for systems that require relatively low end-to-end
   latency, e.g. conversational systems. The I-C mode allows
   interleaving and is thus targeted for systems that do not require
   very low end-to-end latency.

   The NI-T and NI-TC modes use timestamps to recover the decoding
   order of NAL units, whereas NI-TC, NI-C, and I-C all use the CS-DON
   mechanism (explained later on) to do so. Note that the NI-TC mode
   uses both timestamps and the CS-DON method; receivers in this case
   may use either method for performing decoding order recovery.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   The MST packetization mode in use MAY be signaled by the value of
   the OPTIONAL pmode media type parameter or by external means.  When
   the value of pmode is equal to "NI-T", the NI-T mode MUST be used.
   When the value of pmode is equal to "NI-C", the NI-C mode MUST be
   used.  When the value of pmode is equal to "NI-TC" or pmode is not
   present, the NI-TC mode MUST be used.  When the value of pmode is
   equal to "I-C", the I-C mode MUST be used.  [Ed.Note(YkW): There MAY
   be at most one global pmode present in the SDP common for all the
   multiplexed RTP sessions.  It is also possible to have pmode
   session-specific in the SDP, but then all the multiplexed sessions
   MUST have the same value of this parameter.  When pmode is not
   present, the NI-TC mode is implied.]

   The used MST packetization mode governs which session-specific
   packetization modes are allowed in the associated RTP sessions,
   which in turn govern which NAL unit types are allowed as RTP
   payloads.

   Table 2 summarizes the allowed session-specific packetization modes
   for the NI-T, NI-C and NI-TC packetization modes.  Table 3
   summarizes the allowed session-specific packetization modes for the
   I-C packetization mode.

   Table 2  Summary of allowed session-specific packetization modes for
     the NI-T, NI-C and NI-TC packetization modes (yes = allowed, no =
                               disallowed)

      Session-Specific Mode    Base Session    Enhancement Session
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Single NAL Unit Mode         yes             no
      Non-Interleaved Mode         yes            yes
      Interleaved Mode              no             no

   Table 3  Summary of allowed session-specific packetization modes for
       the I-C packetization mode (yes = allowed, no = disallowed)

      Session-Specific Mode    Base Session    Enhancement Session
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Single NAL Unit Mode          no             no
      Non-Interleaved Mode          no             no
      Interleaved Mode             yes            yes

   Table 4 summarizes the allowed NAL unit types for each allowed
   session-specific packetization mode of the NI-T packetization mode.
   Table 5 summarizes the allowed NAL unit types for each allowed
   session-specific packetization mode of the NI-C and NI-TC
   packetization modes.  Table 6 summarizes the allowed NAL unit types


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   for the only allowed session-specific packetization mode (i.e. the
   interleaved mode) of the I-C packetization mode.



   Table 4  Summary of allowed NAL unit types for each session-specific
   packetization mode of the NI-T packetization mode (yes = allowed, no
                        = disallowed, ig = ignore)

      Type   Packet    Single NAL    Non-Interleaved
                       Unit Mode           Mode
      ------------------------------------------------
      0      undefined     ig               ig
      1-23   NAL unit     yes              yes
      24     STAP-A        no              yes
      25     STAP-B        no               no
      26     MTAP16        no               no
      27     MTAP24        no               no
      28     FU-A          no              yes
      29     FU-B          no               no
      30     PACSI         no               yes
      31     NI-MTAP       no              yes

   Table 5  Summary of allowed NAL unit types for each session-specific
    packetization mode of the NI-C and NI-TC packetization modes (yes =
                  allowed, no = disallowed, ig = ignore)

      Type   Packet    Single NAL    Non-Interleaved
                       Unit Mode           Mode
      ------------------------------------------------
      0      undefined     ig               ig
      1-23   NAL unit     yes              yes
      24     STAP-A        no              yes
      25     STAP-B        no               no
      26     MTAP16        no               no
      27     MTAP24        no               no
      28     FU-A          no              yes
      29     FU-B          no               no
      30     PACSI        yes              yes
      31     NI-MTAP       no              yes









Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008




    Table 6  Summary of allowed NAL unit types for the session-specific
    packetization mode of the I-C packetization mode (yes = allowed, no
                        = disallowed, ig = ignore)

      Type   Packet    Interleaved
                         Mode
      ------------------------------
      0      undefined     ig
      1-23   NAL unit      no
      24     STAP-A        no
      25     STAP-B       yes
      26     MTAP16       yes
      27     MTAP24       yes
      28     FU-A         yes
      29     FU-B         yes
      30     PACSI         yes
      31     undefined     no

   The NAL unit type values indicated as undefined in Tables 3.3, 3.4
   and 3.5 are reserved for future extensions.  NAL units of those
   types SHOULD NOT be sent by a sender and MUST be ignored by a
   receiver.  Note that NAL unit type 30 and 31 are indicated as
   undefined in RFC 3984, therefore RFC 3984 receivers MUST ignore NAL
   units of this type, if present.

6.6 Aggregation Packets

   Please see Section 5.7 of [RFC3984].

6.7 Fragmentation Units (FUs)

   Please see section 5.8 of [RFC3984].

6.8 Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL Unit

   One of the two new NAL unit types specified in this memo is the
   Payload Content Scalability Information (PACSI) NAL unit.  The
   OPTIONAL PACSI NAL unit, if present, MUST be the first NAL unit in
   an aggregation packet or the NAL unit in a single NAL unit packet,
   and it MUST NOT be present in other types of packets.  The PACSI NAL
   unit, when included in an aggregation packet, indicates scalability
   information and other characteristics that are common for all the
   remaining NAL units in the payload of the aggregation packet.
   Furthermore, a PACSI NAL unit MAY contain zero or more SEI NAL
   units.  The PACSI NAL unit makes it easier for MANEs to decide


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   whether to forward/process/discard the aggregation packet containing
   the PACSI NAL unit.  Additional reasons to use PACSI NAL units are
   indicated later on, in the  specification of 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 or decoding order recovery in multi-source transmission.
   Note that the NAL unit type for the PACSI NAL unit (type 30) is
   among the types that are left unspecified in [H.264] 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.

   When a PACSI NAL unit is included in a single NAL unit packet, the
   RTP header and payload header fields of the packet are set according
   to the next non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order.

   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
   discussed in Section 5.35.3.  They are followed by one octet
   containing several flags, then five optional octets, and finally
   zero or more SEI NAL units. Each SEI NAL unit is 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 field DONC is present only if the bit T is
   equal to 1.  The field T MUST be equal to 0 if the aggregation
   packet containing the PACSI NAL unit is not an STAP-A packet.








Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


       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.)          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          DONC (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.
   The term "target NAL unit" is used in the semantics of some fields.
   When the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation packet, a
   "target NAL unit" refers to one or more NAL units that are contained
   in the aggregation packet, but not included in the PACSI NAL unit
   itself, that are in the same access unit as the first NAL unit
   following the PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet.  When the
   PACSI NAL unit is included in a single NAL unit packet, a "target
   NAL unit" refers to the next non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission
   order.

   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 of the aggregation packet is
      equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or if the next non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order
      has the F bit equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in
      a single NAL unit packet).  Otherwise, the F bit MUST be set
      to 0.







Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   o  The NRI field MUST be set to the highest value of NRI field among
      all the remaining NAL units in the payload of the aggregation
      packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or the value of the NRI field of the next non-PACSI NAL
      unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is included
      in a single NAL unit packet).

   o  The Type field MUST be set to 30.

   o  The R bit MUST be set to 1.  Receivers SHOULD ignore the value of
      R.

   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 of the aggregation packet is
      equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or if the I bit of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order is equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).  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 of the aggregation
      packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or the PRID value of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in a
      single NAL unit packet).

   o  The N bit MUST be set to 1 if the N bit of all the remaining NAL
      units in the payload of the aggregation packet is equal to 1
      (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation packet) or
      if the N bit of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order
      is equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in a single
      NAL unit packet).  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 of the aggregation
      packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or the DID value of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in a
      single NAL unit packet).

   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 of the aggregation packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in an aggregation packet) or the QID value of the next
      non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit
      is included in a single NAL unit packet).


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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 of the aggregation packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in an aggregation packet) or the TID value of the next
      non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit
      is included in a single NAL unit packet).

   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 of the aggregation packet is
      equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or if the U bit of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order is equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).  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 (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in an aggregation packet) or if the D bit of the next
      non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order is equal to 1 (when the
      PACSI NAL unit is included in a single NAL unit packet).
      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 of the aggregation packet is
      equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or if the O bit of the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order is equal to 1 (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).  Otherwise, the O bit MUST
      be set to 0.

   o  The RR field MUST be set to '11' (in binary form).  Receivers
      SHOULD ignore the value of RR.

   o  If the X bit is equal to 1, the bits A, P, and C are specified as
      below. Otherwise, the bits A, P, and C are unspecified, and
      receivers MUST ignore these bits.  The X bit SHOULD be identical
      for all the PACSI NAL units in all the RTP sessions carrying the
      same SVC bitstream.

   o  If the Y bit is equal to 1, the OPTIONAL fields TL0PICIDX and
      IDRPICID MUST be present and specified as below, and the bits S
      and E are also specified as below. Otherwise, the fields
      TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID MUST NOT be present, whereas the S and E
      bits are unspecified and receivers MUST ignore these bits.  The Y
      bit SHOULD be identical for all the PACSI NAL units in all the
      RTP sessions carrying the same SVC bitstream.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   o  If the T bit is equal to 1, the OPTIONAL field DONC MUST be
      present and specified as below. Otherwise, the field DONC 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 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 a picture coding structure
      such as IBBP is in use, a 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 a recovery point
      SEI message.  The A bit offers direct access to this information,
      without having to parse the recovery point SEI message, which may
      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 remaining NAL units in the
      payload of the aggregation packet have redundant_pic_cnt greater
      than 0 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation
      packet) or the next non-PACSI NAL unit in transmission order has
      redundant_pic_cnt greater than 0 (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).  Otherwise, the P bit MUST
      be set to 0.

      Informative note: The P bit indicates whether a packet can be
      discarded because it contains only redundant slice NAL units.
      Without this bit, the corresponding information can be obtained
      from the syntax element redundant_pic_cnt, which is containedin
      the variable-length coded slice header.

   o  The C bit MUST be set to 1 if all the target NAL units belong to
      intra layer representations.  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 a packet contains
      intra slices, which may be the only packets to be forwarded,,
      e.g. when the network conditions are particularly adverse.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in
      an aggregation packet) or if the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order is the first VCL NAL unit, in decoding order,
      of a layer representation (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in
      a single NAL unit packet).  Otherwise, the S bit MUST be set to
      0.

   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 (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in an
      aggregation packet) or if the next non-PACSI NAL unit in
      transmission order is the last VCL NAL unit, in decoding order,
      of a layer representation (when the PACSI NAL unit is included in
      a single NAL unit packet).  Otherwise, the E field MUST be set to
      0.

      Informative note: The S or E bit indicates whether the first or
      last slice, in transmission order, of a layer representation is
      in a 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 efficient playout buffer handling
      similarly to the M bit present 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 [H.264] for the layer
      representation containing the first NAL unit following the PACSI
      NAL unit in the aggregation packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in an aggregation packet) or containing the next non-
      PACSI NAL unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).

   o  When present, the IDRPICID field MUST be set to equal to
      effective_idr_pic_id as specified in Annex G of [H.264] for the
      layer representation containing the first NAL unit following the
      PACSI NAL unit in the aggregation packet (when the PACSI NAL unit
      is included in an aggregation packet) or containing the next non-
      PACSI NAL unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet).

      Informative note: The TL0PICIDX and IDRPICID fields enable the
      detection of the loss of layer representations in the most


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      important temporal layer (0) by receivers as well as MANEs.  SVC
      provides a solution that uses SEI messages, which are harder to
      parse and may not be present in the bitstream at all.

   o  When present, the field DONC indicates the Cross-Session Decoding
      Order Number (CS-DON) for the first NAL unit of the remaining NAL
      units in the aggregation packet (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in an aggregation packet) or the CS-DON of the next non-
      PACSI NAL unit in transmission order (when the PACSI NAL unit is
      included in a single NAL unit packet). The CS-DON is further
      discussed in Section 6.10.

   The PACSI NAL unit SHALL include a subset (zero to all) of the SEI
   NAL units associated with the access unit to which the target NAL
   units belong, and SHALL NOT contain SEI NAL units associated with
   any other access unit. [Ed. (AE): Is the intention here to say: if
   the AU has SEI messages, then they must all be included in the
   PACSI. Or to say that the PACSI MAY include one or more of the SEI
   NAL units..., i.e., to make it an option? The Informative note below
   seems to indicate the latter (it uses the word "may").]

      Informative note: Senders may repeat such SEI NAL units in the
      PACSI NAL unit, so that they are repeated in more than one packet
      and thus increase robustness against packet loss. 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 of the packets comprising an access unit.

   When the PACSI NAL unit is included in an aggregation packet, an SEI
   message SHOULD NOT be included in the PACSI NAL unit and included in
   one of the remaining NAL units contained in the same aggregation
   packet.

6.9 Non-Interleaved Multi-Time Aggregation Packets (NI-MTAPs)

   The second new NAL unit type introduced in this memois the Non-
   Interleaved Multi-Time Aggregation packet (NI-MTAP).  An NI-MTAP
   consists of zero or more non-interleaved multi-time aggregation
   units, as shown in Figure 2.

   Informative note: The rule above differs from the constraint on
   aggregation packets present in [RFC3984], where at least one NAL
   unit must be contained in the aggregation packet.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   The NI-MTAP consists of 16 bits of unsigned size information of the
   following NAL unit (in network byte order), and 16 bits (in network
   byte order) of timestamp offset (TS offset) for this NAL unit.

   The structure of the multi-time aggregation units for the NI-MTAP is
   presented in Figure 2.  The starting or ending position of an
   aggregation unit within a packet MAY not be on a 32-bit word
   boundary.  The NAL units in the NI-MTAP are ordered in NAL unit
   decoding order.

   The term NAL unit Effective Timestamp (ETS) is defined as the value
   that the RTP timestamp would have if the particular NAL unit was
   transported in its own RTP packet. This value is different from the
   actual RTP timestamp present in the packet carrying the particular
   NAL units in MTAP packets.

   Let ETS be the effective timestamp of a NAL unit and TS the actual
   RTP timestamp of the packet carrying the NAL unit. The timestamp
   offset field MUST be set to a value equal to the value of the
   following formula: If ETS >= TS, then TS offset = ETS - TS.  If ETS
   < TS, then TS offset = ETS + (2^32 - TS).

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :        NAL unit size          |        TS offset              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                         NAL unit                              |
   |                                                               |
   |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 2  Non-interleaved Multi-time aggregation unit for
                                     NI-MTAP

   For the "earliest" multi-time aggregation unit in an MTAP the
   timestamp offset MUST be zero.  Hence, the RTP timestamp of the MTAP
   itself is identical to the earliest NAL unit effective timestamp.

   Informative note: The "earliest" multi-time aggregation unit is the
   one that would have the smallest extended RTP timestamp among all
   the aggregation units of an MTAP if the aggregation units were
   encapsulated in single NAL unit packets.  An extended timestamp is a
   timestamp that has more than 32 bits and is capable of counting the
   wraparound of the timestamp field, thus enabling one to determine


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   the smallest value if the timestamp wraps.  Such an "earliest"
   aggregation unit may not be the first one in the order in which the
   aggregation units are encapsulated in an NI-MTAP.  The "earliest"
   NAL unit need not be the same as the first NAL unit in the NAL unit
   decoding order either.

   Figure 3 presents an example of an RTP packet that contains an NI-
   MTAP multi-time aggregation packet that contains two non-interleaved
   multi-time aggregation units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          RTP Header                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |NI-MTAPNAL HDR |            NALU 1 Size        | NALU 1 TS Off.|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | NALU 1 TS Off.|  NALU 1 HDR   |    NALU 1 DATA                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   :                                                               :
   ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
   |            NALU 2 SIZE        |       NALU 2 TS Offset        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  NALU 2 HDR   |    NALU 2 DATA                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               |
   :                                                               :
   |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 3  An RTP packet including a NI-MTAP non-interleaved
           multi-time aggregation packet and two non-interleaved multi-
                              time aggregation units

6.10 Decoding Order Number (DON)

   The DON concept is introduced in RFC 3984 and is used to recover the
   decoding order when interleaving is used within a single session.
   Section 5.5 of [RFC3984] applies when using SST.

   When using MST, it is necessary to recover the decoding order across
   the various RTP sessions regardless if interleaving is used or not.
   In addition to the timestamp mechanism desribed later on, the CS-DON
   mechanism is an extension of the DON facility that can be used for
   this purpose, and is defined in the following section.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


6.10.1 Cross-Session DON (CS-DON) for Multi-Source Transmission

   The Cross-Session Decoding Order Number (CS-DON) is a number that
   indicates the decoding order of NAL units across all sessions
   involved in MST. It is similar to the DON concept in [H.264], but
   contrary to RFC 3984 where the DON was used only for interleaved
   packetization, in this memo it is used not only in the interleaved
   mode (I-C) but also in two of the non-interleaved modes as well (NI-
   C and NI-TC).

   When the NI-C or NI-TC MST packetization modes are in use, the
   packetization of each session MUST be as specified in Section 7.1.
   In PACSI NAL units the CS-DON value is explicitly coded in the field
   DONC. For non-PACSI NAL units the CS-DON value is derived as
   follows. Let SN indicate the RTP sequence number of a packet, and
   recall that the NAL unit effective timestamp (ETS) was defined in
   Section 6.9 as the value that the RTP timestamp would have if that
   NAL unit would be transported in its own RTP packet.

   o  For each non-PACSI NAL unit carried in a session using the single
      NAL unit session-specific packetization mode, the CS-DON value of
      the NAL unit is equal to (DONC_prev_PACSI + SN_diff - 1) % 65536,
      wherein '%' is the modulo operation, DONC_prev_PACSI is the DONC
      value of the previous PACSI NAL unit with the same ETS as the
      current NAL unit, and SN_diff is calculated as follows:

                 if SN1 > SN2, SN_diff = SN1 - SN2
                 else SN_diff = SN2 + 65536 - SN1

     where SN1 and SN2 are the SNs of the current NAL unit and the
     previous PACSI NAL unit with the same ETS, respectively.

   o  For non-PACSI NAL units carried in a session using a non-
      interleaved session-specific packetization mode (NI-TC, NI-C),
      the CS-DON value of each non-PACSI NAL unit is derived as
      follows.

       . For a non-PACSI NAL unit in a single NAL unit packet, the
          following applies.

            . If the previous PACSI NAL unit is contained in a single
               NAL unit packet, the CS-DON value of the NAL unit is
               calculated as above when the single NAL unit session-
               specific packetization mode is in use;





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


            . otherwise (the previous PACSI NAL unit is contained in
               an STAP-A packet), the CS-DON value of the NAL unit is
               equal to: (the CS-DON value of the previous non-PACSI
               NAL unit in decoding order + 1) % 65536, where '%' is
               the modulo operation.

       . For a non-PACSI NAL unit in an STAP-A packet, the following
          applies.

            . If the non-PACSI NAL unit is the first non-PACSI NAL
               unit in the STAP-A packet, the CS-DON value of the NAL
               unit is equal to DONC of the PACSI NAL unit in the STAP-
               A packet;

            . otherwise (the non-PACSI NAL unit is not the first non-
               PACSI NAL unit in the STAP-A packet), the CS-DON value
               of the NAL unit is equal to: (the CS-DON value of the
               previous non-PACSI NAL unit in decoding order + 1) %
               65536, wherein '%' is the modulo operation.

       . For a non-PACSI NAL unit in a number of FU-A packets, the CS-
          DON value of the NAL unit is calculated as above when the
          single NAL unit session-specific packetization mode is in
          use, with SN1 being the SN value of the first FU-A packet.

   When the I-C MST packetization mode is in use, the DON values
   derived according to RFC 3984 of all the NAL units in each of the
   multiplexed RTP sessions MUST indicate CS-DON values.

7. Packetization Rules

   Section 6 of [RFC3984] applies in this memo, with the following
   additions.

   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 use of single NAL
   unit packetization mode (packetization-mode equal to 0) SHOULD be
   avoided whenever possible, because encapsulating NAL units of small
   sizes in their own packets (e.g. small NAL units containing
   parameter sets, prefix NAL units, or SEI messages) is less efficient
   due to the packet header overhead.

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

      Informative note: The non-interleaved mode does allow an
      application to encapsulate a single NAL unit in a single RTP


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      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.  The implementation complexity increase for supporting the
      additional mechanisms of the non-interleaved mode (namely STAP-A
      and FU-A) is minor, whereas the benefits are significant. As a
      result, STAP-A and FU-A implementation is required.

   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 and the NAL unit with which it is associated, and
   which follows the prefix NAL unit in decoding order, SHOULD be
   included in the same aggregation packet whenever an aggregation
   packet is used for the associated NAL unit.

      Informative note: Although the prefix NAL unit is ignored by an
      H.264/AVC decoder, it is necessary in the SVC decoding process.
      Given the small size of the prefix NAL unit, it is best if it is
      transported in the same RTP packet as its associated NAL unit.

   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.

7.1 Packetization Rules for Multi-Source Transmission

   When MST is used, decoding order recovery for NAL units carried in
   the associated RTP sessions is needed.  The following packetization
   rules ensure that decoding order of NAL units carried in the
   sessions can be correctly recovered for each of the MST
   packetization modes using the de-packetization process specified in
   Section 8.1.

   The NI-T and NI-TC modes rely on timestamps to recover the decoding
   order. In order to be able to do so, it is necessary for the SVC
   stream to contain data for all sampling instances of a given layer
   in all enhancement layers that depend on the given layer. The NI-TC,
   NI-C, and I-C modes do not have this limitation, and use the CS-DON
   value as a means to explicitly indicate decoding order, either
   direcly coded in PACSI NAL units, or inferred from them using the
   packetization rules. It is noted that the NI-TC mode offers both
   techniques and it is up to the receiver to select which one to use.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


7.1.1 NI-T / NI-TC Packetization Rules

  When the NI-T or NI-TC packetization mode is in use, the following
  applies.

   o  If one or more NAL units of an access unit of sampling time
      instance t is present in RTP session A, then one or more NAL
      units of the same access unit of the same sampling time instance
      t MUST be present in any enhancement RTP session which depends on
      RTP session A.

      Informative note: There are multiple ways to insert additional
      NAL units in order to satisfy this rule:

         - One option for adding additional NAL units is to place NI-
         MTAP packets (defined in Section 6.9), and not include any
         aggregation packet in the payload.  Although empty, these
         packets are used by the process described in Section 8.1.1 for
         the access unit re-ordering process.

         - Additional NAL units may also be added by repeating prefix
         NAL units (NAL unit type 14).  Before passing NAL units to the
         decoder re-ordering of the access unit as described in Section
         8.1.1 is needed.  This may only be possible for access units
         which contain base layer NAL units.  [Ed. (TS): It may be
         useful to indicate in the SDP parameters that additional NAL
         unit re-ordering as specified in 7.1.4 is not required.][Ed.
         (AE): I don't understand this comment.]

         - Additional NAL units may also be added by placing single NAL
         unit packets containing exactly one PACSI NAL unit in the
         enhancement RTP sessions.

         - Additional NAL units may also be added by the encoder
         itself.  This option, however, may not be available with pre-
         encoded content.

   o  When not using NI-TC mode and a PACSI NAL unit is present, the T
      bit MUST be equal to 0, i.e. the DONC field MUST NOT be present.

7.1.2 NI-C / NI-TC Packetization Rules

   When the NI-C or NI-TC packetization mode is in use, the following
   applies.





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   o  For each single NAL unit packet containing a non-PACSI NAL unit,
      the previous packet, if present, MUST have the same RTP timestamp
      as the single NAL unit packet, and the following applies.

       . If the ETS of the non-PACSI NAL unit is not equal to the ETS
          of the previous non-PACSI NAL unit in decoding order, the
          previous packet MUST contain a PACSI NAL unit containing the
          DONC field;

       . Otherwise (the ETS of the non-PACSI NAL unit is equal to the
          ETS of the previous non-PACSI NAL unit in decoding order),
          the previous packet MAY contain a PACSI NAL unit containing
          the DONC field.

   o  For each STAP-A packet, the first NAL unit in the STAP-A packet,
      if present,  MUST be a PACSI NAL unit containing the DONC field.
      [Ed. (AE): Is it possible to have an empty STAP-A? Or was the "if
      present" superfluous?]

   o  For each FU-A packet, if present, the previous packet MUST have
      the same RTP timestamp as the FU-A packet, and the following
      applies. [Ed. (AE): See the previous comment for STAP-A,
      regarding the "if present" part.]

       . If the FU-A packet is the start of the fragmented NAL unit,
          the following applies;

            . If the ETS of the fragmented NAL unit is not equal to
               the ETS of the previous non-PACSI NAL unit in decoding
               order, the previous packet MUST contain a PACSI NAL unit
               containing the DONC field;

            . Otherwise (the ETS of the fragmented NAL unit is equal
               to the ETS of the previous non-PACSI NAL unit in
               decoding order), the previous packet MAY contain a PACSI
               NAL unit containing the DONC field.

       . Otherwise if the FU-A packet is the end of the fragmented NAL
          unit, the following applies.

            . If the next non-PACSI NAL unit in decoding order has ETS
               equal to the ETS of the fragmented NAL unit, and is
               carried in a number of FU-A packets or a single NAL unit
               packet, the next packet MUST be a single NAL unit packet
               containing a PACSI NAL unit containing the DONC field.
               [Ed. (AE): Does this mean I am inserting a single RTP
               packet with just PACSI in it? Just to make sure.]


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


       . Otherwise (the FU-A packet is neither the start nor the end of
          the fragmented NAL unit), the previous packet MUST be a FU-A
          packet.

   o  For each single NAL unit packet containing a PACSI NAL unit, if
      present, the PACSI NAL unit MUST contain the DONC field.

7.1.3 I-C Packetization Rules

   When the I-C session-multiplexing packetization mode is in use, the
   following applies.

   o  When a PACSI NAL unit is present, the T bit MUST be equal to 0,
      i.e., the DONC field MUST NOT be present.[Ed. (AE): Why?
      Revisit.]

7.1.4 Packetization Rules for Non-VCL NAL Units

   NAL units which do not directly encode video slices are known in
   H.264 as non-VCL NAL units.  Non-VCL units that are only used by, or
   only relevant to, enhancement RTP sessions SHOULD be sent in the
   lowest session to which they are relevant.

   Some senders, however, such as those sending pre-encoded data, might
   not be able to easily determine which non-VCL units are relevant to
   which session.  Thus, essential non-VCL NAL units (parameter sets
   sent in-band, i.e., NAL unit types 7, 8, 13, and 15) MAY, instead,
   be sent in session that the one they are used by depends on (e.g.,
   the base RTP session), and non-essential non-VCL NAL units MAY be
   sent in any RTP session.

   If a non-VCL unit is relevant to more than one RTP session, neither
   of which depends on the other(s), the NAL unit MAY be sent in
   another session which all these sessions depend on. Alternatively,
   it MAY be repeated in all such sessions.  In general, identical non-
   VCL units MAY be sent in more than one session for redundancy.  [Ed.
   (JL): Can this cause issues with HRD timing?]

7.1.5 Packetization Rules for Prefix NAL Units

   When the base layer is sent on an RTP session using the Non-
   Interleaved or the Interleaved mode, prefix NAL units SHOULD be
   aggregated (using STAP-A or STAP-B units) with the NAL unit they
   prefix, unless this would violate session MTU constraints or if
   fragmentation units are used.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   If the base layer is sent in a base RTP session using RFC 3984,
   prefix NAL units MAY be sent in the lowest enhancement RTP session
   rather than in the base RTP session.

8. De-Packetization Process

   For single-source transmission where a single RTP session is used,
   the de-packetization process specified in Section 7 of [RFC3984]
   applies. [Ed. (??): 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 multi-source transmission, where more than one RTP sessions are
   used to receive data from the same SVC bitstream, the de-
   packetization process is specified in Section 8.1.

8.1 De-Packetization Process for Multi-Source Transmission

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

   The sessions to be received SHALL be identified by mechanisms
   specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency]. Enhancement RTP
   sessions typically contain an RTP stream that depends on at least
   one other RTP session, as indicated by mechanisms defined in [I-
   D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency]. A lower RTP session to an
   enhancement RTP session is an RTP session which the enhancement RTP
   session depends on. The lowest RTP session for a receiver is the
   base RTP session, which does not depend on any other RTP session
   received by the receiver.  The highest RTP session for a receiver is
   the RTP session which no other RTP session received by the receiver
   depends on.

   For each of the RTP sessions, the RTP reception process as specified
   in RFC 3550 is applied.  Then the received packets are passed in
   increasing order of sequence number into the payload de-
   packetization to NAL units as defined in this memo.

   The decoding order of the NAL units carried in all the associated
   RTP sessions is then recovered by applying one of the following
   subsections, depending on which of the MST packetization modes is in
   use.






Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


8.1.1 Decoding Order Recovery for the NI-T and NI-TC Modes

   The following process SHALL be applied when the NI-T packetization
   mode is in use.  The following process MAY be applied when the NI-TC
   packetization mode is in use.

   The process is based on RTP session dependency signaling, RTP
   sequence numbers, and timestamps.

   The decoding order of NAL units within an RTP packet stream in RTP
   session S is given by the ordering of sequence numbers SN of the RTP
   packets the NAL units are contained in.  In an aggregation packet
   contained in an RTP packet the decoding order is given by the order
   of appearance of the NAL units within the packet. The RTP session
   identifier S gives the increasing order of dependency of the
   received RTP sessions as indicated by mechanisms specified in
   Section 9.2.3, where S equal to 0 identifies the base RTP session.
   [Ed. (AE): Does the mmusic draft excplicitly order the session ID's
   by dependency? I coulnd't find it in the text.]

   Timing information according to the media timestamp TS(SN) derived
   from the RTP packet timestamp of the RTP packet with sequence number
   SN is associated with all NAL units contained in the same RTP packet
   received in RTP session S.  For NI-MTAP packets the effective
   timstamp ETS is derived for each contained NAL unit by using the "TS
   offset" value in the NI-MTAP packet as defined in 6.9, and is used
   instead of the actual TS. NAL units contained in fragmentation
   packets are handled as defragmented, entire NAL units with their own
   timestamp. All NAL units associated with the same value of media
   timestamp TS are part of the same access unit AU(TS).

   Each NI-MTAP packet which does not contain any aggregation units or
   each PACSI NAL unit in a single NAL unit packet SHOULD be kept as,
   effectively, access unit indicators in the re-ordering process.  NI-
   MTAP or PACSI NAL units SHOULD be removed before passing access unit
   data to the decoder.

         Informative Note: These special (essentially, empty) NI-MTAP
         and PACSI NAL units are used to associate NAL units present in
         other RTP sessions with RTP sessions not containing any data
         for an access unit of a particular time instance. They act as
         access unit indicators in sessions that would otherwise
         contain no data for the particular access unit. The presence
         of these NAL units is ensured by the packetization rules in
         Section 7.1.1.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   The decoding order of NAL units from multiple RTP streams in
   multiple RTP sessions SHALL be recovered into a single sequence of
   NAL units, grouped into access units, by performing the following
   steps:

       o The process SHOULD be started with the NAL units received in
          the highest RTP enhancement session with the earliest
          timestamp TS available in the session's (de-jittering)
          buffer.

       o  Collect all NAL units associated with the same value of
          timestamp TS, starting from the highest RTP enhancement
          session, from all the (de-jittering) buffers of the received
          RTP sessions. The collected NAL units will be those
          associated with the access unit AU(TS).

       o  Place the collected NAL units in increasing order of session
          identifier S.

       o  Place the ordered collected NAL units in decoding order
          within the particular access unit by satisfying the NAL unit
          ordering rules for SVC access units, as specified in the
          informative algorithm provided in Section 8.1.1.1.

       o  Remove NI-MTAP and any PACSI NAL units from the access unit
          AU(TS).

       o  The access units MAY be transferred to the decoder.  If
          access units AU(TS) are transferred to the decoder, they
          SHALL be passed in the order of appearance (given by the
          order of RTP sequence numbers) of timestamp values TS in the
          highest RTP session associated with access unit AU(TS).

            Informative Note: Due to packet loss it is possible that
            not all sessions may have NAL units present for the
            timestamp value TS present in the highest RTP session. In
            such a case an algorithm may:
            a) proceed to the next complete access unit with NAL units
            present in all the received RTP sessions; or
            b) consider the highest RTP session to be the largest
            session identifier for which the access unit is complete,
            and apply the process above. The algorithm may return to
            the original highest RTP session when a complete and error-
            free access unit that contains NAL units in all the
            sessions is received.

   Informative example:


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   The example shown in Figure 4 refers to three RTP sessions A, B and
   C containing an SVC bitstream transmitted as 3 sources.  In the
   example, the dependency signaling as described in Section 9.2.3,
   indicates that session A is the base RTP session, B is the first
   enhancement RTP session and depends on A, and C is the second RTP
   enhancement session and depends on A and B. A hierarchical picture
   coding prediction structure is used, in which Session A has the
   lowest frame rate and Session B and C have the same but higher frame
   rate. The figure indicates decoding order numbers for NAL units in
   the various packets across the sessions, as well as the associated
   media timestamps (TS[]).  The example demonstrates decoding order
   recovery when differenta amounts of jitter is present in each of the
   sessions (i.e., i.e., at buffering startup not all packets with the
   same timestamp are available in all the de-jittering buffers.

   The process first proceeds to the NAL units associated with the
   first timestamp TS[1] present in session C and removes/ignores all
   preceding NAL units to NAL units with TS[1] in each of the de-
   jittering buffers of RTP sessions A, B, and C.  Then, starting from
   session C, the first timestamp available in decoding order (TS [1])
   is selected and NAL units starting from RTP session A, and sessions
   B and C are placed in order of the RTP session dependency (in the
   example for TS[1]: first session B and then session C) into the
   access unit AU(TS[1]) associated with timestamp TS[1].  Then the
   next timestamp TS[3] in order of appearance in the highest RTP
   session C is processed and the process described above is repeated.
   Note that there may be access units with no NAL units present, e.g.,
   in the lowest RTP session A (see, e.g., TS[1]).  With TS[8], the
   first access unit with NAL units present in all the RTP sessions
   appears in the buffers.


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


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


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


                            in a RTP session
   '|'                    - indicates corresponding NAL units of the
                            same access unit AU(TS[..]) in the RTP
                            sessions
   Integer values in '[]' - media Timestamp (TS), sampling time as
                            derived from RTP timestamps associated to
                            the access unit AU(TS[..]).

           Figure 4  Example of decoding order recovery in multi-source
              transmission with different session jitter at startup.

8.1.1.1 Informative Algorithm for NI-T Decoding Order Recovery within
   an Access Unit

   Within an access unit, the [H.264] specification (Sections 7.4.1.2.3
   and G.7.4.1.2.3) constrains the valid decoding order of NAL units.
   These constraints make it possible to reconstruct a valid decoding
   order for the NAL units of an access unit based only on the order of
   NAL units in each session, the NAL unit headers, and Supplemental
   Enhancement Information message headers.

   This section specifies an informative algorithm to reconstruct a
   valid decoding order for NAL units within an access unit.  Other NAL
   unit orderings may also be valid; however, any compliant NAL unit
   ordering will describe the same video stream and ancillary data as
   the one produced by this algorithm.

   An actual implementation, of course, needs only to behave "as if"
   this reordering is done.  In particular, NAL units which are
   discarded by an implementation's decoding process do not need to be
   reordered.

   In this algorithm, NAL units within an access unit are first ordered
   by NAL unit type, in the order specified in the list below, except
   from NAL unit type 14 which is handled specially as described.  NAL
   units of the same type are then ordered as specified for the type,
   if necessary.

   For the purposes of this algorithm, "session order" is the order of
   NAL units implied by their transmission order within an RTP session.
   For the Non-Interleaved and Single NAL unit modes, this is the RTP
   sequence number order coupled with the order of NAL units within an
   aggregation unit.

     o  9           Access unit delimiter



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         Only one access unit delimiter will be present within an
         access unit.

     o  7           Sequence parameter set

         Any order of sequence parameter sets within an access unit is
         valid.

     o  13          Sequence parameter set extension

         Any order of sequence parameter set extensions within an
         access unit is valid.

     o  15          Subset sequence parameter set

         Any order of subset sequence parameter sets within an access
         unit is valid.

     o  8           Picture parameter set

         Any order of picture parameter sets within an access unit is
         valid.

     o  6           Supplemental enhancement information (SEI)

         If an SEI message with a first payload of 0 (Buffering Period)
         is present, it must be the first SEI.

         If SEI messages with a Scalable Nesting (30) payload and a
         nested payload of 0 (Buffering Period) are present, these then
         follow.  Such an SEI message with the
         all_layer_representations_in_au_flag equal to 1 is placed
         first, followed by any others, sorted in DQId order by the
         highest DQId mentioned.

         All other SEI messages follow in any order.

     o  1           Coded slice of a non-IDR picture

     o  5           Coded slice of an IDR picture

     o  14          Prefix NAL unit in scalable extension

         NAL units of type 1 or 5 will be sent within only a single
         session for any given access unit. They are placed in session
         order.  (Note: Any given access unit will contain only NAL
         units of type 1 or type 5, not both.)


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         If NAL units of type 14 are present, every NAL unit of type 1
         or 5 is prefixed by a NAL unit of type 14.  (Note: Within an
         access unit, every NAL unit of type 14 is identical, so
         correlation of type 14 NAL units with the other NAL units is
         not necessary.) [Ed. (AE): Shouldn't this go before #5??]`

     o  12          Filler data

     o  14          Prefix NAL unit in scalable extension

         Any order of filler data units within an access unit is valid.
         [Ed. (AE): Shouldn't this move up, below #12?]

         If NAL units of type 14 are present, every filler data NAL
         unit is prefixed by a NAL unit of type 14.

     o  2           Coded slice data partition A

     o  3           Coded slice data partition B

     o  4           Coded slice data partition C

         These NAL units will be sent within only a single session for
         any given access unit, and are placed in session order.
         (Note: No current SVC profile uses slice data partitioning.)



     o  19          Coded slice of an auxiliary coded picture without
        partitioning

        These NAL units will be sent within only a single session for
        any given access unit, and are placed in session order.

     o  16-18       Reserved

     o  21-23       Reserved

         These are placed immediately following the non-reserved-type
         VCL NAL unit they follow in session order.

     o  20          Coded slice in scalable extension

         These are placed in DQId order, based on the dependency_id and
         quality_id values in the slice's NAL unit header extension.
         Within each DQId, they are placed in session order.  (Note:



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         SVC slices with a given DQId value will be sent on a single
         session for any given access unit.)

     o  10          End of sequence

         Only one end of sequence will be present within an access
         unit.

     o  11          End of stream

         Only one end of stream will be present within an access unit.

   [Ed. (AE): This list needs reformatting as a table.]

8.1.2 Decoding Order Recovery for the NI-C, NI-TC and I-C Modes

   The following process SHALL be used when either the NI-C or I-C MST
   packetization mode is in use.  The following process MAY be applied
   when the NI-TC MST packetization mode is in use.

   The RTP packets output from the RTP-level reception processing for
   each session are placed into a remultiplexing buffer.
   [Ed.Note(YkW): Add handling of some cases of packet losses when the
   NI-C or NI-TC mode is in use, that discards some received NAL units
   for which the CS-DON value cannot be derived.]

   It is RECOMMENDED to set the size of the remultiplexing buffer (in
   bytes) equal to or greater than the value of the sprop-remux-buf-req
   media type parameter of the highest RTP session the receiver
   receives.

   The CS-DON value 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 8.1 of RFC 3984.

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

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

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



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   o  There are N or more VCL NAL units in the remultiplexing buffer.

   o  If sprop-mst-max-don-diff of the highest RTP session is present,
      don_diff(m,n) is greater than the value of sprop-mst-max-don-diff
      of the highest RTP session, where 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-remux-init-buf-time media
      type parameter of the highest RTP session.

   The NAL units to be removed from the remultiplexing buffer are
   determined as follows:

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

   o  If sprop-mst-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
      remultiplexing 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
      remultiplexing 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 CS-DON, a CS-DON
      distance is calculated as follows.  If the value of CS-DON of the
      NAL unit is larger than the value of PDON, the CS-DON distance is
      equal to CS-DON - PDON.  Otherwise, the CS-DON distance is equal
      to 65535 - PDON + CS-DON + 1.

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





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   o  When a desired number of NAL units have been passed to the
      decoder, the value of PDON is set to the value of CS-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.

   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 that the receiver ignores unspecified
      parameters 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 provision is also present in RFC 3984.

   Media Type name:     video

   Media subtype name:  H264-SVC

   [Ed. (??): Text on "H264" must go into different section, see
   Colin's comments sent on 10 June 2008]The media subtype "H264" MUST


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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.
   [Edt. Note: 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, 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 [H.264]: 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 [H.264],
         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
         [H.264] 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 G.7.4.2.1.1 of [H.264].
         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 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, 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


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         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 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:
         The common property of these parameters is as specified in RFC
         3984.

      max-mbps: This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      max-fs: This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      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.10.2.2 item g of
         [H.264]) and in units of 1200 bits for the NAL HRD parameters
         (see A.3.1 item j or G.10.2.2 item h of [H.264]).  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
         of [H.264] 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
         of [H.264].  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 of [H.264].

            Informative note: The coded picture buffer is used in the
            Hypothetical Reference Decoder (HRD, Annex C) of [H.264].
            The use of the HRD is recommended in SVC encoders to verify


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


            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 remultiplexing and de-jitter
            buffers.  The coded picture buffer need not be implemented
            in decoders as specified in Annex C of [H.264]; 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 the remultiplexing and de-
            jitter buffers of the receiver.

      max-dpb: This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      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.10.2.2 item g of
         [H.264]) and in units of 1200 bits per second for the NAL HRD
         parameters (see A.3.1 item j or G.10.2.2 item h of [H.264]).

         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 of the
            signaled level (in Table A-1 of [H.264]).

         o When the max-cpb parameter is not present, the result of
            the following formula replaces the value of MaxCPB in Table
            A-1 of [H.264]: (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 of [H.264].


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         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 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 is as specified in RFC 3984.

      sprop-parameter-sets:
         This parameter MAY be used to convey any sequence parameter
         set, subset sequence parameter set 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 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 of [H.264].  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 that decodes a certain payload type.

      parameter-add:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      packetization-mode:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      sprop-interleaving-depth:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      sprop-deint-buf-req:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      deint-buf-cap:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      sprop-init-buf-time:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      sprop-max-don-diff:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      max-rcmd-nalu-size:
         This parameter is as specified in RFC 3984.

      pmode:
         This parameter signals the properties of a NAL unit stream
         carried in more than one RTP session using session
         multiplexing or the capabilities of a receiver implementation.
         When the value of pmode is equal to "NI-T", the NI-T mode MUST
         be used.  When the value of pmode is equal to "NI-C", the NI-C
         mode MUST be used.  When the value of pmode is equal to "NI-
         TC" or pmode is not present, the NI-TC mode MUST be used.
         When the value of pmode is equal to "I-C", the I-C mode MUST
         be used.  The value of pmode MUST have one of the following
         tokens: "NI-T", "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C".  This parameter
         MUST NOT be present, when "packetization-mode" is present.

      sprop-mst-interleave-depth:
         This parameter MUST NOT be present when the value of pmode is
         equal to "NI-T".  This parameter MUST be present when the
         value of pmode is equal to "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C" or pmode
         is not present.

         This parameter signals the properties of a NAL unit stream
         carried in the current RTP session and the RTP sessions the
         current RTP session depends on.  It is guaranteed that
         receivers can reconstruct NAL unit decoding order as specified
         in Subsection 8.1.2 of this memo when the remultiplexing
         buffer size is at least the value of sprop-mst-interleave-
         depth + 1 in terms of VCL NAL units. [Ed. (AE): But you don't


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         say what's the property explicitly. Only what it guarantees.
         Is it interleaving depth?]

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

      sprop-remux-buf-req:
         This parameter MUST NOT be present when the value of pmode is
         equal to "NI-T".  It MUST be present when pmode is not present
         or the value of pmode is equal to "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C".

         sprop-remux-buf-req signals the required size of the
         remultiplexing buffer for the NAL unit stream carried in the
         current RTP session and the RTP sessions the current RTP
         session depends on.  It is guaranteed that receivers can
         recover the decoding order of the received NAL units from the
         current RTP session and the RTP sessions the current RTP
         session depends on as specified in section 8.1.2, when the
         remultiplexing buffer size is at least the value of sprop-
         remux-buf-req in terms of bytes.

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

      remux-buf-cap:
         This parameter signals the capabilities of a receiver
         implementation and indicates the amount of remultiplexing
         buffer space in units of bytes that the receiver has available
         for recovering the NAL unit decoding order as specified in
         section 8.1.2.  A receiver is able to handle any NAL unit
         stream for which the value of the sprop-remux-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 remux-buf-cap.  The value of remux-buf-cap MUST be an
         integer in the range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.

      sprop-remux-init-buf-time:
         This parameter MAY be used to signal the properties of a NAL
         unit stream carried in the current RTP session and the RTP
         sessions the current RTP session depends on.  The parameter
         MUST NOT be present if pmode is not present or the value of
         pmode is equal to "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C".

         The parameter signals the initial buffering time that a
         receiver MUST wait before starting to recover the NAL unit
         decoding order as specified in Subsection 8.1.2 of this memo.


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         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-remux-init-buf-time
         MUST be an integer in the range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.

      sprop-mst-max-don-diff:
         This parameter MAY be used to signal the properties of a NAL
         unit stream carried in the current RTP session and the RTP
         sessions the current RTP session depends on.  It MUST NOT be
         used to signal transmitter or receiver or codec capabilities.
         The parameter MUST NOT be present if the value of pmode is
         equal to "NI-T".  sprop-mst-max-don-diff is an integer in the
         range of 0 to 32767, inclusive.  If sprop-mst-max-don-diff is
         not present, the value of the parameter is unspecified.
         sprop-mst-max-don-diff is calculated same as sprop-max-don-
         diff as specified in RFC 3984, with decoding order number
         being replaced by cross-session decoding order number.

      sprop-prebuf-size:
         This parameter MAY be present when the current RTP session
         depends on any other RTP session.  This parameter MUST NOT be
         present when pmode is not present or the value of pmode is
         equal to "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C".  sprop-prebuf-size MAY
         signal the required size of the receiver buffer for the NAL
         unit stream per RTP session.  This parameter may be useful to
         compensate the impact of inter-RTP session jitter, 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.

         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.

            [Ed. (AE): None of the sprop-prebuf-* parameters are
            mentioned anywhere else in the spec. Why are they needed?]



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      sprop-prebuf-time:
         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.  This parameter MUST NOT
         be present when pmode is not present or the value of pmode is
         equal to "NI-C", "NI-TC", or "I-C".

         The parameter signals the initial buffering time used for a
         receiver before starting to recover the NAL unit decoding
         order for more than one RTP session. 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.

         [Ed. (YkW): Need to discuss how inter-RTP session jitter
         should be handled in general, and how it works by using sprop-
         prebuf-size and sprop-prebuf-time.]

      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 [H.264].  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.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         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 two sets of the layer
         identification values of the lowest and highest operation
         points conveyed in the RTP session.  Each set is a base16
         representation of a three-character value, with the first
         character representing DID, the second character representing
         QID, and the third character representing TID.  The two sets
         are comma separated.  Let DIDl and DIDh be the lowest DID
         value and the highest DID value, respectively, among all the
         NAL units conveyed in the RTP session. Let QIDl and TIDl be
         the lowest  QID value and the lowest TID value, respectively,
         among all the NAL units that are conveyed in the RTP session
         and that have DID equal to DIDl. Let QIDh and TIDh be the
         highest QID value and the highest  TID value, respectively,
         among all the NAL units that are conveyed in the RTP session
         and that have DID equal to DIDh.  The first set indicates the
         DID, QID and TID values of the lowest operation point, for
         which the DID, QID and TID values are equal to DIDl, QIDl, and
         TIDl, respectively.  The second set indicates the DID, QID and
         TID values of the highest operation point, for which the DID,
         QID and TID values are equal to DIDh, QIDh, and TIDh,
         respectively.

      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 [H.264].

         [Ed. (TS): That is, a SDP capable receiver/middle-box must
         decode the sprop-scalabiltiy-info syntax, which is not
         specified in this memo, to select a scalable-layer-id. This is
         currently not addressed in the offer answer section!]

      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.]



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 59]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         This parameter MAY be used to indicate the property of a
         stream or the capability of a receiver or sender
         implementation.  The value is a base16 of the width and height
         of the spatial resolution, in pixels, separated by a comma.

         [Edt. Note (TS): Shouldn't this be a generic SDP parameter?]

      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 Section 14 of RFC XXXX.

      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.ietf-
   mmusic-decoding-dependency is needed.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 60]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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:

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

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

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

   o  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", "pmode", "sprop-mst-interleave-depth", "sprop-remux-buf-
      req", "remux-buf-cap", "sprop-remux-init-buf-time", "sprop-mst-
      max-don-diff", "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:

   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.


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 61]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         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 "sprop-layer-range" in the answer.[Edt. Note: 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 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.








Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 62]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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", 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.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 63]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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.

      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


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 64]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


         - 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:

         - 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 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, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 65]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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 Multi-Source Transmission

   If MST is used, the rules on signaling media decoding dependency in
   SDP as defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency] apply.

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.





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 66]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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

   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

      Offerer -> Answerer SDP message:



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 67]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      v=0
      o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 192.0.2.12
      s=SVC SDP example
      i=SVC Scalable Video Coding session
      t=2873397496 2873404696
      m=video 20000 RTP/AVP 96 97 98
      a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
      a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=4d400a; packetization-mode=1;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,aP4Eag==;
      a=rtpmap:97 H264-SVC/90000
      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=1;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=rtpmap:98 H264-SVC/90000
      a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2;
      init-buf-time=156320;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;

9.3.2 Example for Offering Session Multiplexing

      Offerer -> Answerer SDP message:

      v=0
      o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 192.0.2.12
      s=SVC Scalable Video Coding session
      i=SDP is an Offer for a session offered by a transcoding entity
      t=2873397496 2873404696
      a=group:DDP 1 2 3
      m=video 20000 RTP/AVP 96 97 98
      a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000
      a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=4d400a; packetization-mode=0;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,aP4Eag==;
      a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
      a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=1;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
      a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=53000c; packetization-mode=2;
      init-buf-time=156320;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=mid:1
      m=video 20002 RTP/AVP 99 100
      a=rtpmap:99 H264-SVC/90000
      a=fmtp:99 profile-level-id=53000c; pmode=NI-T;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 68]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=rtpmap:100 H264-SVC/90000
      a=fmtp:100 profile-level-id=53000c; pmode=I-C;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=mid:2
      a=depend:99 lay 1:96,97; 100 lay 1:98
      m=video 20004 RTP/AVP 101
      a=rtpmap:101 H264-SVC/90000
      a=fmtp:101 profile-level-id=53000c; pmode=NI-TC;
      sprop-parameter-sets=Z01ACprLFicg,Z1MADEsA1NZYWCWQ,aP4Eag==,aEvgR
      qA=,aGvgRiA=;
      a=mid:3
      a=depend:101 lay 1:96,97 2:99

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:



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 69]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   a) within the highest Layer identified by the DIDfield, 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.

   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.]






Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 70]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


13. Informative Appendix: Application Examples

   [Ed. (AE): I think this whole section does not add any real value,
   is outdated, and should be eliminated. In particular, the
   application scenario of the only currently shipping SVC product is
   not even listed here.]

13.1 Introduction

   Scalable video coding is a concept that has been around since at
   least 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.

   ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T VCEG, respectively, performed a requirement
   analysis for the SVC project.  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.  The MPEG and VCEG requirement documents are
   available in [JVT-N026] and [JVT-N027], respectively.

   With these remarks, we now introduce three main application
   scenarios that we consider 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].  Depending on the
   application scenario, it is also possible to convey a number of
   layers in one RTP session, when finer operation points within the
   subset of layers are not needed.

   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, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 71]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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
   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.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 72]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


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
   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


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 73]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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.

13.5 Scenarios Currently Not Considered

   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


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 74]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   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):

   o 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 outdated concept.
     Therefore, the MDfH necessarily needs to be at least "listening"
     to the signaling.

   o 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:

   o 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.





Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 75]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


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
   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                                                  rd                  generic audiovisual services", 3  Edition, November 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency]  Schierl, T., and Wenger, S.,
             "Signaling media decoding dependency in Session
             Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-
             dependency-02 (work in progress), May 2008.

   [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.



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 76]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   [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.

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

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.

   [JVT-N026]  Ohm J.-R., Koenen, R., and Chiariglione, L. (ed.), "SVC
             requirements specified by MPEG (ISO/IEC JTC1 SC29 WG11)",
             JVT-N026, available from http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-
             site/2005_01_HongKongGeneva/JVT-N026.doc, Hong Kong,
             China, January 2005.

   [JVT-N027]  Sullivan, G., and Wiegand, T. (ed.), "SVC requirements
             specified by VCEG (ITU-T SG16 Q.6)", JVT-N027, available
             from http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-
             site/2005_01_HongKongGeneva/JVT-N027.doc, Hong Kong,
             China, January 2005.

   [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.


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 77]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


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

15. Authors' Addresses

   Stephan Wenger
   Nokia
   955 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94304
   USA

   Phone: +1-650-862-7368
   EMail: stewe@stewe.org

   Ye-Kui Wang
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 100
   33721 Tampere
   Finland

   Phone: +358-50-466-7004
   EMail: ye-kui.wang@nokia.com

   Thomas Schierl
   Fraunhofer HHI
   Einsteinufer 37
   D-10587 Berlin



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 78]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   Germany

   Phone: +49-30-31002-227
   Email: schierl@hhi.fhg.de

   Alex Eleftheriadis
   Vidyo, Inc.
   433 Hackensack Ave.
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   USA

   Phone: +1-201-467-5135
   Email: alex@vidyo.com


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 79]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.  Further, the author Thomas Schierl of Fraunhofer
   HHI is sponsored by the European Commission under the contract
   number FP7-ICT-214063, project SEA.  The authors want to thank
   Jonathan Lennox for his valuable comments on and input to the draft.

16. Open Issues

   1) There is a list of remaining issues for decoding order recovery in
     session multiplexing, as documented in editing notes.

   2) A lot of work needed for section9.2 (SDP parameters).

   3) Bugs in RFC 3984 (see the BIS draft) need to be fixed also in the
     memo.

   4) Clarify the usage of the new parameters like sprop-scalability-
     info, relation to SEI and usage in offer/answer.  In the Design
     Team's conference call on 6 May 2008, it was decided that Ye-Kui
     would study and report.

   5) Non-VCL NAL units, e.g. SEI messages and parameter sets, may be
     needed by an enhancement layer but not the base layer. However,
     according to SVC, within an access unit, these non-VCL NAL units
     must precede VCL NAL units in decoding order. In session
     multiplexing, should non-VCL NAL units be transported in the same
     session as the layer that requires the non-VCL NAL unit, or should
     they be always transported in the base session? It may be
     impossible to find out without parsing details which session
     respectively SPS/subset SPS a picture parameter set belongs to. It
     may make sense for simplicity to allow a MANE to include all of
     the non-VCL NAL units within all the sessions.  In the Design


Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 80]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


     Team's conference call on 6 May 2008, it was decided that
     Jonathan/Alex would provide text change for review, including
     handling of prefix NAL units.

   6) sprop-spatial-resolution: do we need this for offering/answering
     spatial scalable layers? In this draft or a more generic draft? In
     the Design Team's conference call on 6 May 2008, it was decided
     that Ye-Kui will study and report.

17. Changes Log

   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-08 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-09

   5-9 May 2008: YkW

   - Added Alex as an editor. Welcome!
   -  Added text for session-multiplexing packetization modes
   -  Updated section6.5 (Packetization Modes) and added section6.5.1
   -  Updated section6.6 (DON) and added section6.6.1
   -  Updated PACSI introductory text and semantics (section6.9)
   -  Updated packetization rules for session multiplexing (section7.1)
   -  Updated the de-packetization process for session multiplexing
     (section8.1)
   -  Updated semantics of existing media type parameters and added new
     media type parameters ("pmode", "sprop-mst-interleave-depth",
     "sprop-remux-buf-req", "remux-buf-cap", "sprop-remux-init-buf-
     time", "sprop-mst-max-don-diff") in section9.1.
   -  Removed obsolete comments.
   -  Updated some definitions.
   -  Updated one design principle regarding cases that must use RFC
     3984 encapsulation.
   -  Removed "(Informative)" from the title of section8 (De-
     Packetization Process) - same to be proposed to RFC 3984 bis.
   -  Updated the open issues
   -  Removed earlier changes log that can be found from earlier
     versions of the draft

   13 May 2008: AE

   -  Corrected definition of "highest RTP session" in "enhancement RTP
     session" definition.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 81]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   -  Moved the triggering of the use of the S and E bits from the X
     flag to the Y flag, so that they are triggered together with
     TL0PICIDX.
   -  Other minor editorial corrections for language.

   13 May 2008: YkW

   -  Removed some obsolete comments.

   14 May 2008: AE

   -  Moved definition of lower/higher/lowest/highest RTP session from
     definitions (part of "enhancement RTP session") to 8.1.1, right
     before they are first needed. The text assumes that base is
     lowest, and highest is the single RTP session which no other
     session depends on.
   -  Modified definition of "operation point" to distinguish between
     the OP and the associated bitstream, as there may be multiple ways
     to construct it (i.e., removing or not removing unneeded NAL units
     below the operation point).
   -  Renamed modes as follows: NITS->NI-T, NICD->NI-C, NICB->NI-TC,
     and AINT->I-C. This way the interleaving and DON process are
     evident from the acronym.
   -  Rephrased "target NAL unit" definition (in Section 6.9) to be a
     bit more clear.

   15 May 2008: YkW

   -  Added a comment regarding the definition of operation point.
   -  Updated open issues (removed the one on PACSI).
   -  Changed the Word template used to generation of this I-D.


   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-09 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-10

   30 May 2008: TS

   - Improved text in 7.1 for NI-T

   02 June 2008: TS



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 82]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   - Improved text on NI-T and NI-TC in section 8.1.1
   - Added new packet type NI-MTAP in section 6.10
   - Added informative text on placeholder NAL units to section 7.1.1
   - Added text on placeholder NAL units to 8.1.1
   - Changed text regarding the order of RTP packets are delivered from
     the RFC3550 process to the re-ordering process in section 8.

   02 June 2008: JL

   - Added non-VCL and prefix NAL packetization rules sent by Jonathan
     Lennox in sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5.
   - Added informative reordering algorithm.


   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-10 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-11

   17 June 2008: TS

   - Addressed the following comments sent by Colin on 10 June 2008 to
     the mailing list:
   - Inserted table on NAL unit and packet types into section 3.3
   - Corrected text on NAL unit header ext. in 3.3
   - Corrected text in 3.4
   - Corrected text in 5.1.1 on base layer VCL Nal unit types
   - Added reference to MANEs in section 6.1
   - Used symbolic names for packetization modes
   - Corrected SDP examples
   - Removed H264 from media type section, TBD: text on "H264" needs to
     be moved
   - TBD: new name for session mux.
   - Improved text on NI-T mode

   From draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-11 to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-12

   30 June 2008: AE

   The entire text has been edited. The following offers highlights of
   the important changes.

   - Moved Section 3 (The SVC Codec) after "Scope" (Sec. 4) and
     "Definitions" (Sec. 5).



Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 83]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008



   - Changed section numbering style definitions in Word so that
     section references are properly formed (without a trailing ".").

   - Renumbered tables to run sequentially in the draft.

   - Removed [SVC] from the normative references. All references to
     [SVC] were converted to references to [H.264].

   - Major rewrite of Introduction (and Abstract) to introduce concepts
     and facilitate understanding. The text from Scope has been moved
     there, and the Scope re-written to be inline with the intended
     content.

   - Definition of "session-multiplexing", is problematic. It states
     that in all cases there is a single RTP session, which is
     incorrect. The two cases are: 1) transmission on sepearate
     transport addresses, 2) transmission on a single transport
     address. In the former case there are clearly multiple RTP
     sessions. It is also not clear to me if the single transport
     address mode is supported in this memo or it should be explicitly
     disallowed. I put a comment to that effect in the text.

   - Session multiplexing: The text uses the term RTP base session and
     RTP enhancement session throughout, as well as RTP stream.
     Jonathan suggested multi-session stream, but that would create a
     lot of problems with the terminology in this draft (which says,
     e.g., that each RTP session carries an RTP stream). So I initially
     opted for the term "multi-session transmission". This is in-line
     with the RFC3550 definition of an "RTP session". We can easily
     search/replace to convert to "mutli-stream" transmission" if
     necessary (but it is not advisable, as the whole text needs to be
     reviewed for consistency). But due to the fact the draft's
     definition of "session multiplexing" explicitly says that it can
     be over the same transport or different transport addresses (thus
     using a single or multiple  RTP sessions), I converged to "multi-
     source transmission" to indicate that the SVC stream is
     transmitted as streams coming from multiple sources. I think that
     nails it.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 84]

Internet-Draft     RTP Payload Format for SVC Video           June 2008


   - Defined acronyms SST (Single-Source Transmission) and MST (Multi-
     Source Transmission), and added in "Abbreviations".

   - Added definition for "NALU time" as "NAL unit effective
     timestamp". This is also inline with the concepts in 8.1.1.

   - Added ETS in the abbreviations for Effective Timestamp of a NAL
     unit.

   - It is noted that FU-A and FU-B are also carrying one NAL unit per
     RTP packet (since FU itself is defined as a NAL unit), so the
     statement that only in the single NAL unit mode you have one NAL
     unit per packet is, technically, incorrect. Since the intended use
     is present in the name of the mode (single NAL unit mode) I
     removed any dubious reference to this property.

   - Table 3.3 (now Table 4), changed PACSI from 'no' to 'yes' (in the
     non-interleaved column only).

   - Table 3.5 (now Table 6), changed PACSI from 'no' to 'yes'. But in
     7.1.3 (I-C packetization rules) PACSIs are not allowed to have
     DONC. Why?

   - Moved Section 6.5 DON to the end of Section 6, as 6.10. Part of
     the reason is that the section requires that PACSI is already
     introduced.

   - "de-session-multiplexing buffer" was changed to "remultiplexing
     buffer",  properly reflecting what's going on.

   - Changed all sprop-desemul-* to sprop-remux-*.

   - Changed all sprop-semul-* to sprop-mst-*.

   - Changed sprop-session-multiplexing-depth to sprop-mst-interleave-
     depth.

   - Added all acronyms encountered in the text in the "Abbreviations"
     section.




Wenger, et al         Expires December 30, 2008               [Page 85]


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