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

Versions: (RFC 3388) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5888

MMUSIC Working Group                                        G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Obsoletes: 3388 (if approved)                              June 10, 2008
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 12, 2008


       The SDP (Session Description Protocol) Grouping Framework
                  draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc3388bis-00.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 12, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document defines two Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   attributes: "group" and "mid".  They allow to group together several
   "m" lines for two different purposes: for lip synchronization and for
   receiving media from a single flow (several media streams) that are
   encoded in different formats during a particular session, on
   different ports and host interfaces.




Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Media Stream Identification Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Group Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   5.  Use of "group" and "mid" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   6.  Lip Synchronization (LS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     6.1.  Example of LS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   7.  Flow Identification (FID)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     7.1.  SIP and Cellular Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     7.2.  DTMF Tones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     7.3.  Media Flow Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     7.4.  FID Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       7.4.1.  Examples of FID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     7.5.  Scenarios that FID does not Cover  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       7.5.1.  Parallel Encoding Using Different Codecs . . . . . . . 11
       7.5.2.  Layered Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       7.5.3.  Same IP Address and Port Number  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Usage of the "group" Attribute in SIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Mid Value in Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       8.1.1.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  Group Value in Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       8.2.1.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.3.  Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       8.3.1.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.4.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       8.4.1.  Offerer does not Support "group" . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       8.4.2.  Answerer does not Support "group"  . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20















Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


1.  Introduction

   An SDP session description typically contains one or more media lines
   - they are commonly known as "m" lines.  When a session description
   contains more than one "m" line, SDP does not provide any means to
   express a particular relationship between two or more of them.  When
   an application receives an SDP session description with more than one
   "m" line, it is up to the application what to do with them.  SDP does
   not carry any information about grouping media streams.

   While in some environments this information can be carried out of
   band, it would be desirable to have extensions to SDP that allow the
   expression of how different media streams within a session
   description relate to each other.  This document defines such
   extensions.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  Media Stream Identification Attribute

   A new "media stream identification" media attribute is defined.  It
   is used for identifying media streams within a session description.
   Its formatting in SDP [RFC2327] is described by the following BNF:


           mid-attribute      = "a=mid:" identification-tag
           identification-tag = token

   The identification tag MUST be unique within an SDP session
   description.


4.  Group Attribute

   A new "group" session-level attribute is defined.  It is used for
   grouping together different media streams.  Its formatting in SDP is
   described by the following BNF:


           group-attribute    = "a=group:" semantics
                                *(space identification-tag)
           semantics          = "LS" | "FID"



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   This document defines two standard semantics: LS (Lip
   Synchronization) and FID (Flow Identification).  Further semantics
   need to be defined in a standards-track document.  However, defining
   new semantics apart from LS and FID is discouraged.  Instead, it is
   RECOMMENDED to use other session description mechanisms such as
   SDPng.


5.  Use of "group" and "mid"

   All the "m" lines of a session description that uses "group" MUST be
   identified with a "mid" attribute whether they appear in the group
   line(s) or not.  If a session description contains at least one "m"
   line that has no "mid" identification the application MUST NOT
   perform any grouping of media lines.

   "a=group" lines are used to group together several "m" lines that are
   identified by their "mid" attribute. "a=group" lines that contain
   identification-tags that do not correspond to any "m" line within the
   session description MUST be ignored.  The application acts as if the
   "a=group" line did not exist.  The behavior of an application
   receiving an SDP with grouped "m" lines is defined by the semantics
   field in the "a=group" line.

   There MAY be several "a=group" lines in a session description.  All
   the "a=group" lines of a session description MAY or MAY NOT use the
   same semantics.  An "m" line identified by its "mid" attribute MAY
   appear in more than one "a=group" line as long as the "a=group" lines
   use different semantics.  An "m" line identified by its "mid"
   attribute MUST NOT appear in more than one "a=group" line using the
   same semantics.


6.  Lip Synchronization (LS)

   An application that receives a session description that contains "m"
   lines that are grouped together using LS semantics MUST synchronize
   the playout of the corresponding media streams.  Note that LS
   semantics not only apply to a video stream that has to be
   synchronized with an audio stream.  The playout of two streams of the
   same type can be synchronized as well.

   For RTP streams synchronization is typically performed using RTCP,
   which provides enough information to map time stamps from the
   different streams into a wall clock.  However, the concept of media
   stream synchronization MAY also apply to media streams that do not
   make use of RTP.  If this is the case, the application MUST recover
   the original timing relationship between the streams using whatever



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   available mechanism.

6.1.  Example of LS

   The following example shows a session description of a conference
   that is being multicast.  The first media stream (mid:1) contains the
   voice of the speaker who speaks in English.  The second media stream
   (mid:2) contains the video component and the third (mid:3) media
   stream carries the translation to Spanish of what he is saying.  The
   first and the second media streams MUST be synchronized.


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 one.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127
          a=group:LS 1 2
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
          a=mid:2
          m=audio 30004 RTP/AVP 0
          i=This media stream contains the Spanish translation
          a=mid:3

   Note that although the third media stream is not present in the group
   line, it still MUST contain a mid attribute (mid:3), as stated
   before.


7.  Flow Identification (FID)

   An "m" line in an SDP session description defines a media stream.
   However, SDP does not define what a media stream is.  This definition
   can be found in the RTSP specification.  The RTSP RFC [RFC2326]
   defines a media stream as "a single media instance, e.g., an audio
   stream or a video stream as well as a single whiteboard or shared
   application group.  When using RTP, a stream consists of all RTP and
   RTCP packets created by a source within an RTP session".

   This definition assumes that a single audio (or video) stream maps
   into an RTP session.  The RTP RFC [RFC1889] defines an RTP session as
   follows: "For each participant, the session is defined by a
   particular pair of destination transport addresses (one network
   address plus a port pair for RTP and RTCP)".

   While the previous definitions cover the most common cases, there are
   situations where a single media instance, (e.g., an audio stream or a



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   video stream) is sent using more than one RTP session.  Two examples
   (among many others) of this kind of situation are cellular systems
   using SIP [RFC3261] and systems receiving DTMF tones on a different
   host than the voice.

7.1.  SIP and Cellular Access

   Systems using a cellular access and SIP as a signalling protocol need
   to receive media over the air.  During a session the media can be
   encoded using different codecs.  The encoded media has to traverse
   the radio interface.  The radio interface is generally characterized
   by being bit error prone and associated with relatively high packet
   transfer delays.  In addition, radio interface resources in a
   cellular environment are scarce and thus expensive, which calls for
   special measures in providing a highly efficient transport.  In order
   to get an appropriate speech quality in combination with an efficient
   transport, precise knowledge of codec properties are required so that
   a proper radio bearer for the RTP session can be configured before
   transferring the media.  These radio bearers are dedicated bearers
   per media type, i.e., codec.

   Cellular systems typically configure different radio bearers on
   different port numbers.  Therefore, incoming media has to have
   different destination port numbers for the different possible codecs
   in order to be routed properly to the correct radio bearer.  Thus,
   this is an example in which several RTP sessions are used to carry a
   single media instance (the encoded speech from the sender).

7.2.  DTMF Tones

   Some voice sessions include DTMF tones.  Sometimes the voice handling
   is performed by a different host than the DTMF handling.  It is
   common to have an application server in the network gathering DTMF
   tones for the user while the user receives the encoded speech on his
   user agent.  In this situations it is necessary to establish two RTP
   sessions: one for the voice and the other for the DTMF tones.  Both
   RTP sessions are logically part of the same media instance.

7.3.  Media Flow Definition

   The previous examples show that the definition of a media stream in
   [RFC2326] do not cover some scenarios.  It cannot be assumed that a
   single media instance maps into a single RTP session.  Therefore, we
   introduce the definition of a media flow:

   Media flow consists of a single media instance, e.g., an audio stream
   or a video stream as well as a single whiteboard or shared
   application group.  When using RTP, a media flow comprises one or



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   more RTP sessions.

7.4.  FID Semantics

   Several "m" lines grouped together using FID semantics form a media
   flow.  A media agent handling a media flow that comprises several "m"
   lines MUST send a copy of the media to every "m" line part of the
   flow as long as the codecs and the direction attribute present in a
   particular "m" line allow it.

   It is assumed that the application uses only one codec at a time to
   encode the media produced.  This codec MAY change dynamically during
   the session, but at any particular moment only one codec is in use.

   The application encodes the media using the current codec and checks
   one by one all the "m" lines that are part of the flow.  If a
   particular "m" line contains the codec being used and the direction
   attribute is "sendonly" or "sendrecv", a copy of the encoded media is
   sent to the address/port specified in that particular media stream.
   If either the "m" line does not contain the codec being used or the
   direction attribute is neither "sendonly" nor "sendrecv", nothing is
   sent over this media stream.

   The application typically ends up sending media to different
   destinations (IP address/port number) depending on the codec used at
   any moment.

7.4.1.  Examples of FID

   The session description below might be sent by a SIP user agent using
   a cellular access.  The user agent supports GSM on port 30000 and AMR
   on port 30002.  When the remote party sends GSM, it will send RTP
   packets to port number 30000.  When AMR is the codec chosen, packets
   will be sent to port 30002.  Note that the remote party can switch
   between both codecs dynamically in the middle of the session.
   However, in this example, only one media stream at a time carries
   voice.  The other remains "muted" while its corresponding codec is
   not in use.













Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


            v=0
            o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 two.example.com
            t=0 0
            c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
            a=group:FID 1 2
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 3
            a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
            a=mid:1
            m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 97
            a=rtpmap:97 AMR/8000
            a=fmtp:97 mode-set=0,2,5,7; mode-change-period=2;
          mode-change-neighbor; maxframes=1
            a=mid:2

   (The linebreak in the fmtp line accommodates RFC formatting
   restrictions; SDP does not have continuation lines.)

   In the previous example, a system receives media on the same IP
   address on different port numbers.  The following example shows how a
   system can receive different codecs on different IP addresses.


           v=0
           o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 three.example.com
           t=0 0
           c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
           a=group:FID 1 2
           m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
           c=IN IP4 131.160.1.111
           a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
           a=mid:1
           m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 97
           a=rtpmap:97 AMR/8000
           a=fmtp:97 mode-set=0,2,5,7; mode-change-period=2;
         mode-change-neighbor; maxframes=1
           a=mid:2

   (The linebreak in the fmtp line accomodates RFC formatting
   restrictions; SDP does not have continuation lines.)

   The cellular terminal of this example only supports the AMR codec.
   However, many current IP phones only support PCM (payload 0).  In
   order to be able to interoperate with them, the cellular terminal
   uses a transcoder whose IP address is 131.160.1.111.  The cellular
   terminal includes in its SDP support for PCM at that IP address.
   Remote systems will send AMR directly to the terminal but PCM will be
   sent to the transcoder.  The transcoder will be configured (using
   whatever method) to convert the incoming PCM audio to AMR and send it



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   to the terminal.

   The next example shows how the "group" attribute used with FID
   semantics can indicate the use of two different codecs in the two
   directions of a bidirectional media stream.


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 four.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 8
          a=recvonly
          a=mid:2

   A user agent that receives the SDP above knows that at a certain
   moment it can send either PCM u-law to port number 30000 or PCM A-law
   to port number 30002.  However, the media agent also knows that the
   other end will only send PCM u-law (payload 0).

   The following example shows a session description with different "m"
   lines grouped together using FID semantics that contain the same
   codec.


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 five.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2 3
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 8
          a=mid:2
          m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0 8
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.111
          a=recvonly
          a=mid:3

   At a particular point in time, if the media agent is sending PCM u-
   law (payload 0), it sends RTP packets to 131.160.1.112 on port 30000
   and to 131.160.1.111 on port 20000 (first and third "m" lines).  If
   it is sending PCM A-law (payload 8), it sends RTP packets to
   131.160.1.112 on port 30002 and to 131.160.1.111 on port 20000
   (second and third "m" lines).



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   The system that generated the SDP above supports PCM u-law on port
   30000 and PCM A-law on port 30002.  Besides, it uses an application
   server whose IP address is 131.160.1.111 that records the
   conversation.  That is why the application server always receives a
   copy of the audio stream regardless of the codec being used at any
   given moment (it actually performs an RTP dump, so it can effectively
   receive any codec).

   Remember that if several "m" lines grouped together using FID
   semantics contain the same codec the media agent MUST send media over
   several RTP sessions at the same time.

   The last example of this section deals with DTMF tones.  DTMF tones
   can be transmitted using a regular voice codec or can be transmitted
   as telephony events.  The RTP payload for DTMF tones treated as
   telephone events is described in [RFC2833].  Below, there is an
   example of an SDP session description using FID semantics and this
   payload type.


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 six.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 97
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.111
          a=rtpmap:97 telephone-events
          a=mid:2

   The remote party would send PCM encoded voice (payload 0) to
   131.160.1.112 and DTMF tones encoded as telephony events to
   131.160.1.111.  Note that only voice or DTMF is sent at a particular
   point of time.  When DTMF tones are sent, the first media stream does
   not carry any data and, when voice is sent, there is no data in the
   second media stream.  FID semantics provide different destinations
   for alternative codecs.

7.5.  Scenarios that FID does not Cover

   It is worthwhile mentioning some scenarios where the "group"
   attribute using existing semantics (particularly FID) might seem to
   be applicable but is not.






Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


7.5.1.  Parallel Encoding Using Different Codecs

   FID semantics are useful when the application only uses one codec at
   a time.  An application that encodes the same media using different
   codecs simultaneously MUST NOT use FID to group those media lines.
   Some systems that handle DTMF tones are a typical example of parallel
   encoding using different codecs.

   Some systems implement the RTP payload defined in RFC 2833, but when
   they send DTMF tones they do not mute the voice channel.  Therefore,
   in effect they are sending two copies of the same DTMF tone: encoded
   as voice and encoded as a telephony event.  When the receiver gets
   both copies, it typically uses the telephony event rather than the
   tone encoded as voice.  FID semantics MUST NOT be used in this
   context to group both media streams since such a system is not using
   alternative codecs but rather different parallel encodings for the
   same information.

7.5.2.  Layered Encoding

   Layered encoding schemes encode media in different layers.  Quality
   at the receiver varies depending on the number of layers received.
   SDP provides a means to group together contiguous multicast addresses
   that transport different layers.  The "c" line below:


          c=IN IP4 224.2.1.1/127/3

   is equivalent to the following three "c" lines:


          c=IN IP4 224.2.1.1/127
          c=IN IP4 224.2.1.2/127
          c=IN IP4 224.2.1.3/127

   FID MUST NOT be used to group "m" lines that do not represent the
   same information.  Therefore, FID MUST NOT be used to group "m" lines
   that contain the different layers of layered encoding scheme.
   Besides, we do not define new group semantics to provide a more
   flexible way of grouping different layers because the already
   existing SDP mechanism covers the most useful scenarios.

7.5.3.  Same IP Address and Port Number

   If several codecs have to be sent to the same IP address and port,
   the traditional SDP syntax of listing several codecs in the same "m"
   line MUST be used.  FID MUST NOT be used to group "m" lines with the
   same IP address/port.  Therefore, an SDP like the one below MUST NOT



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   be generated.


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 six.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 8
          a=mid:2

   The correct SDP for the session above would be the following one:


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 six.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0 8

   If two "m" lines are grouped using FID they MUST differ in their
   transport addresses (i.e., IP address plus port).


8.  Usage of the "group" Attribute in SIP

   SDP descriptions are used by several different protocols, SIP among
   them.  We include a section about SIP because the "group" attribute
   will most likely be used mainly by SIP systems.

   SIP [RFC3261] is an application layer protocol for establishing,
   terminating and modifying multimedia sessions.  SIP carries session
   descriptions in the bodies of the SIP messages but is independent
   from the protocol used for describing sessions.  SDP [RFC2327] is one
   of the protocols that can be used for this purpose.

   At session establishment SIP provides a three-way handshake (INVITE-
   200 OK-ACK) between end systems.  However, just two of these three
   messages carry SDP, as described in [RFC3264].

8.1.  Mid Value in Answers

   The "mid" attribute is an identifier for a particular media stream.
   Therefore, the "mid" value in the offer MUST be the same as the "mid"
   value in the answer.  Besides, subsequent offers (e.g., in a re-
   INVITE) SHOULD use the same "mid" value for the already existing



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   media streams.

   [RFC3264] describes the usage of SDP in relation to SIP.  The offerer
   and the answerer align their media description so that the nth media
   stream ("m=" line) in the offerer's session description corresponds
   to the nth media stream in the answerer's description.

   The presence of the "group" attribute in an SDP session description
   does not modify this behavior.

   Since the "mid" attribute provides a means to label "m" lines, it
   would be possible to perform media alignment using "mid" labels
   rather than matching nth "m" lines.  However this would not bring any
   gain and would add complexity to implementations.  Therefore SIP
   systems MUST perform media alignment matching nth lines regardless of
   the presence of the "group" or "mid" attributes.

   If a media stream that contained a particular "mid" identifier in the
   offer contains a different identifier in the answer the application
   ignores all the "mid" and "group" lines that might appear in the
   session description.  The following example illustrates this
   scenario.

8.1.1.  Example

   Two SIP entities exchange SDPs during session establishment.  The
   INVITE contains the SDP below:


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 seven.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:2

   The 200 OK response contains the following SDP:











Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


          v=0
          o=Bob 289083122 289083122 IN IP4 eigth.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.113
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 25000 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:2
          m=audio 25002 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:1

   Since alignment of "m" lines is performed based on matching of nth
   lines, the first stream had "mid:1" in the INVITE and "mid:2" in the
   200 OK.  Therefore, the application MUST ignore every "mid" and
   "group" lines contained in the SDP.

   A well-behaved SIP user agent would have returned the SDP below in
   the 200 OK:


          v=0
          o=Bob 289083122 289083122 IN IP4 nine.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.113
          a=group:FID 1 2
          m=audio 25002 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 25000 RTP/AVP 0 8
          a=mid:2

8.2.  Group Value in Answers

   A SIP entity that receives an offer that contains an "a=group" line
   with semantics that it does not understand MUST return an answer
   without the "group" line.  Note that, as it was described in the
   previous section, the "mid" lines MUST still be present in the
   answer.

   A SIP entity that receives an offer that contains an "a=group" line
   with semantics that are understood MUST return an answer that
   contains an "a=group" line with the same semantics.  The
   identification-tags contained in this "a=group" lines MUST be the
   same that were received in the offer or a subset of them (zero
   identification-tags is a valid subset).  When the identification-tags
   in the answer are a subset, the "group" value to be used in the
   session MUST be the one present in the answer.

   SIP entities refuse media streams by setting the port to zero in the
   corresponding "m" line. "a=group" lines MUST NOT contain



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   identification-tags that correspond to "m" lines with port zero.

   Note that grouping of m lines MUST always be requested by the
   offerer, never by the answerer.  Since SIP provides a two-way SDP
   exchange, an answerer that requested grouping would not know whether
   the "group" attribute was accepted by the offerer or not.  An
   answerer that wants to group media lines SHOULD issue another offer
   after having responded to the first one (in a re-INVITE for
   instance).

8.2.1.  Example

   The example below shows how the callee refuses a media stream offered
   by the caller by setting its port number to zero.  The "mid" value
   corresponding to that media stream is removed from the "group" value
   in the answer.

   SDP in the INVITE from caller to callee:


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 ten.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID 1 2 3
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 30002 RTP/AVP 8
          a=mid:2
          m=audio 30004 RTP/AVP 3
          a=mid:3

   SDP in the INVITE from callee to caller:


          v=0
          o=Bob 289083125 289083125 IN IP4 eleven.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.113
          a=group:FID 1 3
          m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
          a=mid:1
          m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 8
          a=mid:2
          m=audio 20002 RTP/AVP 3
          a=mid:3





Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


8.3.  Capability Negotiation

   A client that understands "group" and "mid" but does not want to make
   use of them in a particular session MAY want to indicate that it
   supports them.  If a client decides to do that, it SHOULD add an
   "a=group" line with no identification-tags for every semantics it
   understands.

   If a server receives an offer that contains empty "a=group" lines, it
   SHOULD add its capabilities also in the form of empty "a=group" lines
   to its answer.

8.3.1.  Example

   A system that supports both LS and FID semantics but does not want to
   group any media stream for this particular session generates the
   following SDP:


          v=0
          o=Bob 289083125 289083125 IN IP4 twelve.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.113
          a=group:LS
          a=group:FID
          m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0 8

   The server that receives that offer supports FID but not LS.  It
   responds with the SDP below:


          v=0
          o=Laura 289083124 289083124 IN IP4 thirteen.example.com
          t=0 0
          c=IN IP4 131.160.1.112
          a=group:FID
          m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0

8.4.  Backward Compatibility

   This document does not define any SIP "Require" header.  Therefore,
   if one of the SIP user agents does not understand the "group"
   attribute the standard SDP fall back mechanism MUST be used
   (attributes that are not understood are simply ignored).







Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


8.4.1.  Offerer does not Support "group"

   This situation does not represent a problem because grouping requests
   are always performed by offerers, not by answerers.  If the offerer
   does not support "group" this attribute will just not be used.

8.4.2.  Answerer does not Support "group"

   The answerer will ignore the "group" attribute, since it does not
   understand it (it will also ignore the "mid" attribute).  For LS
   semantics, the answerer might decide to perform or to not perform
   synchronization between media streams.

   For FID semantics, the answerer will consider that the session
   comprises several media streams.

   Different implementations would behave in different ways.

   In the case of audio and different "m" lines for different codecs an
   implementation might decide to act as a mixer with the different
   incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct behavior.

   An implementation might also decide to refuse the request (e.g., 488
   Not acceptable here or 606 Not Acceptable) because it contains
   several "m" lines.  In this case, the server does not support the
   type of session that the caller wanted to establish.  In case the
   client is willing to establish a simpler session anyway, he SHOULD
   re-try the request without "group" attribute and only one "m" line
   per flow.


9.  Security Considerations

   Using the "group" parameter with FID semantics, an entity that
   managed to modify the session descriptions exchanged between the
   participants to establish a multimedia session could force the
   participants to send a copy of the media to any particular
   destination.

   Integrity mechanism provided by protocols used to exchange session
   descriptions and media encryption can be used to prevent this attack.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines two SDP attributes: "mid" and "group".

   The "mid" attribute is used to identify media streams within a



Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


   session description and its format is defined in Section 3.

   The "group" attribute is used for grouping together different media
   streams and its format is defined in Section 4.

   This document defines a framework to group media lines in SDP using
   different semantics.  Semantics to be used with this framework are
   registered by the IANA when they are published in standards track
   RFCs.

   The IANA Considerations section of the RFC MUST include the following
   information, which appears in the IANA registry along with the RFC
   number of the publication.

   o  A brief description of the semantics.
   o  Token to be used within the group attribute.  This token may be of
      any length, but SHOULD be no more than four characters long.
   o  Reference to an standards track RFC.

   The only entries in the registry for the time being are:


      Semantics            Token  Reference
      -------------------  -----  -----------
      Lip synchronization  LS     RFC 3388
      Flow identification  FID    RFC 3388


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2327]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
              Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.





Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


11.2.  Informational References

   [RFC2326]  Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
              Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.

   [RFC1889]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996.

   [RFC2833]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF
              Digits, Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833,
              May 2000.


Author's Address

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com




























Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           SDP Grouping Framework                June 2008


Full 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.

   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 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.


Intellectual Property

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

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

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


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Camarillo               Expires December 12, 2008              [Page 20]


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