[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                        C. Jennings
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                                 J. Uberti
Expires: August 17, 2013                                          Google
                                                             E. Rescorla
                                                                 Mozilla
                                                       February 13, 2013


                Requirements from various WG for MMUSIC
                   draft-jennings-mmusic-media-req-00

Abstract

   This document outlines some of the requirements driving various
   consideration related to multiplexing in the MMUSIC working group to
   meet the needs of WebRTC, CLUE, and other working groups.

   This document is only meant to be used to help drive the discussion
   of solutions and is not intended to become an RFC.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Jennings, et al.         Expires August 17, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Media Requirements              February 2013


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Non-Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5






























Jennings, et al.         Expires August 17, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Media Requirements              February 2013


1.  Introduction

   For the past several meetings, there has been discussions around
   various mechanism to reduce the number of UDP ports needed by
   applications for RTP.  This document attempts to capture some of the
   requirements that are important in selecting the solution for how to
   represent the SDP to negotiate the RTP media that is using reduced
   ports.


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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
   This document generically uses RTP to mean RTP and SRTP.


3.  Requirements

   This section covers the requirements from various WG for setting up
   media.  Obviously it does not try and cover all the requirements but
   it tries to cover a set that seem relevant to decisions around
   multiplexing onto few UDP ports.

   High Priority Requirements:

   1.  Support many media flows but minimize the number of transport
       flows.  For instance, all media flows--or perhaps all media flows
       of a given type--might be multiplexed over a single transport
       flow.

   2.  Be able to successfully negotiate media with both legacy SIP
       devices and new devices (whether SIP or RTCWEB) with a single
       offer/answer exchange.  If both endpoints support multiplexed
       media, then multiplexing should be negotiated.  Otherwise, non-
       multiplexed media should be used.  In many cases, each endpoints
       will have no prior knowledge of capabilities of the other
       endpoint.

   Other Requirements:

   1.  Need a uniform way to allow specifications of new SDP parameters
       to easily explain any implications that multiplexing has on the
       new parameters in that specification.

   2.  Allow different sources (E.g. cameras) to use different codecs.
       For example, if one camera had hardware encoders for VP8 while



Jennings, et al.         Expires August 17, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Media Requirements              February 2013


       another had encoders for H.264, the device may wish to negotiate
       different codecs.

   3.  Be able to to independently set parameters such as resolution
       bandwidth, independently for each RTCWeb Track, preferably even
       when they are all multiplexed over the same transport flow.

   4.  Be able to identify the RTCWeb tracks with an identifier that is
       stable over the duration of the session.  More information can be
       found in [I-D.alvestrand-mmusic-msid].


4.  Non-Requirements

   Some items are not a major goal.  If methods are found that work for
   these as well, that is great, but they are not a priority item.

   1.  Working with SIP proxies or B2BUA that are not compliant with the
       standards.  The reason for this is it is just not possible to
       design for every possible thing that does not do what the
       standards require.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.


6.  Security Considerations

   These requirements have no additional security considerations other
   than those captured in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].


7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to ...


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
              Rescorla, E., "RTCWEB Security Architecture",
              draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-06 (work in progress),
              October 2012.




Jennings, et al.         Expires August 17, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Media Requirements              February 2013


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

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.alvestrand-mmusic-msid]
              Alvestrand, H., "Cross Session Stream Identification in
              the Session Description Protocol",
              draft-alvestrand-mmusic-msid-02 (work in progress),
              December 2012.


Authors' Addresses

   Cullen Jennings
   Cisco
   400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 350
   Calgary, AB  T2P 4H2
   Canada

   Email: fluffy@iii.ca


   Justin Uberti
   Google
   747 6th Ave S
   Kirkland, WA  98033
   USA

   Email: justin@uberti.name


   Eric Rescorla
   Mozilla

   Phone: +1 650 678 2350
   Email: ekr@rtfm.com














Jennings, et al.         Expires August 17, 2013                [Page 5]


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