[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-rmt-bb...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

Obsoleted by: 5651 EXPERIMENTAL

Network Working Group                                            M. Luby
Request for Comments: 3451                              Digital Fountain
Category: Experimental                                        J. Gemmell
                                                               Microsoft
                                                             L. Vicisano
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                L. Rizzo
                                                              Univ. Pisa
                                                              M. Handley
                                                                    ICIR
                                                            J. Crowcroft
                                                         Cambridge Univ.
                                                           December 2002


             Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

   Layered Coding Transport (LCT) provides transport level support for
   reliable content delivery and stream delivery protocols.  LCT is
   specifically designed to support protocols using IP multicast, but
   also provides support to protocols that use unicast.  LCT is
   compatible with congestion control that provides multiple rate
   delivery to receivers and is also compatible with coding techniques
   that provide reliable delivery of content.














Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Rationale......................................................3
   3. Functionality..................................................4
   4. Applicability..................................................7
     4.1 Environmental Requirements and Considerations...............8
     4.2 Delivery service models....................................10
     4.3 Congestion Control.........................................11
   5. Packet Header Fields..........................................12
     5.1 Default LCT header format..................................12
     5.2 Header-Extension Fields....................................17
   6. Operations....................................................20
     6.1 Sender Operation...........................................20
     6.2 Receiver Operation.........................................22
   7. Requirements from Other Building Blocks.......................23
   8. Security Considerations.......................................24
   9. IANA Considerations...........................................25
   10. Acknowledgments..............................................25
   11. References...................................................25
   Authors' Addresses...............................................28
   Full Copyright Statement.........................................29

1.  Introduction

   Layered Coding Transport provides transport level support for
   reliable content delivery and stream delivery protocols.  Layered
   Coding Transport is specifically designed to support protocols using
   IP multicast, but also provides support to protocols that use
   unicast.  Layered Coding Transport is compatible with congestion
   control that provides multiple rate delivery to receivers and is also
   compatible with coding techniques that provide reliable delivery of
   content.

   This document describes a building block as defined in RFC 3048 [26].
   This document is a product of the IETF RMT WG  and follows the
   general guidelines provided in RFC 3269 [24].

   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 [2].










Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   Statement of Intent

      This memo contains part of the definitions necessary to fully
      specify a Reliable Multicast Transport protocol in accordance with
      RFC 2357.  As per RFC 2357, the use of any reliable multicast
      protocol in the Internet requires an adequate congestion control
      scheme.

      While waiting for such a scheme to be available, or for an
      existing scheme to be proven adequate, the Reliable Multicast
      Transport working group (RMT) publishes this Request for Comments
      in the "Experimental" category.

      It is the intent of RMT to re-submit this specification as an IETF
      Proposed Standard as soon as the above condition is met.

2.  Rationale

   LCT provides transport level support for massively scalable protocols
   using the IP multicast network service.  The support that LCT
   provides is common to a variety of very important applications,
   including reliable content delivery and streaming applications.

   An LCT session comprises multiple channels originating at a single
   sender that are used for some period of time to carry packets
   pertaining to the transmission of one or more objects that can be of
   interest to receivers.  The logic behind defining a session as
   originating from a single sender is that this is the right
   granularity to regulate packet traffic via congestion control.  One
   rationale for using multiple channels within the same session is that
   there are massively scalable congestion control protocols that use
   multiple channels per session.  These congestion control protocols
   are considered to be layered because a receiver joins and leaves
   channels in a layered order during its participation in the session.
   The use of layered channels is also useful for streaming
   applications.

   There are coding techniques that provide massively scalable
   reliability and asynchronous delivery which are compatible with both
   layered congestion control and with LCT.  When all are combined the
   result is a massively scalable reliable asynchronous content delivery
   protocol that is network friendly.  LCT also provides functionality
   that can be used for other applications as well, e.g., layered
   streaming applications.







Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   LCT avoids providing functionality that is not massively scalable.
   For example, LCT does not provide any mechanisms for sending
   information from receivers to senders, although this does not rule
   out protocols that both use LCT and do require sending information
   from receivers to senders.

   LCT includes general support for congestion control that must be
   used.  It does not, however, specify which congestion control should
   be used.  The rationale for this is that congestion control must be
   provided by any protocol that is network friendly, and yet the
   different applications that can use LCT will not have the same
   requirements for congestion control.  For example, a content delivery
   protocol may strive to use all available bandwidth between receivers
   and the sender.  It must, therefore, drastically back off its rate
   when there is competing traffic.  On the other hand, a streaming
   delivery protocol may strive to maintain a constant rate instead of
   trying to use all available bandwidth, and it may not back off its
   rate as fast when there is competing traffic.

   Beyond support for congestion control, LCT provides a number of
   fields and supports functionality commonly required by many
   protocols.  For example, LCT provides a Transmission Session ID that
   can be used to identify which session each received packet belongs
   to.  This is important because a receiver may be joined to many
   sessions concurrently, and thus it is very useful to be able to
   demultiplex packets as they arrive according to which session they
   belong to.  As another example, LCT provides optional support for
   identifying which object each packet is carrying information about.
   Therefore, LCT provides many of the commonly used fields and support
   for functionality required by many protocols.

3.  Functionality

   An LCT session consists of a set of logically grouped LCT channels
   associated with a single sender carrying packets with LCT headers for
   one or more objects.  An LCT channel is defined by the combination of
   a sender and an address associated with the channel by the sender.  A
   receiver joins a channel to start receiving the data packets sent to
   the channel by the sender, and a receiver leaves a channel to stop
   receiving data packets from the channel.

   LCT is meant to be combined with other building blocks so that the
   resulting overall protocol is massively scalable.  Scalability refers
   to the behavior of the protocol in relation to the number of
   receivers and network paths, their heterogeneity, and the ability to
   accommodate dynamically variable sets of receivers.  Scalability
   limitations can come from memory or processing requirements, or from
   the amount of feedback control and redundant data packet traffic



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   generated by the protocol.  In turn, such limitations may be a
   consequence of the features that a complete reliable content delivery
   or stream delivery protocol is expected to provide.

   The LCT header provides a number of fields that are useful for
   conveying in-band session information to receivers.  One of the
   required fields is the Transmission Session ID (TSI), which allows
   the receiver of a session to uniquely identify received packets as
   part of the session.  Another required field is the Congestion
   Control Information (CCI), which allows the receiver to perform the
   required congestion control on the packets received within the
   session.  Other LCT fields provide optional but often very useful
   additional information for the session.  For example, the Transport
   Object Identifier (TOI) identifies which object the packet contains
   data for.  As other examples, the Sender Current Time (SCT) conveys
   the time when the packet was sent from the sender to the receiver,
   the Expected Residual Time (ERT) conveys the amount of time the
   session will be continued for, flags for indicating the close of the
   session and the close of sending packets for an object, and header
   extensions for fields that for example can be used for packet
   authentication.

   LCT provides support for congestion control.  Congestion control MUST
   be used that conforms to RFC 2357 [13] between receivers and the
   sender for each LCT session.  Congestion control refers to the
   ability to adapt throughput to the available bandwidth on the path
   from the sender to a receiver, and to share bandwidth fairly with
   competing flows such as TCP. Thus, the total flow of packets flowing
   to each receiver participating in an LCT session MUST NOT compete
   unfairly with existing flow adaptive protocols such as TCP.

   A multiple rate or a single rate congestion control protocol can be
   used with LCT.  For multiple rate protocols, a session typically
   consists of more than one channel and the sender sends packets to the
   channels in the session at rates that do not depend on the receivers.
   Each receiver adjusts its reception rate during its participation in
   the session by joining and leaving channels dynamically depending on
   the available bandwidth to the sender independent of all other
   receivers.  Thus, for multiple rate protocols, the reception rate of
   each receiver may vary dynamically independent of the other
   receivers.

   For single rate protocols, a session typically consists of one
   channel and the sender sends packets to the channel at variable rates
   over time depending on feedback from receivers.  Each receiver
   remains joined to the channel during its participation in the
   session.  Thus, for single rate protocols, the reception rate of each
   receiver may vary dynamically but in coordination with all receivers.



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   Generally, a multiple rate protocol is preferable to a single rate
   protocol in a heterogeneous receiver environment, since generally it
   more easily achieves scalability to many receivers and provides
   higher throughput to each individual receiver.  Some possible
   multiple rate congestion control protocols are described in [22],
   [3], and [25].  A possible single rate congestion control protocol is
   described in [19].

   Layered coding refers to the ability to produce a coded stream of
   packets that can be partitioned into an ordered set of layers.  The
   coding is meant to provide some form of reliability, and the layering
   is meant to allow the receiver experience (in terms of quality of
   playout, or overall transfer speed) to vary in a predictable way
   depending on how many consecutive layers of packets the receiver is
   receiving.

   The concept of layered coding was first introduced with reference to
   audio and video streams.  For example, the information associated
   with a TV broadcast could be partitioned into three layers,
   corresponding to black and white, color, and HDTV quality.  Receivers
   can experience different quality without the need for the sender to
   replicate information in the different layers.

   The concept of layered coding can be naturally extended to reliable
   content delivery protocols when Forward Error Correction (FEC)
   techniques are used for coding the data stream.  Descriptions of this
   can be found in [20], [18], [7], [22] and [4].  By using FEC, the
   data stream is transformed in such a way that reconstruction of a
   data object does not depend on the reception of specific data
   packets, but only on the number of different packets received.  As a
   result, by increasing the number of layers a receiver is receiving
   from, the receiver can reduce the transfer time accordingly.  Using
   FEC to provide reliability can increase scalability dramatically in
   comparison to other methods for providing reliability.  More details
   on the use of FEC for reliable content delivery can be found in [11].

   Reliable protocols aim at giving guarantees on the reliable delivery
   of data from the sender to the intended recipients.  Guarantees vary
   from simple packet data integrity to reliable delivery of a precise
   copy of an object to all intended recipients.  Several reliable
   content delivery protocols have been built on top of IP multicast
   using methods other than FEC, but scalability was not the primary
   design goal for many of them.

   Two of the key difficulties in scaling reliable content delivery
   using IP multicast are dealing with the amount of data that flows
   from receivers back to the sender, and the associated response
   (generally data retransmissions) from the sender.  Protocols that



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   avoid any such feedback, and minimize the amount of retransmissions,
   can be massively scalable.  LCT can be used in conjunction with FEC
   codes or a layered codec to achieve reliability with little or no
   feedback.

   Protocol instantiations MAY be built by combining the LCT framework
   with other components.  A complete protocol instantiation that uses
   LCT MUST include a congestion control protocol that is compatible
   with LCT and that conforms to RFC 2357 [13].  A complete protocol
   instantiation that uses LCT MAY include a scalable reliability
   protocol that is compatible with LCT, it MAY include an session
   control protocol that is compatible with LCT, and it MAY include
   other protocols such as security protocols.

4.  Applicability

   An LCT session comprises a logically related set of one or more LCT
   channels originating at a single sender.  The channels are used for
   some period of time to carry packets containing LCT headers, and
   these headers pertain to the transmission of one or more objects that
   can be of interest to receivers.

   LCT is most applicable for delivery of objects or streams in a
   session of substantial length, i.e., objects or streams that range in
   aggregate length from hundreds of kilobytes to many gigabytes, and
   where the duration of the session is on the order of tens of seconds
   or more.

   As an example, an LCT session could be used to deliver a TV program
   using three LCT channels.  Receiving packets from the first LCT
   channel could allow black and white reception.  Receiving the first
   two LCT channels could also permit color reception.  Receiving all
   three channels could allow HDTV quality reception.  Objects in this
   example could correspond to individual TV programs being transmitted.

   As another example, a reliable LCT session could be used to reliably
   deliver hourly-updated weather maps (objects) using ten LCT channels
   at different rates, using FEC coding.  A receiver may join and
   concurrently receive packets from subsets of these channels, until it
   has enough packets in total to recover the object, then leave the
   session (or remain connected listening for session description
   information only) until it is time to receive the next object.  In
   this case, the quality metric is the time required to receive each
   object.

   Before joining a session, the receivers MUST obtain enough of the
   session description to start the session.  This MUST include the
   relevant session parameters needed by a receiver to participate in



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   the session, including all information relevant to congestion
   control.  The session description is determined by the sender, and is
   typically communicated to the receivers out-of-band.  In some cases,
   as described later, parts of the session description that are not
   required to initiate a session MAY be included in the LCT header or
   communicated to a receiver out-of-band after the receiver has joined
   the session.

   An encoder MAY be used to generate the data that is placed in the
   packet payload in order to provide reliability.  A suitable decoder
   is used to reproduce the original information from the packet
   payload.  There MAY be a reliability header that follows the LCT
   header if such an encoder and decoder is used.  The reliability
   header helps to describe the encoding data carried in the payload of
   the packet.  The format of the reliability header depends on the
   coding used, and this is negotiated out-of-band.  As an example, one
   of the FEC headers described in [12] could be used.

   For LCT, when multiple rate congestion control is used, congestion
   control is achieved by sending packets associated with a given
   session to several LCT channels.  Individual receivers dynamically
   join one or more of these channels, according to the network
   congestion as seen by the receiver.  LCT headers include an opaque
   field which MUST be used to convey congestion control information to
   the receivers.  The actual congestion control scheme to use with LCT
   is negotiated out-of-band.  Some examples of congestion control
   protocols that may be suitable for content delivery are described in
   [22], [3], and [25].  Other congestion controls may be suitable when
   LCT is used for a streaming application.

   This document does not specify and restrict the type of exchanges
   between LCT (or any PI built on top of LCT) and an upper application.
   Some upper APIs may use an object-oriented approach, where the only
   possible unit of data exchanged between LCT (or any PI built on top
   of LCT) and an application, either at a source or at a receiver, is
   an object.  Other APIs may enable a sending or receiving application
   to exchange a subset of an object with LCT (or any PI built on top of
   LCT), or may even follow a streaming model.  These considerations are
   outside the scope of this document.

4.1  Environmental Requirements and Considerations

   LCT is intended for congestion controlled delivery of objects and
   streams (both reliable content delivery and streaming of multimedia
   information).






Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   LCT can be used with both multicast and unicast delivery.  LCT
   requires connectivity between a sender and receivers but does not
   require connectivity from receivers to a sender.  LCT inherently
   works with all types of networks, including LANs, WANs, Intranets,
   the Internet, asymmetric networks, wireless networks, and satellite
   networks.  Thus, the inherent raw scalability of LCT is unlimited.
   However, when other specific applications are built on top of LCT,
   then these applications by their very nature may limit scalability.
   For example, if an application requires receivers to retrieve out of
   band information in order to join a session, or an application allows
   receivers to send requests back to the sender to report reception
   statistics, then the scalability of the application is limited by the
   ability to send, receive, and process this additional data.

   LCT requires receivers to be able to uniquely identify and
   demultiplex packets associated with an LCT session.  In particular,
   there MUST be a Transport Session Identifier (TSI) associated with
   each LCT session.  The TSI is scoped by the IP address of the sender,
   and the IP address of the sender together with the TSI MUST uniquely
   identify the session.  If the underlying transport is UDP as
   described in RFC 768 [16], then the 16 bit UDP source port number MAY
   serve as the TSI for the session.  The TSI value MUST be the same in
   all places it occurs within a packet.  If there is no underlying TSI
   provided by the network, transport or any other layer, then the TSI
   MUST be included in the LCT header.

   LCT is presumed to be used with an underlying network or transport
   service that is a "best effort" service that does not guarantee
   packet reception or packet reception order, and which does not have
   any support for flow or congestion control.  For example, the Any-
   Source Multicast (ASM) model of IP multicast as defined in RFC 1112
   [5] is such a "best effort" network service.  While the basic service
   provided by RFC 1112 is largely scalable, providing congestion
   control or reliability should be done carefully to avoid severe
   scalability limitations, especially in presence of heterogeneous sets
   of receivers.

   There are currently two models of multicast delivery, the Any-Source
   Multicast (ASM) model as defined in RFC 1112 [5] and the Source-
   Specific Multicast (SSM) model as defined in [10].  LCT works with
   both multicast models, but in a slightly different way with somewhat
   different environmental concerns.  When using ASM, a sender S sends
   packets to a multicast group G, and the LCT channel address consists
   of the pair (S,G), where S is the IP address of the sender and G is a
   multicast group address.  When using SSM, a sender S sends packets to
   an SSM channel (S,G), and the LCT channel address coincides with the
   SSM channel address.




Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   A sender can locally allocate unique SSM channel addresses, and this
   makes allocation of LCT channel addresses easy with SSM.  To allocate
   LCT channel addresses using ASM, the sender must uniquely chose the
   ASM multicast group address across the scope of the group, and this
   makes allocation of LCT channel addresses more difficult with ASM.

   LCT channels and SSM channels coincide, and thus the receiver will
   only receive packets sent to the requested LCT channel.  With ASM,
   the receiver joins an LCT channel by joining a multicast group G, and
   all packets sent to G, regardless of the sender, may be received by
   the receiver.  Thus, SSM has compelling security advantages over ASM
   for prevention of denial of service attacks.  In either case,
   receivers SHOULD use mechanisms to filter out packets from unwanted
   sources.

   Some networks are not amenable to some congestion control protocols
   that could be used with LCT.  In particular, for a satellite or
   wireless network, there may be no mechanism for receivers to
   effectively reduce their reception rate since there may be a fixed
   transmission rate allocated to the session.

4.2  Delivery service models

   LCT can support several different delivery service models.  Two
   examples are briefly described here.

   Push service model.

   One way a push service model can be used for reliable content
   delivery is to deliver a series of objects.  For example, a receiver
   could join the session and dynamically adapt the number of LCT
   channels the receiver is joined to until enough packets have been
   received to reconstruct an object.  After reconstructing the object
   the receiver may stay in the session and wait for the transmission of
   the next object.

   The push model is particularly attractive in satellite networks and
   wireless networks.  In these cases, a session may consist of one
   fixed rate LCT channel.

   On-demand content delivery model.

   For an on-demand content delivery service model, senders typically
   transmit for some given time period selected to be long enough to
   allow all the intended receivers to join the session and recover the
   object.  For example a popular software update might be transmitted





Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   using LCT for several days, even though a receiver may be able to
   complete the download in one hour total of connection time, perhaps
   spread over several intervals of time.

   In this case the receivers join the session, and dynamically adapt
   the number of LCT channels they subscribe to according to the
   available bandwidth.  Receivers then drop from the session when they
   have received enough packets to recover the object.

   As an example, assume that an object is 50 MB.  The sender could send
   1 KB packets to the first LCT channel at 50 packets per second, so
   that receivers using just this LCT channel could complete reception
   of the object in 1,000 seconds in absence of loss, and would be able
   to complete reception even in presence of some substantial amount of
   losses with the use of coding for reliability.  Furthermore, the
   sender could use a number of LCT channels such that the aggregate
   rate of 1 KB packets to all LCT channels is 1,000 packets per second,
   so that a receiver could be able to complete reception of the object
   in as little 50 seconds (assuming no loss and that the congestion
   control mechanism immediately converges to the use of all LCT
   channels).

   Other service models.

   There are many other delivery service models that LCT can be used for
   that are not covered above.  As examples, a live streaming or an on-
   demand archival content streaming service model.  A description of
   the many potential applications, the appropriate delivery service
   model, and the additional mechanisms to support such functionalities
   when combined with LCT is beyond the scope of this document.  This
   document only attempts to describe the minimal common scalable
   elements to these diverse applications using LCT as the delivery
   transport.

4.3  Congestion Control

   The specific congestion control protocol to be used for LCT sessions
   depends on the type of content to be delivered.  While the general
   behavior of the congestion control protocol is to reduce the
   throughput in presence of congestion and gradually increase it in the
   absence of congestion, the actual dynamic behavior (e.g. response to
   single losses) can vary.

   Some possible congestion control protocols for reliable content
   delivery using LCT are described in [22], [3], and [25].  Different
   delivery service models might require different congestion control
   protocols.




Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


5.  Packet Header Fields

   Packets sent to an LCT session MUST include an "LCT header".  The LCT
   header format described below is the default format, and this is the
   format that is recommended for use by protocol instantiations to
   ensure a uniform format across different protocol instantiations.
   Other LCT header formats MAY be used by protocol instantiations, but
   if the default LCT header format is not used by a protocol
   instantiation that uses LCT, then the protocol instantiation MUST
   specify the lengths and positions within the LCT header it uses of
   all fields described in the default LCT header.

   Other building blocks MAY describe some of the same fields as
   described for the LCT header.  It is RECOMMENDED that protocol
   instantiations using multiple building blocks include shared fields
   at most once in each packet.  Thus, for example, if another building
   block is used with LCT that includes the optional Expected Residual
   Time field, then the Expected Residual Time field SHOULD be carried
   in each packet at most once.

   The position of the LCT header within a packet MUST be specified by
   any protocol instantiation that uses LCT.

5.1  Default LCT header format

   The default LCT header is of variable size, which is specified by a
   length field in the third byte of the header.  In the LCT header, all
   integer fields are carried in "big-endian" or "network order" format,
   that is, most significant byte (octet) first.  Bits designated as
   "padding" or "reserved" (r) MUST by set to 0 by senders and ignored
   by receivers.  Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants in this
   specification are in decimal (base 10).

   The format of the default LCT header is depicted in Figure 1.

















Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   V   | C | r |S| O |H|T|R|A|B|   HDR_LEN     | Codepoint (CP)|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Congestion Control Information (CCI, length = 32*(C+1) bits)  |
    |                          ...                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Transport Session Identifier (TSI, length = 32*S+16*H bits)  |
    |                          ...                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Transport Object Identifier (TOI, length = 32*O+16*H bits)  |
    |                          ...                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |               Sender Current Time (SCT, if T = 1)             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |              Expected Residual Time (ERT, if R = 1)           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Header Extensions (if applicable)              |
    |                          ...                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 1 - Default LCT header format

   The function and length of each field in the default LCT header is
   the following.  Fields marked as "1" mean that the corresponding bits
   MUST be set to "1" by the sender.  Fields marked as "r" or "0" mean
   that the corresponding bits MUST be set to "0" by the sender.

     LCT version number (V): 4 bits

         Indicates the LCT version number.  The LCT version number for
         this specification is 1.

     Congestion control flag (C): 2 bits

         C=0 indicates the Congestion Control Information (CCI) field is
         32-bits in length.  C=1 indicates the CCI field is 64-bits in
         length.  C=2 indicates the CCI field is 96-bits in length.  C=3
         indicates the CCI field is 128-bits in length.

     Reserved (r): 2 bits

         Reserved for future use.  A sender MUST set these bits to zero
         and a receiver MUST ignore these bits.






Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     Transport Session Identifier flag (S): 1 bit

         This is the number of full 32-bit words in the TSI field.  The
         TSI field is 32*S + 16*H bits in length, i.e. the length is
         either 0 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits, or 48 bits.

     Transport Object Identifier flag (O): 2 bits

         This is the number of full 32-bit words in the TOI field.  The
         TOI field is 32*O + 16*H bits in length, i.e., the length is
         either 0 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits, 48 bits, 64 bits, 80 bits, 96
         bits, or 112 bits.

     Half-word flag (H): 1 bit

         The TSI and the TOI fields are both multiples of 32-bits plus
         16*H bits in length.  This allows the TSI and TOI field lengths
         to be multiples of a half-word (16 bits), while ensuring that
         the aggregate length of the TSI and TOI fields is a multiple of
         32-bits.

     Sender Current Time present flag (T): 1 bit

         T = 0 indicates that the Sender Current Time (SCT) field is not
         present.  T = 1 indicates that the SCT field is present.  The
         SCT is inserted by senders to indicate to receivers how long
         the session has been in progress.

     Expected Residual Time present flag (R): 1 bit

         R = 0 indicates that the Expected Residual Time (ERT) field is
         not present.  R = 1 indicates that the ERT field is present.
         The ERT is inserted by senders to indicate to receivers how
         much longer the session / object transmission will continue.

         Senders MUST NOT set R = 1 when the ERT for the session is more
         than 2^32-1 time units (approximately 49 days), where time is
         measured in units of milliseconds.

     Close Session flag (A): 1 bit

         Normally, A is set to 0.  The sender MAY set A to 1 when
         termination of transmission of packets for the session is
         imminent.  A MAY be set to 1 in just the last packet
         transmitted for the session, or A MAY be set to 1 in the last
         few seconds of packets transmitted for the session.  Once the
         sender sets A to 1 in one packet, the sender SHOULD set A to 1
         in all subsequent packets until termination of transmission of



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


         packets for the session.  A received packet with A set to 1
         indicates to a receiver that the sender will immediately stop
         sending packets for the session.  When a receiver receives a
         packet with A set to 1 the receiver SHOULD assume that no more
         packets will be sent to the session.

     Close Object flag (B): 1 bit

         Normally, B is set to 0.  The sender MAY set B to 1 when
         termination of transmission of packets for an object is
         imminent.  If the TOI field is in use and B is set to 1 then
         termination of transmission for the object identified by the
         TOI field is imminent.  If the TOI field is not in use and B is
         set to 1 then termination of transmission for the one object in
         the session identified by out-of-band information is imminent.
         B MAY be set to 1 in just the last packet transmitted for the
         object, or B MAY be set to 1 in the last few seconds packets
         transmitted for the object.  Once the sender sets B to 1 in one
         packet for a particular object, the sender SHOULD set B to 1 in
         all subsequent packets for the object until termination of
         transmission of packets for the object.  A received packet with
         B set to 1 indicates to a receiver that the sender will
         immediately stop sending packets for the object.  When a
         receiver receives a packet with B set to 1 then it SHOULD
         assume that no more packets will be sent for the object to the
         session.

     LCT header length (HDR_LEN): 8 bits

         Total length of the LCT header in units of 32-bit words.  The
         length of the LCT header MUST be a multiple of 32-bits.  This
         field can be used to directly access the portion of the packet
         beyond the LCT header, i.e., to the first other header if it
         exists, or to the packet payload if it exists and there is no
         other header, or to the end of the packet if there are no other
         headers or packet payload.

     Codepoint (CP): 8 bits

         An opaque identifier which is passed to the packet payload
         decoder to convey information on the codec being used for the
         packet payload.  The mapping between the codepoint and the
         actual codec is defined on a per session basis and communicated
         out-of-band as part of the session description information.
         The use of the CP field is similar to the Payload Type (PT)
         field in RTP headers as described in RFC 1889 [21].





Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     Congestion Control Information (CCI): 32, 64, 96 or 128 bits

         Used to carry congestion control information.  For example, the
         congestion control information could include layer numbers,
         logical channel numbers, and sequence numbers.  This field is
         opaque for the purpose of this specification.

         This field MUST be 32 bits if C=0.
         This field MUST be 64 bits if C=1.
         This field MUST be 96 bits if C=2.
         This field MUST be 128 bits if C=3.

     Transport Session Identifier (TSI): 0, 16, 32 or 48 bits

         The TSI uniquely identifies a session among all sessions from a
         particular sender.  The TSI is scoped by the IP address of the
         sender, and thus the IP address of the sender and the TSI
         together uniquely identify the session.  Although a TSI in
         conjunction with the IP address of the sender always uniquely
         identifies a session, whether or not the TSI is included in the
         LCT header depends on what is used as the TSI value.  If the
         underlying transport is UDP, then the 16 bit UDP source port
         number MAY serve as the TSI for the session.  If the TSI value
         appears multiple times in a packet then all occurrences MUST be
         the same value.  If there is no underlying TSI provided by the
         network, transport or any other layer, then the TSI MUST be
         included in the LCT header.

         The TSI MUST be unique among all sessions served by the sender
         during the period when the session is active, and for a large
         period of time preceding and following when the session is
         active.  A primary purpose of the TSI is to prevent receivers
         from inadvertently accepting packets from a sender that belong
         to sessions other than the sessions receivers are subscribed
         to.  For example, suppose a session is deactivated and then
         another session is activated by a sender and the two sessions
         use an overlapping set of channels.  A receiver that connects
         and remains connected to the first session during this sender
         activity could possibly accept packets from the second session
         as belonging to the first session if the TSI for the two
         sessions were identical.  The mapping of TSI field values to
         sessions is outside the scope of this document and is to be
         done out-of-band.

         The length of the TSI field is 32*S + 16*H bits.  Note that the
         aggregate lengths of the TSI field plus the TOI field is a
         multiple of 32 bits.




Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     Transport Object Identifier (TOI): 0, 16, 32, 48, 64, 80, 96 or 112
         bits.

         This field indicates which object within the session this
         packet pertains to.  For example, a sender might send a number
         of files in the same session, using TOI=0 for the first file,
         TOI=1 for the second one, etc. As another example, the TOI may
         be a unique global identifier of the object that is being
         transmitted from several senders concurrently, and the TOI
         value may be the output of a hash function applied to the
         object.  The mapping of TOI field values to objects is outside
         the scope of this document and is to be done out-of-band.  The
         TOI field MUST be used in all packets if more than one object
         is to be transmitted in a session, i.e. the TOI field is either
         present in all the packets of a session or is never present.

         The length of the TOI field is 32*O + 16*H bits.  Note that the
         aggregate lengths of the TSI field plus the TOI field is a
         multiple of 32 bits.

     Sender Current Time (SCT): 0 or 32 bits

         This field represents the current clock at the sender and at
         the time this packet was transmitted, measured in units of 1ms
         and computed modulo 2^32 units from the start of the session.

         This field MUST NOT be present if T=0 and MUST be present if
         T=1.

     Expected Residual Time (ERT): 0 or 32 bits

         This field represents the sender expected residual transmission
         time for the current session or for the transmission of the
         current object, measured in units of 1ms.  If the packet
         containing the ERT field also contains the TOI field, then ERT
         refers to the object corresponding to the TOI field, otherwise
         it refers to the session.

         This field MUST NOT be present if R=0 and MUST be present if
         R=1.

5.2  Header-Extension Fields

   Header Extensions are used in LCT to accommodate optional header
   fields that are not always used or have variable size.  Examples of
   the use of Header Extensions include:

     o Extended-size versions of already existing header fields.



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     o Sender and Receiver authentication information.

   The presence of Header Extensions can be inferred by the LCT header
   length (HDR_LEN): if HDR_LEN is larger than the length of the
   standard header then the remaining header space is taken by Header
   Extension fields.

   If present, Header Extensions MUST be processed to ensure that they
   are recognized before performing any congestion control procedure or
   otherwise accepting a packet.  The default action for unrecognized
   header extensions is to ignore them.  This allows the future
   introduction of backward-compatible enhancements to LCT without
   changing the LCT version number.  Non backward-compatible header
   extensions CANNOT be introduced without changing the LCT version
   number.

   Protocol instantiation MAY override this default behavior for PI-
   specific extensions (see below).

   There are two formats for Header Extension fields, as depicted below.
   The first format is used for variable-length extensions, with Header
   Extension Type (HET) values between 0 and 127.  The second format is
   used for fixed length (one 32-bit word) extensions, using HET values
   from 127 to 255.

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  HET (<=127)  |       HEL     |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    .                                                               .
    .              Header Extension Content (HEC)                   .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  HET (>=128)  |       Header Extension Content (HEC)          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2 - Format of additional headers

   The explanation of each sub-field is the following:

     Header Extension Type (HET): 8 bits

         The type of the Header Extension.  This document defines a
         number of possible types.  Additional types may be defined in



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


         future versions of this specification.  HET values from 0 to
         127 are used for variable-length Header Extensions.  HET values
         from 128 to 255 are used for fixed-length 32-bit Header
         Extensions.

     Header Extension Length (HEL): 8 bits

         The length of the whole Header Extension field, expressed in
         multiples of 32-bit words.  This field MUST be present for
         variable-length extensions (HET between 0 and 127) and MUST NOT
         be present for fixed-length extensions (HET between 128 and
         255).

     Header Extension Content (HEC): variable length

         The content of the Header Extension.  The format of this sub-
         field depends on the Header Extension type.  For fixed-length
         Header Extensions, the HEC is 24 bits.  For variable-length
         Header Extensions, the HEC field has variable size, as
         specified by the HEL field.  Note that the length of each
         Header Extension field MUST be a multiple of 32 bits.  Also
         note that the total size of the LCT header, including all
         Header Extensions and all optional header fields, cannot exceed
         255 32-bit words.

   Header Extensions are further divided between general LCT extensions
   and Protocol Instantiation specific extensions (PI-specific).
   General LCT extensions have HET in the ranges 0:63 and 128:191
   inclusive.  PI-specific extensions have HET in the ranges 64:127 and
   192:255 inclusive.

   General LCT extensions are intended to allow the introduction of
   backward-compatible enhancements to LCT without changing the LCT
   version number.  Non backward-compatible header extensions CANNOT be
   introduced without changing the LCT version number.

   PI-specific extensions are reserved for PI-specific use with semantic
   and default parsing actions defined by the PI.

   The following general LCT Header Extension types are defined:

   EXT_NOP=0     No-Operation extension.
                 The information present in this extension field MUST be
                 ignored by receivers.

   EXT_AUTH=1    Packet authentication extension
                 Information used to authenticate the sender of the
                 packet.  The format of this Header Extension and its



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


                 processing is outside the scope of this document and is
                 to be communicated out-of-band as part of the session
                 description.

                 It is RECOMMENDED that senders provide some form of
                 packet authentication.  If EXT_AUTH is present,
                 whatever packet authentication checks that can be
                 performed immediately upon reception of the packet
                 SHOULD be performed before accepting the packet and
                 performing any congestion control-related action on it.

                 Some packet authentication schemes impose a delay of
                 several seconds between when a packet is received and
                 when the packet is fully authenticated.  Any congestion
                 control related action that is appropriate MUST NOT be
                 postponed by any such full packet authentication.

   All senders and receivers implementing LCT MUST support the EXT_NOP
   Header Extension and MUST recognize EXT_AUTH, but MAY NOT be able to
   parse its content.

6.  Operations

6.1  Sender Operation

   Before joining an LCT session a receiver MUST obtain a session
   description.  The session description MUST include:

     o The sender IP address;

     o The number of LCT channels;

     o The addresses and port numbers used for each LCT channel;

     o The Transport Session ID (TSI) to be used for the session;

     o Enough information to determine the congestion control protocol
       being used;

     o Enough information to determine the packet authentication scheme
       being used if it is being used.

   The session description could also include, but is not limited to:

     o The data rates used for each LCT channel;

     o The length of the packet payload;




Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


     o The mapping of TOI value(s) to objects for the session;

     o Any information that is relevant to each object being
       transported, such as when it will be available within the
       session, for how long, and the length of the object;

   Protocol instantiations using LCT MAY place additional requirements
   on what must be included in the session description.  For example, a
   protocol instantiation might require that the data rates for each
   channel, or the mapping of TOI value(s) to objects for the session,
   or other information related to other headers that might be required
   to be included in the session description.

   The session description could be in a form such as SDP as defined in
   RFC 2327 [8], or XML metadata as defined in RFC 3023 [14], or
   HTTP/Mime headers as defined in RFC 2068 [6], etc.  It might be
   carried in a session announcement protocol such as SAP as defined in
   RFC 2974 [9], obtained using a proprietary session control protocol,
   located on a Web page with scheduling information, or conveyed via
   E-mail or other out-of-band methods.  Discussion of session
   description format, and distribution of session descriptions is
   beyond the scope of this document.

   Within an LCT session, a sender using LCT transmits a sequence of
   packets, each in the format defined above.  Packets are sent from a
   sender using one or more LCT channels which together constitute a
   session.  Transmission rates may be different in different channels
   and may vary over time.  The specification of the other building
   block headers and the packet payload used by a complete protocol
   instantiation using LCT is beyond the scope of this document.  This
   document does not specify the order in which packets are transmitted,
   nor the organization of a session into multiple channels.  Although
   these issues affect the efficiency of the protocol, they do not
   affect the correctness nor the inter-operability of LCT between
   senders and receivers.

   Several objects can be carried within the same LCT session.  In this
   case, each object MUST be identified by a unique TOI.  Objects MAY be
   transmitted sequentially, or they MAY be transmitted concurrently.
   It is good practice to only send objects concurrently in the same
   session if the receivers that participate in that portion of the
   session have interest in receiving all the objects.  The reason for
   this is that it wastes bandwidth and networking resources to have
   receivers receive data for objects that they have no interest in.

   Typically, the sender(s) continues to send packets in a session until
   the transmission is considered complete.  The transmission may be
   considered complete when some time has expired, a certain number of



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   packets have been sent, or some out-of-band signal (possibly from a
   higher level protocol) has indicated completion by a sufficient
   number of receivers.

   For the reasons mentioned above, this document does not pose any
   restriction on packet sizes.  However, network efficiency
   considerations recommend that the sender uses an as large as possible
   packet payload size, but in such a way that packets do not exceed the
   network's maximum transmission unit size (MTU), or when fragmentation
   coupled with packet loss might introduce severe inefficiency in the
   transmission.

   It is recommended that all packets have the same or very similar
   sizes, as this can have a severe impact on the effectiveness of
   congestion control schemes such as the ones described in [22], [3],
   and [25].  A sender of packets using LCT MUST implement the sender-
   side part of one of the congestion control schemes that is in
   accordance with RFC 2357 [13] using the Congestion Control
   Information field provided in the LCT header, and the corresponding
   receiver congestion control scheme is to be communicated out-of-band
   and MUST be implemented by any receivers participating in the
   session.

6.2  Receiver Operation

   Receivers can operate differently depending on the delivery service
   model.  For example, for an on demand service model, receivers may
   join a session, obtain the necessary packets to reproduce the object,
   and then leave the session.  As another example, for a streaming
   service model, a receiver may be continuously joined to a set of LCT
   channels to download all objects in a session.

   To be able to participate in a session, a receiver MUST obtain the
   relevant session description information as listed in Section 6.1.

   If packet authentication information is present in an LCT header, it
   SHOULD be used as specified in Section 5.2.  To be able to be a
   receiver in a session, the receiver MUST be able to process the LCT
   header.  The receiver MUST be able to discard, forward, store or
   process the other headers and the packet payload.  If a receiver is
   not able to process a LCT header, it MUST drop from the session.

   To be able to participate in a session, a receiver MUST implement the
   congestion control protocol specified in the session description
   using the Congestion Control Information field provided in the LCT
   header. If a receiver is not able to implement the congestion control
   protocol used in the session, it MUST NOT join the session.  When the
   session is transmitted on multiple LCT channels, receivers MUST



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   initially join channels according to the specified startup behavior
   of the congestion control protocol.  For a multiple rate congestion
   control protocol that uses multiple channels, this typically means
   that a receiver will initially join only a minimal set of LCT
   channels, possibly a single one, that in aggregate are carrying
   packets at a low rate.  This rule has the purpose of preventing
   receivers from starting at high data rates.

   Several objects can be carried either sequentially or concurrently
   within the same LCT session.  In this case, each object is identified
   by a unique TOI.  Note that even if a server stops sending packets
   for an old object before starting to transmit packets for a new
   object, both the network and the underlying protocol layers can cause
   some reordering of packets, especially when sent over different LCT
   channels, and thus receivers SHOULD NOT assume that the reception of
   a packet for a new object means that there are no more packets in
   transit for the previous one, at least for some amount of time.

   A receiver MAY be concurrently joined to multiple LCT sessions from
   one or more senders.  The receiver MUST perform congestion control on
   each such LCT session.  If the congestion control protocol allows the
   receiver some flexibility in terms of its actions within a session
   then the receiver MAY make choices to optimize the packet flow
   performance across the multiple LCT sessions, as long as the receiver
   still adheres to the congestion control rules for each LCT session
   individually.

7.  Requirements from Other Building Blocks

   As described in RFC 3048 [23], LCT is a building block that is
   intended to be used, in conjunction with other building blocks, to
   help specify a protocol instantiation.  A congestion control building
   block that uses the Congestion Control information field within the
   LCT header MUST be used by any protocol instantiation that uses LCT,
   and other building blocks MAY also be used, such as a reliability
   building block.

   The congestion control MUST be applied to the LCT session as an
   entity, i.e., over the aggregate of the traffic carried by all of the
   LCT channels associated with the LCT session.  Some possible schemes
   are specified in [22], [3], and [25].  The Congestion Control
   Information field in the LCT header is an opaque field that is
   reserved to carry information related to congestion control.  There
   MAY also be congestion control Header Extension fields that carry
   additional information related to congestion control.






Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   The particular layered encoder and congestion control protocols used
   with LCT have an impact on the performance and applicability of LCT.
   For example, some layered encoders used for video and audio streams
   can produce a very limited number of layers, thus providing a very
   coarse control in the reception rate of packets by receivers in a
   session.  When LCT is used for reliable data transfer, some FEC
   codecs are inherently limited in the size of the object they can
   encode, and for objects larger than this size the reception overhead
   on the receivers can grow substantially.

   A more in-depth description of the use of FEC in Reliable Multicast
   Transport (RMT) protocols is given in [11].  Some of the FEC codecs
   that MAY be used in conjunction with LCT for reliable content
   delivery are specified in [12].  The Codepoint field in the LCT
   header is an opaque field that can be used to carry information
   related to the encoding of the packet payload.

   LCT also requires receivers to obtain a session description, as
   described in Section 6.1.  The session description could be in a form
   such as SDP as defined in RFC 2327 [8], or XML metadata as defined in
   RFC 3023 [14], or HTTP/Mime headers as defined in RFC 2068 [6], and
   distributed with SAP as defined in RFC 2974 [9], using HTTP, or in
   other ways.  It is RECOMMENDED that an authentication protocol such
   as IPSEC [11] be used to deliver the session description to receivers
   to ensure the correct session description arrives.

   It is recommended that LCT implementors use some packet
   authentication scheme to protect the protocol from attacks.  An
   example of a possibly suitable scheme is described in [15].

   Some protocol instantiations that use LCT MAY use building blocks
   that require the generation of feedback from the receivers to the
   sender.  However, the mechanism for doing this is outside the scope
   of LCT.

8.  Security Considerations

   LCT can be subject to denial-of-service attacks by attackers which
   try to confuse the congestion control mechanism, or send forged
   packets to the session which would prevent successful reconstruction
   or cause inaccurate reconstruction of large portions of an object by
   receivers.  LCT is particularly affected by such an attack since many
   receivers may receive the same forged packet.  It is therefore
   RECOMMENDED that an integrity check be made on received objects
   before delivery to an application, e.g., by appending an MD5 hash
   [17] to an object before it is sent and then computing the MD5 hash
   once the object is reconstructed to ensure it is the same as the sent
   object.  Moreover, in order to obtain strong cryptographic integrity



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   protection a digital signature verifiable by the receiver SHOULD be
   computed on top of such a hash value.  It is also RECOMMENDED that
   protocol instantiations that use LCT implement some form of packet
   authentication such as TESLA [15] to protect against such attacks.
   Finally, it is RECOMMENDED that Reverse Path Forwarding checks be
   enabled in all network routers and switches along the path from the
   sender to receivers to limit the possibility of a bad agent injecting
   forged packets into the multicast tree data path.

   Another vulnerability of LCT is the potential of receivers obtaining
   an incorrect session description for the session.  The consequences
   of this could be that legitimate receivers with the wrong session
   description are unable to correctly receive the session content, or
   that receivers inadvertently try to receive at a much higher rate
   than they are capable of, thereby disrupting traffic in portions of
   the network.  To avoid these problems, it is RECOMMENDED that
   measures be taken to prevent receivers from accepting incorrect
   Session Descriptions, e.g., by using source authentication to ensure
   that receivers only accept legitimate Session Descriptions from
   authorized senders.

   A receiver with an incorrect or corrupted implementation of the
   multiple rate congestion control building block may affect health of
   the network in the path between the sender and the receiver, and may
   also affect the reception rates of other receivers joined to the
   session.  It is therefore RECOMMENDED that receivers be required to
   identify themselves as legitimate before they receive the Session
   Description needed to join the session.  How receivers identify
   themselves as legitimate is outside the scope of this document.

9.  IANA Considerations

   No information in this specification is subject to IANA registration.

   Building blocks used in conjunction with LCT MAY introduce additional
   IANA considerations.

10.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Vincent Roca and Roger Kermode for detailed comments and
   contributions to this document.  Thanks also to Bruce Lueckenhoff,
   Hayder Radha and Justin Chapweske for detailed comments on this
   document.

11.  References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


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

   [3]  Byers, J.W., Frumin, M., Horn, G., Luby, M., Mitzenmacher, M.,
        Roetter, A. and W. Shaver, "FLID-DL: Congestion Control for
        Layered Multicast", Proceedings of Second International Workshop
        on Networked Group Communications (NGC 2000), Palo Alto, CA,
        November 2000.

   [4]  Byers, J.W., Luby, M., Mitzenmacher, M. and A. Rege, "A Digital
        Fountain Approach to Reliable Distribution of Bulk Data",
        Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM'98, Vancouver, Canada, September 1998.

   [5]  Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC
        1112, August 1989.

   [6]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H. and T.
        Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC
        2616, January 1997.

   [7]  Gemmell, J., Schooler, E. and J. Gray, "Fcast Multicast File
        Distribution", IEEE Network, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 58-68, January
        2000.

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

   [9]  Handley, M., Perkins, C. and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement
        Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [10] Holbrook, H. W., "A Channel Model for Multicast", Ph.D.
        Dissertation, Stanford University, Department of Computer
        Science, Stanford, California, August 2001.

   [11] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, M. and
        J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in
        Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002.

   [12] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, M. and
        J. Crowcroft, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block",
        RFC 3452, December 2002.

   [13] Mankin, A., Romanow, A., Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IETF
        Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and
        Application Protocols", RFC 2357, June 1998.

   [14] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC
        3023, January 2001.



Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


   [15] Perrig, A., Canetti, R., Song, D. and J.D. Tygar, "Efficient and
        Secure Source Authentication for Multicast", Network and
        Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2001, pp. 35-46,
        February 2001.

   [16] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August
        1980.

   [17] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
        1992.

   [18] Rizzo, L., "Effective Erasure Codes for Reliable Computer
        Communication Protocols", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication
        Review, Vol.27, No.2, pp.24-36, Apr 1997.

   [19] Rizzo, L, "PGMCC: A TCP-friendly single-rate multicast
        congestion control scheme", Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2000,
        Stockholm Sweden, August 2000.

   [20] Rizzo, L and L. Vicisano, "Reliable Multicast Data Distribution
        protocol based on software FEC techniques", Proceedings of the
        Fourth IEEES Workshop on the Architecture and Implementation of
        High Performance Communication Systems, HPCS'97, Chalkidiki
        Greece, June 1997.

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

   [22] Vicisano, L., Rizzo, L. and J. Crowcroft, "TCP-like Congestion
        Control for Layered Multicast Data Transfer", IEEE Infocom'98,
        San Francisco, CA, Mar.28-Apr.1 1998.

   [23] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M., Floyd, S.
        and M. Luby, "Reliable Multicast Transport Building Blocks for
        One-to-Many Bulk-Data Transfer", RFC 3048, January 2001.

   [24] Kermode, R., Vicisano, L., "Author Guidelines for Reliable
        Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and Protocol
        Instantiation documents", RFC 3269, April 2002.

   [25] Luby, M., Goyal V. K, Skaria S., Horn, G., "Wave and Equation
        Based Rate Control using Multicast Round-trip Time", Proceedings
        of ACM SIGCOMM 2002, Pittsburgh PA, August, 2002.







Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


Authors' Addresses

   Michael Luby
   Digital Fountain
   39141 Civic Center Dr.
   Suite 300
   Fremont, CA, USA, 94538

   EMail: luby@digitalfountain.com

   Jim Gemmell
   Microsoft Research
   455 Market St. #1690
   San Francisco, CA, 94105

   EMail: jgemmell@microsoft.com

   Lorenzo Vicisano
   cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA, USA, 95134

   EMail: lorenzo@cisco.com

   Luigi Rizzo
   Dip. Ing. dell'Informazione,
   Univ. di Pisa
   via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 Pisa, Italy

   EMail: luigi@iet.unipi.it

   Mark Handley
   ICIR
   1947 Center St.
   Berkeley, CA, USA, 94704

   EMail: mjh@icir.org

   Jon Crowcroft
   Marconi Professor of Communications Systems
   University of Cambridge
   Computer Laboratory
   William Gates Building
   J J Thomson Avenue
   Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK

   EMail: Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk




Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 3451                   LCT Building Block              December 2002


Full Copyright Statement

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgement

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



















Luby, et. al.                 Experimental                     [Page 29]


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