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

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis

AVTCore                                                     R. Even, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: RFC5285 (if approved)                               D. Singer
Intended status: Standards Track                             Apple, Inc.
Expires: April 10, 2016                                      H. Desineni
                                                                Qualcomm
                                                         October 8, 2015


             A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
                 draft-even-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-01.txt

Abstract

   This document provides a general mechanism to use the header
   extension feature of RTP (the Real-Time Transport Protocol).  It
   provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each
   RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and
   registration is de-centralized.  The actual extensions in use in a
   session are signaled in the setup information for that session.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 April 10, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents




Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Packet Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  One-Byte Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Two-Byte Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  SDP Signaling Design  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  SDP Signaling for support of mixed one byte and two bytes
       header extensions.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Offer/Answer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  BNF Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Identifier Space for IANA to Manage  . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Registration of the SDP extmap Attribute . . . . . . . .  16
     10.3.  Registration of the SDP Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   The RTP specification [RFC3550] provides a capability to extend the
   RTP header.  It defines the header extension format and rules for its
   use in Section 5.3.1.  The existing header extension method permits
   at most one extension per RTP packet, identified by a 16-bit
   identifier and a 16-bit length field specifying the length of the
   header extension in 32-bit words.

   This mechanism has two conspicuous drawbacks.  First, it permits only
   one header extension in a single RTP packet.  Second, the
   specification gives no guidance as to how the 16-bit header extension
   identifiers are allocated to avoid collisions.

   This specification removes the first drawback by defining a backward-
   compatible and extensible means to carry multiple header extension
   elements in a single RTP packet.  It removes the second drawback by
   defining that these extension elements are named by URIs, defining an
   IANA registry for extension elements defined in IETF specifications,




Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   and a Session Description Protocol (SDP) method for mapping between
   the naming URIs and the identifier values carried in the RTP packets.

   This header extension applies to RTP/AVP (the Audio/Visual Profile)
   and its extensions.

   This document removes a limitation from RFC5285 that did not allow
   sending both one byte and two bytes header extensions in the same RTP
   stream

2.  Requirements Notation

   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.  Design Goals

   The goal of this design is to provide a simple mechanism whereby
   multiple identified extensions can be used in RTP packets, without
   the need for formal registration of those extensions but nonetheless
   avoiding collision.

   This mechanism provides an alternative to the practice of burying
   associated metadata into the media format bit stream.  This has often
   been done in media data sent over fixed-bandwidth channels.  Once
   this is done, a decoder for the specific media format is required to
   extract the metadata.  Also, depending on the media format, the
   metadata may need to be added at the time of encoding the media so
   that the bit-rate required for the metadata is taken into account.
   But the metadata may not be known at that time.  Inserting metadata
   at a later time can require a decode and re-encode to meet bit-rate
   requirements.

   In some cases, a more appropriate, higher-level mechanism may be
   available, and if so, it should be used.  For cases where a higher-
   level mechanism is not available, it is better to provide a mechanism
   at the RTP level than have the metadata be tied to a specific form of
   media data.

4.  Packet Design

4.1.  General

   The following design is fit into the "header extension" of the RTP
   extension, as described above.





Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   The presence and format of this header extension and its contents are
   negotiated or defined out-of-band, such as through signaling (see
   below for SDP signaling).  The value defined for an RTP extension
   (defined below for the one-byte and two-byte header forms) is only an
   architectural constant (e.g., for use by network analyzers); it is
   the negotiation/definition (e.g., in SDP) that is the definitive
   indication that this header extension is present.

   This specification inherits the requirement from the RTP
   specification that the header extension "is designed so that the
   header extension may be ignored".  To be specific, header extensions
   using this specification MUST only be used for data that can safely
   be ignored by the recipient without affecting interoperability, and
   MUST NOT be used when the presence of the extension has changed the
   form or nature of the rest of the packet in a way that is not
   compatible with the way the stream is signaled (e.g., as defined by
   the payload type).  Valid examples might include metadata that is
   additional to the usual RTP information.

   The RTP header extension is formed as a sequence of extension
   elements, with possible padding.  Each extension element has a local
   identifier and a length.  The local identifiers may be mapped to a
   larger namespace in the negotiation (e.g., session signaling).

   As is good network practice, data should only be transmitted when
   needed.  The RTP header extension should only be present in a packet
   if that packet also contains one or more extension elements, as
   defined here.  An extension element should only be present in a
   packet when needed; the signaling setup of extension elements
   indicates only that those elements may be present in some packets,
   not that they are in fact present in all (or indeed, any) packets.

   Each extension element in a packet has a local identifier (ID) and a
   length.  The local identifiers present in the stream MUST have been
   negotiated or defined out-of-band.  There are no static allocations
   of local identifiers.  Each distinct extension MUST have a unique ID.
   The value 0 is reserved for padding and MUST NOT be used as a local
   identifier.

   There are two variants of the extension: one-byte and two-byte
   headers.  Since it is expected that (a) the number of extensions in
   any given RTP session is small and (b) the extensions themselves are
   small, the one-byte header form is preferred and MUST be supported by
   all receivers.A stream MUST contain only one-byte or two-byte headers
   unless it is known that all recipients support mixing, either by
   offer/answer negotiation (see section 6) or by out-of-band knowledge.
   One-byte and two-byte headers MUST NOT be mixed in a single RTP




Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   packet.  Transmitters SHOULD NOT use the two-byte form when all
   extensions are small enough for the one-byte header form.

   A sequence of extension elements, possibly with padding, forms the
   header extension defined in the RTP specification.  There are as many
   extension elements as fit into the length as indicated in the RTP
   header extension length.  Since this length is signaled in full
   32-bit words, padding bytes are used to pad to a 32-bit boundary.
   The entire extension is parsed byte-by-byte to find each extension
   element (no alignment is required), and parsing stops at the earlier
   of the end of the entire header extension, or in one-byte headers
   only case, on encountering an identifier with the reserved value of
   15.

   In both forms, padding bytes have the value of 0 (zero).  They may be
   placed between extension elements, if desired for alignment, or after
   the last extension element, if needed for padding.  A padding byte
   does not supply the ID of an element, nor the length field.  When a
   padding byte is found, it is ignored and the parser moves on to
   interpreting the next byte.

   Note carefully that the one-byte header form allows for data lengths
   between 1 and 16 bytes, by adding 1 to the signaled length value
   (thus, 0 in the length field indicates 1 byte of data follows).  This
   allows for the important case of 16-byte payloads.  This addition is
   not performed for the two-byte headers, where the length field
   signals data lengths between 0 and 255 bytes.

   Use of RTP header extensions will reduce the efficiency of RTP header
   compression, since the header extension will be sent uncompressed
   unless the RTP header compression module is updated to recognize the
   extension header.  If header extensions are present in some packets,
   but not in others, this can also reduce compression efficiency by
   requiring an update to the fixed header to be conveyed when header
   extensions start or stop being sent.  The interactions of the RTP
   header extension and header compression is explored further in
   [RFC2508] and [RFC3095].

4.2.  One-Byte Header

   In the one-byte header form of extensions, the 16-bit value required
   by the RTP specification for a header extension, labeled in the RTP
   specification as "defined by profile", takes the fixed bit pattern
   0xBEDE (the first version of this specification was written on the
   feast day of the Venerable Bede).






Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a
   length:

       0
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  ID   |  len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The 4-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
   1-14 inclusive.  In the signaling section, this is referred to as the
   valid range.

   The local identifier value 15 is reserved for future extension and
   MUST NOT be used as an identifier.  If the ID value 15 is
   encountered, its length field should be ignored, processing of the
   entire extension should terminate at that point, and only the
   extension elements present prior to the element with ID 15
   considered.

   The 4-bit length is the number minus one of data bytes of this header
   extension element following the one-byte header.  Therefore, the
   value zero in this field indicates that one byte of data follows, and
   a value of 15 (the maximum) indicates element data of 16 bytes.
   (This permits carriage of 16-byte values, which is a common length of
   labels and identifiers, while losing the possibility of zero-length
   values -- which would often be padded anyway.)

   An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
   padding, and including the required RTP fields, follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       0xBE    |    0xDE       |           length=3            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  ID   | L=0   |     data      |  ID   |  L=1  |   data...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ...data   |    0 (pad)    |    0 (pad)    |  ID   | L=3   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          data                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+








Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


4.3.  Two-Byte Header

   In the two-byte header form, the 16-bit value required by the RTP
   specification for a header extension, labeled in the RTP
   specification as "defined by profile", is defined as shown below.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         0x100         |appbits|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The appbits field is 4 bits that are application-dependent and may be
   defined to be any value or meaning, and are outside the scope of this
   specification.  For the purposes of signaling, this field is treated
   as a special extension value assigned to the local identifier 256.
   If no extension has been specified through configuration or signaling
   for this local identifier value 256, the appbits field SHOULD be set
   to all 0s by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Each extension element starts with a byte containing an ID and a byte
   containing a length:

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       ID      |     length    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The 8-bit ID is the local identifier of this element in the range
   1-255 inclusive.  In the signaling section, the range 1-256 is
   referred to as the valid range, with the values 1-255 referring to
   extension elements, and the value 256 referring to the 4-bit field
   'appbits' (above).

   The 8-bit length field is the length of extension data in bytes not
   including the ID and length fields.  The value zero indicates there
   is no data following.













Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   An example header extension, with three extension elements, some
   padding, and including the required RTP fields, follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       0x10    |    0x00       |           length=3            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      ID       |     L=0       |     ID        |     L=1       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       data    |    0 (pad)    |       ID      |      L=4      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          data                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.  SDP Signaling Design

   The indication of the presence of this extension, and the mapping of
   local identifiers used in the header extension to a larger namespace,
   MUST be performed out-of-band, for example, as part of a SIP offer/
   answer exchange using SDP.  This section defines such signaling in
   SDP.

   A usable mapping MUST use IDs in the valid range, and each ID in this
   range MUST be used only once for each media (or only once if the
   mappings are session level).  Mappings that do not conform to these
   rules MAY be presented, for instance, during offer/answer negotiation
   as described in the next section, but remapping to conformant values
   is necessary before they can be applied.

   Each extension is named by a URI.  That URI MUST be absolute, and
   precisely identifies the format and meaning of the extension.  URIs
   that contain a domain name SHOULD also contain a month-date in the
   form mmyyyy.  The definition of the element and assignment of the URI
   MUST have been authorized by the owner of the domain name on or very
   close to that date.  (This avoids problems when domain names change
   ownership.)  If the resource or document defines several extensions,
   then the URI MUST identify the actual extension in use, e.g., using a
   fragment or query identifier (characters after a '#' or '?' in the
   URI).

   Rationale: the use of URIs provides for a large, unallocated space,
   and gives documentation on the extension.  The URIs are not required
   to be de-referencable, in order to permit confidential or
   experimental use, and to cover the case when extensions continue to
   be used after the organization that defined them ceases to exist.





Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   An extension URI with the same attributes MUST NOT appear more than
   once applying to the same stream, i.e., at session level or in the
   declarations for a single stream at media level.  (The same extension
   may, of course, be used for several streams, and may appear
   differently parameterized for the same stream.)

   For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI used SHOULD be a URN starting
   "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:" and followed by a registered,
   descriptive name.

   The registration requirements are detailed in the IANA Considerations
   section, below.

   An example (this is only an example), where 'avt-example-metadata' is
   the hypothetical name of a header extension, might be:

      urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:avt-example-metadata

   An example name not from the IETF (this is only an example) might be:

      http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#example-metadata

   The mapping may be provided per media stream (in the media-level
   section(s) of SDP, i.e., after an "m=" line) or globally for all
   streams (i.e., before the first "m=" line, at session level).  The
   definitions MUST be either all session level or all media level; it
   is not permitted to mix the two styles.  In addition, as noted above,
   the IDs used MUST be unique for each stream type for a given media,
   or for the session for session-level declarations.

   Each local identifier potentially used in the stream is mapped to a
   string using an attribute of the form:

      a=extmap:<value>["/"<direction>] <URI> <extensionattributes>

   where <URI> is a URI, as above, <value> is the local identifier (ID)
   of this extension and is an integer in the valid range inclusive (0
   is reserved for padding in both forms, and 15 is reserved in the one-
   byte header form, as noted above), and <direction> is one of
   "sendonly", "recvonly", "sendrecv", or "inactive" (without the
   quotes).

   The formal BNF syntax is presented in a later section of this
   specification.

   Example:

      a=extmap:1 http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#ttime



Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


      a=extmap:2/sendrecv http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#xmeta short

   When SDP signaling is used for the RTP session, it is the presence of
   the 'extmap' attribute(s) that is diagnostic that this style of
   header extensions is used, not the magic number indicated above.

6.  SDP Signaling for support of mixed one byte and two bytes header
    extensions.

   In order to allow for backward interoperability with systems that do
   not support mixing of one byte and two bytes header extensions this
   document defines the "a=extmap-allow-mixed" Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] attribute to indicate if the participant is
   capable of supporting this new mode.  The attribute takes no value.
   This attribute can be used at the session or media levels.  A
   participant that proposes the use of this mode SHALL itself support
   the reception of mixed one byte and two bytes header extensions.

   The negotiation for mixed one byte and two bytes extension MUST be
   negotiated in offer/answer [RFC3264].  In the absence of negotiation
   using offer/answer, mixed headers MUST NOT occur unless the
   transmitter has some (out of band) knowledge that all potential
   recipients support this mode.

   The formal definition of this attribute is:

      Name: extmap-allow-mixed

      Value:

      Usage Level: session, media

      Charset Dependent: no

      Example:

      a=extmap-allow-mixed

   When doing SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] an offering client that wishes
   to use both one and two bytes extensions MUST include the attribute
   "a= extmap-allow-mixed " in the SDP offer.  If "a= extmap-allow-mixed
   " is present in the offer SDP, the answerer that supports this mode
   and wishes to use it SHALL include the "a=extmap-allow-mixed "
   attribute in the answer.  In cases the answer has been excluded,
   neither clients SHALL use mixed one bytes and two bytes extensions in
   the same RTP stream.





Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


7.  Offer/Answer

   The simple signaling described above may be enhanced in an offer/
   answer context, to permit:

   o  asymmetric behavior (extensions sent in only one direction),

   o  the offer of mutually exclusive alternatives, or

   o  the offer of more extensions than can be sent in a single session.

   A direction attribute MAY be included in an extmap; without it, the
   direction implicitly inherits, of course, from the stream direction,
   or is "sendrecv" for session-level attributes or extensions of
   "inactive" streams.  The direction MUST be one of "sendonly",
   "recvonly", "sendrecv", or "inactive".  A "sendonly" direction
   indicates an ability to send; a "recvonly" direction indicates a
   desire to receive; a "sendrecv" direction indicates both.  An
   "inactive" direction indicates neither, but later re-negotiation may
   make an extension active.

   Extensions, with their directions, may be signaled for an "inactive"
   stream.  It is an error to use an extension direction incompatible
   with the stream direction (e.g., a "sendonly" attribute for a
   "recvonly" stream).

   If an offer or answer contains session-level mappings (and hence no
   media-level mappings), and different behavior is desired for each
   stream, then the entire set of extension map declarations may be
   moved into the media-level section(s) of the SDP.  (Note that this
   specification does not permit mixing global and local declarations,
   to make identifier management easier.)

   If an extension map is offered as "sendrecv", explicitly or
   implicitly, and asymmetric behavior is desired, the SDP may be
   modified to modify or add direction qualifiers for that extension.

   If an extension is marked as "sendonly" and the answerer desires to
   receive it, the extension MUST be marked as "recvonly" in the SDP
   answer.  An answerer that has no desire to receive the extension or
   does not understand the extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP
   answer.

   If an extension is marked as "recvonly" and the answerer desires to
   send it, the extension MUST be marked as "sendonly" in the SDP
   answer.  An answerer that has no desire to, or is unable to, send the
   extension SHOULD remove it from the SDP answer.




Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   Local identifiers in the valid range inclusive in an offer or answer
   must not be used more than once per media section (including the
   session-level section).  A session update MAY change the direction
   qualifiers of extensions under use.  A session update MAY add or
   remove extension(s).  Identifiers values in the valid range MUST NOT
   be altered (remapped).

   Note that, under this rule, the same local identifier cannot be used
   for two extensions for the same media, even when one is "sendonly"
   and the other "recvonly", as it would then be impossible to make
   either of them sendrecv (since re-numbering is not permitted either).

   If a party wishes to offer mutually exclusive alternatives, then
   multiple extensions with the same identifier in the (unusable) range
   4096-4351 may be offered; the answerer should select at most one of
   the offered extensions with the same identifier, and remap it to a
   free identifier in the valid range, for that extension to be usable.

   Similarly, if more extensions are offered than can be fit in the
   valid range, identifiers in the range 4096-4351 may be offered; the
   answerer should choose those that are desired, and remap them to a
   free identifier in the valid range.

   It is always allowed to place the offered identifier value "as is" in
   the SDP answer (for example, due to lack of a free identifier value
   in the valid range).  Extensions with an identifier outside the valid
   range cannot, of course, be used.  If required, the offerer or
   answerer can update the session to make space for such an extension.

   Rationale: the range 4096-4351 for these negotiation identifiers is
   deliberately restricted to allow expansion of the range of valid
   identifiers in future.

   Either party MAY include extensions in the stream other than those
   negotiated, or those negotiated as "inactive", for example, for the
   benefit of intermediate nodes.  Only extensions that appeared with an
   identifier in the valid range in SDP originated by the sender can be
   sent.

   Example (port numbers, RTP profiles, payload IDs and rtpmaps, etc.
   all omitted for brevity):

   The offer:








Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
   a=extmap:14 URI-obscure
   a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-string
   a=extmap:4096 URI-gps-binary
   a=extmap:4097 URI-frametype
   m=video
   a=sendrecv
   m=audio
   a=sendrecv

   The answerer is interested in receiving GPS in string format only on
   video, but cannot send GPS at all.  It is not interested in
   transmission offsets on audio, and does not understand the URI-
   obscure extension.  It therefore moves the extensions from session
   level to media level, and adjusts the declarations:

   m=video
   a=sendrecv
   a=extmap:1 URI-toffset
   a=extmap:2/recvonly URI-gps-string
   a=extmap:3 URI-frametype
   m=audio
   a=sendrecv
   a=extmap:1/sendonly URI-toffset

8.  BNF Syntax

   The syntax definition below uses ABNF according to [RFC5234].  The
   syntax element 'URI' is defined in [RFC3986] (only absolute URIs are
   permitted here).  The syntax element 'extmap' is an attribute as
   defined in [RFC4566], i.e., "a=" precedes the extmap definition.
   Specific extensionattributes are defined by the specification that
   defines a specific extension name; there may be several.


















Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


        extmap = mapentry SP extensionname [SP extensionattributes]

        extensionname = URI

        direction = "sendonly" / "recvonly" / "sendrecv" / "inactive"

        mapentry = "extmap:" 1*5DIGIT ["/" direction]

        extensionattributes = byte-string

        URI = <Defined in RFC 3986>

        byte-string = <Defined in RFC 4566>

        SP = <Defined in RFC 5234>

        DIGIT = <Defined in RFC 5234>

9.  Security Considerations

   This defines only a place to transmit information; the security
   implications of the extensions must be discussed with those
   extensions.

   Care should be taken when defining extensions.  Clearly, they should
   be solely informative, but even when the information is extracted,
   should not cause security concerns.

   Header extensions have the same security coverage as the RTP header
   itself.  When Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] is
   used to protect RTP sessions, the RTP payload may be both encrypted
   and integrity protected, while the RTP header is either unprotected
   or integrity protected.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to place
   information in header extensions that cause security problems if
   disclosed, unless the entire RTP packet is protected by a lower-layer
   security protocol providing both confidentiality and integrity
   capability.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document updates the IANA consideration to reference this
   document and adds a new SDP attribute in section 10.3

   Note to IANA : change RFCxxxx to this RFC number and remove the note.







Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


10.1.  Identifier Space for IANA to Manage

   The mapping from the naming URI form to a reference to a
   specification is managed by IANA.  Insertion into this registry is
   under the requirements of "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226].

   The IANA will also maintain a server that contains all of the
   registered elements in a publicly accessible space.

   Here is the formal declaration required by the IETF URN Sub-namespace
   specification [RFC3553].

   o  Registry name: RTP Compact Header Extensions

   o  Specification: RFC 5285 and RFCs updating RFC 5285.

   o  Information required:

      A.  The desired extension naming URI

      B.  A formal reference to the publicly available specification

      C.  A short phrase describing the function of the extension

      D.  Contact information for the organization or person making the
          registration

      For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI is recommended to be of
      the form urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:, and the formal reference is
      the RFC number of the RFC documenting the extension.

   o  Review process: Expert review is required.  The expert review
      should check the following requirements:

      1.  that the specification is publicly available;

      2.  that the extension complies with the requirements of RTP and
          this specification, for extensions (notably, that the stream
          is still decodable if the extension is ignored or not
          recognized);

      3.  that the extension specification is technically consistent (in
          itself and with RTP), complete, and comprehensible;

      4.  that the extension does not duplicate functionality in
          existing IETF specifications (including RTP itself), or other
          extensions already registered;




Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


      5.  that the specification contains a security analysis regarding
          the content of the header extension;

      6.  that the extension is generally applicable, for example point-
          to-multipoint safe, and the specification correctly describes
          limitations if they exist; and

      7.  that the suggested naming URI form is appropriately chosen and
          unique.

   o  Size and format of entries: a mapping from a naming URI string to
      a formal reference to a publicly available specification, with a
      descriptive phrase and contact information.

   o  Initial assignments: none.

10.2.  Registration of the SDP extmap Attribute

   This section contains the information required by [RFC4566] for an
   SDP attribute.

   o  contact name, email address, and telephone number:

         D. Singer
         singer@apple.com
         +1 408-974-3162

   o  attribute name (as it will appear in SDP): extmap

   o  long-form attribute name in English: generic header extension map
      definition

   o  type of attribute (session level, media level, or both): both

   o  whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute:
      not subject to the charset attribute

   o  a one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute: This
      attribute defines the mapping from the extension numbers used in
      packet headers into extension names as documented in
      specifications and appropriately registered.

   o  a specification of appropriate attribute values for this
      attribute: see RFC 5285.







Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


10.3.  Registration of the SDP Attribute

   The IANA is requested to register one new SDP attribute:

        SDP Attribute ("att-field"):
            Attribute name:     extmap-allow-mixed
            Long form:          One and Two bytes mixed mode
            Type of name:       att-field
            Type of attribute:  Media or session level
            Subject to charset: No
            Purpose:            Negotiate the use of One and Two bytes
                                in the same RTP stream.
            Reference:          [RFCXXXX]
            Values:             None


11.  Acknowledgments

   Both Brian Link and John Lazzaro provided helpful comments on an
   initial draft of this document.  Colin Perkins was helpful in
   reviewing and dealing with the details.  The use of URNs for IETF-
   defined extensions was suggested by Jonathan Lennox, and Pete Cordell
   was instrumental in improving the padding wording.  Dave Oran
   provided feedback and text in the review.  Mike Dolan contributed the
   two-byte header form.  Magnus Westerlund and Tom Taylor were
   instrumental in managing the registration text.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2508]  Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
              Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February
              1999.

   [RFC3095]  Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
              Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
              K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
              Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
              Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
              ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.





Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3553]  Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
              IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
              Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

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

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

12.2.  Informative References

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

Authors' Addresses

   Roni Even (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Shabazi 12A
   Tel Aviv
   Israel

   EMail: Roni.even@mail01.huawei.com










Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            RTP Header Extensions             October 2015


   David Singer
   Apple, Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 996 1010
   EMail: singer@apple.com
   URI:   http://www.apple.com/quicktime


   Harikishan Desineni
   Qualcomm
   5775 Morehouse Drive
   San Diego, CA  92126
   USA

   Phone: +1 858 845 8996
   EMail: hd@qualcomm.com
   URI:   http://www.qualcomm.com































Even, et al.             Expires April 10, 2016                [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/