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

Versions: (draft-westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                 B. Burman
Intended status: Informational                                  Ericsson
Expires: January 23, 2020                                     C. Perkins
                                                   University of Glasgow
                                                           H. Alvestrand
                                                                  Google
                                                                 R. Even
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           July 22, 2019


    Guidelines for using the Multiplexing Features of RTP to Support
                         Multiple Media Streams
               draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-09

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is a flexible protocol that
   can be used in a wide range of applications, networks, and system
   topologies.  That flexibility makes for wide applicability, but can
   complicate the application design process.  One particular design
   question that has received much attention is how to support multiple
   media streams in RTP.  This memo discusses the available options and
   design trade-offs, and provides guidelines on how to use the
   multiplexing features of RTP to support multiple media streams.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 https://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 January 23, 2020.








Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Subjects Out of Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  RTP Multiplexing Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Reasons for Multiplexing and Grouping RTP Streams . . . .   5
     3.2.  RTP Multiplexing Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  RTP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  Synchronisation Source (SSRC) . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.3.  Contributing Source (CSRC)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.4.  RTP Payload Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Issues Related to RTP Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.4.  Issues Related to RTP and RTCP Protocol . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.4.1.  The RTP Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.4.2.  Multiple SSRCs in a Session . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.4.3.  Binding Related Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.4.4.  Forward Error Correction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  Considerations for RTP Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.1.  Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.1.  Application Interworking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.2.  RTP Translator Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.3.  Gateway Interworking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.1.4.  Multiple SSRC Legacy Considerations . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.2.  Network Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.2.1.  Quality of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.2.2.  NAT and Firewall Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.2.3.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.3.  Security and Key Management Considerations  . . . . . . .  23
       4.3.1.  Security Context Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       4.3.2.  Key Management for Multi-party Sessions . . . . . . .  24
       4.3.3.  Complexity Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   5.  RTP Multiplexing Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.1.  Multiple Media Types in One Session . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.2.  Multiple SSRCs of the Same Media Type . . . . . . . . . .  27
     5.3.  Multiple Sessions for One Media Type  . . . . . . . . . .  28
     5.4.  Single SSRC per Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     5.5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   6.  Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Appendix A.  Dismissing Payload Type Multiplexing . . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix B.  Signalling Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     B.1.  Session Oriented Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     B.2.  SDP Prevents Multiple Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     B.3.  Signalling RTP Stream Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42

1.  Introduction

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] is a commonly used
   protocol for real-time media transport.  It is a protocol that
   provides great flexibility and can support a large set of different
   applications.  RTP was from the beginning designed for multiple
   participants in a communication session.  It supports many topology
   paradigms and usages, as defined in [RFC7667].  RTP has several
   multiplexing points designed for different purposes.  These enable
   support of multiple RTP streams and switching between different
   encoding or packetization of the media.  By using multiple RTP
   sessions, sets of RTP streams can be structured for efficient
   processing or identification.  Thus, an RTP application designer
   needs to understand how to best use the RTP session, the RTP stream
   identifier (SSRC), and the RTP payload type to meet the application's
   needs.

   There have been increased interest in more advanced usage of RTP.
   For example, multiple RTP streams can be used when a single endpoint
   has multiple media sources (like multiple cameras or microphones)
   that need to be sent simultaneously.  Consequently, questions are
   raised regarding the most appropriate RTP usage.  The limitations in
   some implementations, RTP/RTCP extensions, and signalling have also
   been exposed.  The authors hope that clarification on the usefulness
   of some functionalities in RTP will result in more complete
   implementations in the future.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   The purpose of this document is to provide clear information about
   the possibilities of RTP when it comes to multiplexing.  The RTP
   application designer needs to understand the implications arising
   from a particular usage of the RTP multiplexing points.  The document
   will provide some guidelines and recommend against some usages as
   being unsuitable, in general or for particular purposes.

   The document starts with some definitions and then goes into the
   existing RTP functionalities around multiplexing.  Both the desired
   behaviour and the implications of a particular behaviour depend on
   which topologies are used, which requires some consideration.  This
   is followed by a discussion of some choices in multiplexing behaviour
   and their impacts.  Some designs of RTP usage are discussed.
   Finally, some guidelines and examples are provided.

2.  Definitions

2.1.  Terminology

   The definitions in Section 3 of [RFC3550] are referenced normatively.

   The taxonomy defined in [RFC7656] is referenced normatively.

   The following terms and abbreviations are used in this document:

   Multiparty:  A communication situation including multiple endpoints.
      In this document, it will be used to refer to situations where
      more than two endpoints communicate.

   Multiplexing:  The operation of taking multiple entities as input,
      aggregating them onto some common resource while keeping the
      individual entities addressable such that they can later be fully
      and unambiguously separated (de-multiplexed) again.

   RTP Receiver:  An Endpoint or Middlebox receiving RTP streams and
      RTCP messages.  It uses at least one SSRC to send RTCP messages.
      An RTP Receiver may also be an RTP Sender.

   RTP Sender:  An Endpoint sending one or more RTP streams, but also
      sending RTCP messages.

   RTP Session Group:  One or more RTP sessions that are used together
      to perform some function.  Examples are multiple RTP sessions used
      to carry different layers of a layered encoding.  In an RTP
      Session Group, CNAMEs are assumed to be valid across all RTP
      sessions, and designate synchronisation contexts that can cross
      RTP sessions; i.e. SSRCs that map to a common CNAME can be assumed




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


      to have RTCP SR timing information derived from a common clock
      such that they can be synchronised for playout.

   Signalling:  The process of configuring endpoints to participate in
      one or more RTP sessions.

   Note: The above definitions of RTP Receiver and RTP Sender are
   consistent with the usage in [RFC3550].

2.2.  Subjects Out of Scope

   This document is focused on issues that affect RTP.  Thus, issues
   that involve signalling protocols, such as whether SIP [RFC3261],
   Jingle [JINGLE] or some other protocol is in use for session
   configuration, the particular syntaxes used to define RTP session
   properties, or the constraints imposed by particular choices in the
   signalling protocols, are mentioned only as examples in order to
   describe the RTP issues more precisely.

   This document assumes the applications will use RTCP.  While there
   are applications that don't send RTCP, they do not conform to the RTP
   specification, and thus can be regarded as reusing the RTP packet
   format but not implementing the RTP protocol.

3.  RTP Multiplexing Overview

3.1.  Reasons for Multiplexing and Grouping RTP Streams

   There are several reasons why an endpoint might choose to send
   multiple media streams.  In the below discussion, please keep in mind
   that the reasons for having multiple RTP streams vary and include but
   are not limited to the following:

   o  Multiple media sources

   o  Multiple RTP streams might be needed to represent one media source
      (for instance when using layered encodings)

   o  A retransmission stream might repeat some parts of the content of
      another RTP stream

   o  A Forward Error Correction (FEC) stream might provide material
      that can be used to repair another RTP stream

   o  Alternative encodings, for instance using different codecs for the
      same audio stream





Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   o  Alternative formats, for instance multiple resolutions of the same
      video stream

   For each of these reasons, it is necessary to decide if each
   additional RTP stream is sent within the same RTP session as the
   other RTP streams, or if it is necessary to use additional RTP
   sessions to group the RTP streams.  The choice suitable for one
   reason, might not be the choice suitable for another reason.  The
   clearest understanding is associated with multiplexing multiple media
   sources of the same media type.  However, all reasons warrant
   discussion and clarification on how to deal with them.  As the
   discussion below will show, in reality we cannot choose a single one
   of SSRC or RTP session multiplexing solutions for all purposes.  To
   utilise RTP well and as efficiently as possible, both are needed.
   The real issue is finding the right guidance on when to create
   additional RTP sessions and when additional RTP streams in the same
   RTP session is the right choice.

3.2.  RTP Multiplexing Points

   This section describes the multiplexing points present in the RTP
   protocol that can be used to distinguish RTP streams and groups of
   RTP streams.  Figure 1 outlines the process of demultiplexing
   incoming RTP streams starting already at the socket representing
   reception of one or transport flows, e.g. an UDP destination port.
   It also demultiplexes RTP/RTCP from any other protocols, such as STUN
   [RFC5389] and DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] on the same transport as described
   in [RFC7983].























Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


                           |
                           | packets
           +--             v
           |        +------------+
           |        |   Socket   |   Transport Protocol Demultiplexing
           |        +------------+
           |            ||  ||
      RTP  |       RTP/ ||  |+-----> DTLS (SRTP Keying, SCTP, etc)
   Session |       RTCP ||  +------> STUN (multiplexed using same port)
           +--          ||
           +--          ||
           |      (split by SSRC)
           |      ||    ||    ||
           |      ||    ||    ||
     RTP   |     +--+  +--+  +--+
   Streams |     |PB|  |PB|  |PB| Jitter buffer, process RTCP, etc.
           |     +--+  +--+  +--+
           +--      |   |      |
           (select decoder based on PT)
           +--      |  /       |
           |        +----+     |
           |         /   |     |
   Payload |     +---+ +---+ +---+
   Formats |     |Dec| |Dec| |Dec| Decoders
           |     +---+ +---+ +---+
           +--


                   Figure 1: RTP Demultiplexing Process

3.2.1.  RTP Session

   An RTP session is the highest semantic layer in the RTP protocol, and
   represents an association between a group of communicating endpoints.
   RTP does not contain a session identifier, yet different RTP sessions
   must be possible to identify both across different endpoints and
   within a single endpoint.

   For RTP session separation across endpoints, the set of participants
   that form an RTP session is defined as those that share a single
   synchronisation source space [RFC3550].  That is, if a group of
   participants are each aware of the synchronisation source identifiers
   belonging to the other participants, then those participants are in a
   single RTP session.  A participant can become aware of a
   synchronisation source identifier by receiving an RTP packet
   containing it in the SSRC field or CSRC list, by receiving an RTCP
   packet mentioning it in an SSRC field, or through signalling (e.g.,
   the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] "a=ssrc:" attribute



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   [RFC5576]).  Thus, the scope of an RTP session is determined by the
   participants' network interconnection topology, in combination with
   RTP and RTCP forwarding strategies deployed by the endpoints and any
   middleboxes, and by the signalling.

   For RTP session separation within a single endpoint, RTP relies on
   the underlying transport layer, and on the signalling to identify RTP
   sessions in a manner that is meaningful to the application.  A single
   endpoint can have one or more transport flows for the same RTP
   session, and a single RTP session can therefore span multiple
   transport layer flows even if all endpoints use a single transport
   layer flow per endpoint for that RTP session.  The signalling layer
   might give RTP sessions an explicit identifier, or the identification
   might be implicit based on the addresses and ports used.
   Accordingly, a single RTP session can have multiple associated
   identifiers, explicit and implicit, belonging to different contexts.
   For example, when running RTP on top of UDP/IP, an endpoint can
   identify and delimit an RTP session from other RTP sessions by their
   UDP source and destination IP addresses and UDP port numbers.
   Independently if an endpoint has one or more IP addresses, a single
   RTP session can be using multiple IP/UDP flows for receiving and/or
   sending RTP packets to other endpoints or middleboxes.  Another
   example is SDP media descriptions (the "m=" line and the following
   associated lines) that signals the transport flow and RTP session
   configuration for the endpoint's part of the RTP session.  The SDP
   grouping framework [RFC5888] allows labeling of the media
   descriptions to be used so that RTP Session Groups can be created.
   Through use of Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],
   multiple media descriptions become part of a common RTP session where
   each media description represents the RTP streams sent or received
   for a media source.

   The RTP protocol makes no normative statements about the relationship
   between different RTP sessions, however the applications that use
   more than one RTP session will have some higher layer understanding
   of the relationship between the sessions they create.

3.2.2.  Synchronisation Source (SSRC)

   A synchronisation source (SSRC) identifies a source of an RTP stream,
   or an RTP receiver when sending RTCP.  Every endpoint has at least
   one SSRC identifier, even if it does not send RTP packets.  RTP
   endpoints that are only RTP receivers still send RTCP and use their
   SSRC identifiers in the RTCP packets they send.  An endpoint can have
   multiple SSRC identifiers if it sends multiple RTP streams.
   Endpoints that are both RTP sender and RTP receiver use the same SSRC
   in both roles.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   The SSRC is a 32-bit identifier.  It is present in every RTP and RTCP
   packet header, and in the payload of some RTCP packet types.  It can
   also be present in SDP signalling.  Unless pre-signalled, e.g.  using
   the SDP "a=ssrc:" attribute [RFC5576], the SSRC is chosen at random.
   It is not dependent on the network address of the endpoint, and is
   intended to be unique within an RTP session.  SSRC collisions can
   occur, and are handled as specified in [RFC3550] and [RFC5576],
   resulting in the SSRC of the colliding RTP streams or receivers
   changing.  An endpoint that changes its network transport address
   during a session has to choose a new SSRC identifier to avoid being
   interpreted as looped source, unless the transport layer mechanism,
   e.g ICE [RFC8445], handles such changes.

   SSRC identifiers that belong to the same synchronisation context
   (i.e., that represent RTP streams that can be synchronised using
   information in RTCP SR packets) use identical CNAME chunks in
   corresponding RTCP SDES packets.  SDP signalling can also be used to
   provide explicit SSRC grouping [RFC5576].

   In some cases, the same SSRC identifier value is used to relate
   streams in two different RTP sessions, such as in RTP retransmission
   [RFC4588].  This is to be avoided since there is no guarantee that
   SSRC values are unique across RTP sessions.  For the RTP
   retransmission [RFC4588] case it is recommended to use explicit
   binding of the source RTP stream and the redundancy stream, e.g.
   using the RepairedRtpStreamId RTCP SDES item [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid].

   Note that RTP sequence number and RTP timestamp are scoped by the
   SSRC and thus specific per RTP stream.

   Different types of entities use an SSRC to identify themselves, as
   follows:

   A real media source:  Uses the SSRC to identify a "physical" media
      source.

   A conceptual media source:  Uses the SSRC to identify the result of
      applying some filtering function in a network node, for example a
      filtering function in an RTP mixer that provides the most active
      speaker based on some criteria, or a mix representing a set of
      other sources.

   An RTP receiver:  Uses the SSRC to identify itself as the source of
      its RTCP reports.

   An endpoint that generates more than one media type, e.g.  a
   conference participant sending both audio and video, need not (and,
   indeed, should not) use the same SSRC value across RTP sessions.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   RTCP compound packets containing the CNAME SDES item is the
   designated method to bind an SSRC to a CNAME, effectively cross-
   correlating SSRCs within and between RTP Sessions as coming from the
   same endpoint.  The main property attributed to SSRCs associated with
   the same CNAME is that they are from a particular synchronisation
   context and can be synchronised at playback.

   An RTP receiver receiving a previously unseen SSRC value will
   interpret it as a new source.  It might in fact be a previously
   existing source that had to change SSRC number due to an SSRC
   conflict.  However, the originator of the previous SSRC ought to have
   ended the conflicting source by sending an RTCP BYE for it prior to
   starting to send with the new SSRC, making the new SSRC a new source.

3.2.3.  Contributing Source (CSRC)

   The Contributing Source (CSRC) is not a separate identifier.  Rather
   an SSRC identifier is listed as a CSRC in the RTP header of a packet
   generated by an RTP mixer, if the corresponding SSRC was in the
   header of one of the packets that contributed to the mix.

   It is not possible, in general, to extract media represented by an
   individual CSRC since it is typically the result of a media mixing
   (merge) operation by an RTP mixer on the individual media streams
   corresponding to the CSRC identifiers.  The exception is the case
   when only a single CSRC is indicated as this represent forwarding of
   an RTP stream, possibly modified.  The RTP header extension for
   Mixer-to-Client Audio Level Indication [RFC6465] expands on the
   receiver's information about a packet with a CSRC list.  Due to these
   restrictions, CSRC will not be considered a fully qualified
   multiplexing point and will be disregarded in the rest of this
   document.

3.2.4.  RTP Payload Type

   Each RTP stream utilises one or more RTP payload formats.  An RTP
   payload format describes how the output of a particular media codec
   is framed and encoded into RTP packets.  The payload format is
   identified by the payload type (PT) field in the RTP packet header.
   The combination of SSRC and PT therefore identifies a specific RTP
   stream in a specific encoding format.  The format definition can be
   taken from [RFC3551] for statically allocated payload types, but
   ought to be explicitly defined in signalling, such as SDP, both for
   static and dynamic payload types.  The term "format" here includes
   those aspects described by out-of-band signalling means; in SDP, the
   term "format" includes media type, RTP timestamp sampling rate,
   codec, codec configuration, payload format configurations, and
   various robustness mechanisms such as redundant encodings [RFC2198].



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   The RTP payload type is scoped by the sending endpoint within an RTP
   session.  PT has the same meaning across all RTP streams in an RTP
   session.  All SSRCs sent from a single endpoint share the same
   payload type definitions.  The RTP payload type is designed such that
   only a single payload type is valid at any time instant in the RTP
   stream's timestamp time line, effectively time-multiplexing different
   payload types if any change occurs.  The payload type can change on a
   per-packet basis for an SSRC, for example a speech codec making use
   of generic comfort noise [RFC3389].  If there is a true need to send
   multiple payload types for the same SSRC that are valid for the same
   instant, then redundant encodings [RFC2198] can be used.  Several
   additional constraints than the ones mentioned above need to be met
   to enable this use, one of which is that the combined payload sizes
   of the different payload types ought not exceed the transport MTU.
   If it is acceptable to send multiple formats of the same media source
   as separate RTP streams (with separate SSRC), simulcast
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast] can be used.

   Other aspects of RTP payload format use are described in How to Write
   an RTP Payload Format [RFC8088].

   The payload type is not a multiplexing point at the RTP layer (see
   Appendix A for a detailed discussion of why using the payload type as
   an RTP multiplexing point does not work).  The RTP payload type is,
   however, used to determine how to consume and decode an RTP stream.
   The RTP payload type number is sometimes used to associate an RTP
   stream with the signalling; this is not recommended since a specific
   payload type value can be used in multiple bundled "m=" sections
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].  This association is only
   possible if unique RTP payload type numbers are used in each context.

3.3.  Issues Related to RTP Topologies

   The impact of how RTP multiplexing is performed will in general vary
   with how the RTP session participants are interconnected, described
   by RTP Topology [RFC7667].

   Even the most basic use case, denoted Topo-Point-to-Point in
   [RFC7667], raises a number of considerations that are discussed in
   detail in following sections.  They range over such aspects as:

   o  Does my communication peer support RTP as defined with multiple
      SSRCs per RTP session?

   o  Do I need network differentiation in form of QoS?

   o  Can the application more easily process and handle the media
      streams if they are in different RTP sessions?



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   o  Do I need to use additional RTP streams for RTP retransmission or
      FEC?

   For some point to multi-point topologies (e.g.  Topo-ASM and Topo-SSM
   in [RFC7667]), multicast is used to interconnect the session
   participants.  Special considerations (documented in Section 4.2.3)
   are then needed as multicast is a one-to-many distribution system.

   Sometimes an RTP communication can end up in a situation when the
   communicating peers are not compatible for various reasons:

   o  No common media codec for a media type thus requiring transcoding.

   o  Different support for multiple RTP streams and RTP sessions.

   o  Usage of different media transport protocols, i.e., RTP or other.

   o  Usage of different transport protocols, e.g., UDP, DCCP, or TCP.

   o  Different security solutions, e.g., IPsec, TLS, DTLS, or SRTP with
      different keying mechanisms.

   In many situations this is resolved by the inclusion of a translator
   between the two peers, as described by Topo-PtP-Translator in
   [RFC7667].  The translator's main purpose is to make the peers look
   compatible to each other.  There can also be other reasons than
   compatibility to insert a translator in the form of a middlebox or
   gateway, for example a need to monitor the RTP streams.  Beware that
   changing the stream transport characteristics in the translator, can
   require thorough understanding of the application logic, specifically
   any congestion control or media adaptation to ensure appropriate
   media handling.

   Within the uses enabled by the RTP standard the point to point
   topology can contain one to many RTP sessions with one to many media
   sources per session, each having one or more RTP streams per media
   source.

3.4.  Issues Related to RTP and RTCP Protocol

   Using multiple RTP streams is a well-supported feature of RTP.
   However, for most implementers or people writing RTP/RTCP
   applications or extensions attempting to apply multiple streams, it
   can be unclear when it is most appropriate to add an additional RTP
   stream in an existing RTP session and when it is better to use
   multiple RTP sessions.  This section discusses the various
   considerations needed.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


3.4.1.  The RTP Specification

   RFC 3550 contains some recommendations and a bullet list with 5
   arguments for different aspects of RTP multiplexing.  Please review
   Section 5.2 of [RFC3550].  Five important aspects are quoted below.

   1. If, say, two audio streams shared the same RTP session and the
      same SSRC value, and one were to change encodings and thus acquire
      a different RTP payload type, there would be no general way of
      identifying which stream had changed encodings.

   The first argument is to use different SSRC for each individual RTP
   stream, which is fundamental to RTP operation.

   2. An SSRC is defined to identify a single timing and sequence number
      space.  Interleaving multiple payload types would require
      different timing spaces if the media clock rates differ and would
      require different sequence number spaces to tell which payload
      type suffered packet loss.

   The second argument is advocating against demultiplexing RTP streams
   within a session based only on their RTP payload type numbers, which
   still stands as can been seen by the extensive list of issues found
   in Appendix A.

   3. The RTCP sender and receiver reports (see Section 6.4) can only
      describe one timing and sequence number space per SSRC and do not
      carry a payload type field.

   The third argument is yet another argument against payload type
   multiplexing.

   4. An RTP mixer would not be able to combine interleaved streams of
      incompatible media into one stream.

   The fourth argument is against multiplexing RTP packets that require
   different handling into the same session.  In most cases the RTP
   mixer must embed application logic to handle streams; the separation
   of streams according to stream type is just another piece of
   application logic, which might or might not be appropriate for a
   particular application.  One type of application that can mix
   different media sources blindly is the audio-only telephone bridge,
   although the ability to do that comes from the well-defined scenario
   that is aided by use of a single media type, even though individual
   streams may use incompatible codec types; most other types of
   applications need application-specific logic to perform the mix
   correctly.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   5. Carrying multiple media in one RTP session precludes: the use of
      different network paths or network resource allocations if
      appropriate; reception of a subset of the media if desired, for
      example just audio if video would exceed the available bandwidth;
      and receiver implementations that use separate processes for the
      different media, whereas using separate RTP sessions permits
      either single- or multiple-process implementations.

   The fifth argument discusses network aspects that are described in
   Section 4.2.  It also goes into aspects of implementation, like Split
   Component Terminal (see Section 3.10 of [RFC7667]) endpoints where
   different processes or inter-connected devices handle different
   aspects of the whole multi-media session.

   A summary of RFC 3550's view on multiplexing is to use unique SSRCs
   for anything that is its own media/packet stream, and to use
   different RTP sessions for media streams that don't share a media
   type.  This document supports the first point; it is very valid.  The
   latter needs further discussion, as imposing a single solution on all
   usages of RTP is inappropriate.  Multiple Media Types in an RTP
   Session specification [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session]
   provides a detailed analysis of the potential issues in having
   multiple media types in the same RTP session.  This document provides
   a wider scope for an RTP session and considers multiple media types
   in one RTP session as a possible choice for the RTP application
   designer.

3.4.2.  Multiple SSRCs in a Session

   Using multiple SSRCs at one endpoint in an RTP session requires
   resolving some unclear aspects of the RTP specification.  These could
   potentially lead to some interoperability issues as well as some
   potential significant inefficiencies, as further discussed in "RTP
   Considerations for Endpoints Sending Multiple Media Streams"
   [RFC8108].  An RTP application designer should consider these issues
   and the possible application impact from lack of appropriate RTP
   handling or optimization in the peer endpoints.

   Using multiple RTP sessions can potentially mitigate application
   issues caused by multiple SSRCs in an RTP session.

3.4.3.  Binding Related Sources

   A common problem in a number of various RTP extensions has been how
   to bind related RTP streams together.  This issue is common to both
   using additional SSRCs and multiple RTP sessions.

   The solutions can be divided into a few groups:



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   o  RTP/RTCP based

   o  Signalling based (SDP)

   o  Grouping related RTP sessions

   o  Grouping SSRCs within an RTP session

   Most solutions are explicit, but some implicit methods have also been
   applied to the problem.

   The SDP-based signalling solutions are:

   SDP Media Description Grouping:  The SDP Grouping Framework [RFC5888]
      uses various semantics to group any number of media descriptions.
      This has previously been considered primarily as grouping RTP
      sessions, but [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] groups
      multiple media descriptions as a single RTP session.

   SDP SSRC grouping:  Source-Specific Media Attributes in SDP [RFC5576]
      includes a solution for grouping SSRCs the same way as the
      Grouping framework groups Media Descriptions.

   The above grouping constructs support many use cases.  Those
   solutions have shortcomings in cases where the session's dynamic
   properties are such that it is difficult or a drain on resources to
   keep the list of related SSRCs up to date.

   An RTP/RTCP-based grouping solution is to use the RTCP SDES CNAME to
   bind related RTP streams to an endpoint or to a synchronization
   context.  For applications with a single RTP stream per type (media,
   source or redundancy stream), CNAME is sufficient for that purpose
   independent if one or more RTP sessions are used.  However, some
   applications choose not to use CNAME because of perceived complexity
   or a desire not to implement RTCP and instead use the same SSRC value
   to bind related RTP streams across multiple RTP sessions.  RTP
   Retransmission [RFC4588] in multiple RTP session mode and Generic FEC
   [RFC5109] both use the CNAME method to relate the RTP streams, which
   may work but might have some downsides in RTP sessions with many
   participating SSRCs.  It is not recommended to use identical SSRC
   values across RTP sessions to relate RTP streams; When an SSRC
   collision occurs, this will force change of that SSRC in all RTP
   sessions and thus resynchronize all of them instead of only the
   single media stream having the collision.

   Another method to implicitly bind SSRCs is used by RTP Retransmission
   [RFC4588] when using the same RTP session as the source RTP stream
   for retransmissions.  The receiver missing a packet issues an RTP



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   retransmission request, and then awaits a new SSRC carrying the RTP
   retransmission payload and where that SSRC is from the same CNAME.
   This limits a requester to having only one outstanding retransmission
   request on any new source SSRCs per endpoint.

   RTP Payload Format Restrictions [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] provides an
   RTP/RTCP based mechanism to unambiguously identify the RTP streams
   within an RTP session and restrict the streams' payload format
   parameters in a codec-agnostic way beyond what is provided with the
   regular payload types.  The mapping is done by specifying an "a=rid"
   value in the SDP offer/answer signalling and having the corresponding
   RtpStreamId value as an SDES item and an RTP header extension.  The
   RID solution also includes a solution for binding redundancy RTP
   streams to their original source RTP streams, given that those use
   RID identifiers.

   Section 8.3 of the RTP Specification [RFC3550] recommends using a
   single SSRC space across all RTP sessions for layered coding.  Based
   on the experience so far however, we recommend to use a solution with
   explicit binding between the RTP streams that is agnostic to the used
   SSRC values.  That way, solutions using multiple RTP streams in a
   single RTP session and in multiple RTP sessions will use the same
   type of binding.

3.4.4.  Forward Error Correction

   There exist a number of Forward Error Correction (FEC) based schemes
   for how to reduce the packet loss of the original streams.  Most of
   the FEC schemes protects a single source flow.  The protection is
   achieved by transmitting a certain amount of redundant information
   that is encoded such that it can repair one or more packet losses
   over the set of packets the redundant information protects.  This
   sequence of redundant information needs to be transmitted as its own
   media stream, or in some cases, instead of the original media stream.
   Thus, many of these schemes create a need for binding related flows
   as discussed above.  Looking at the history of these schemes, there
   are schemes using multiple SSRCs and schemes using multiple RTP
   sessions, and some schemes that support both modes of operation.

   Using multiple RTP sessions supports the case where some set of
   receivers might not be able to utilise the FEC information.  By
   placing it in a separate RTP session and if separating RTP sessions
   on transport level, FEC can easily be ignored already on transport
   level, without considering any RTP layer information.

   In usages involving multicast, having the FEC information on its own
   multicast group allows for similar flexibility.  This is especially
   useful when receivers see heterogeneous packet loss rates.  A



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   receiver can based on measurment of experienced packet loss decide to
   join a multicast group with the suitable FEC data repair
   capabilities.

4.  Considerations for RTP Multiplexing

4.1.  Interworking Considerations

   There are several different kinds of interworking, and this section
   discusses two; interworking directly between different applications,
   and interworking of applications through an RTP Translator.  The
   discussion includes the implications of potentially different RTP
   multiplexing point choices and limitations that have to be considered
   when working with some legacy applications.

4.1.1.  Application Interworking

   It is not uncommon that applications or services of similar but not
   identical usage, especially the ones intended for interactive
   communication, encounter a situation where one want to interconnect
   two or more of these applications.

   In these cases, one ends up in a situation where one might use a
   gateway to interconnect applications.  This gateway must then either
   change the multiplexing structure or adhere to the respective
   limitations in each application.

   There are two fundamental approaches to building a gateway: using RTP
   Translator interworking (RTP bridging), where the gateway acts as an
   RTP Translator with the two interconnected applications being members
   of the same RTP session; or using Gateway Interworking with RTP
   termination, where there are independent RTP sessions between each
   interconnected application and the gateway.

4.1.2.  RTP Translator Interworking

   From an RTP perspective, the RTP Translator approach could work if
   all the applications are using the same codecs with the same payload
   types, have made the same multiplexing choices, and have the same
   capabilities in number of simultaneous RTP streams combined with the
   same set of RTP/RTCP extensions being supported.  Unfortunately, this
   might not always be true.

   When a gateway is implemented via an RTP Translator, an important
   consideration is if the two applications being interconnected need to
   use the same approach to multiplexing.  If one side is using RTP
   session multiplexing and the other is using SSRC multiplexing with
   BUNDLE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], it is possible for



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   the RTP translator to map the RTP streams between both sides using
   some method, e.g. if the number and order of SDP "m=" lines between
   both sides are the same.  There are also challenges with SSRC
   collision handling since, unless SSRC translation is applied on the
   RTP translator, there may be a collision on the SSRC multiplexing
   side that the RTP session multiplexing side will not be aware of.
   Furthermore, if one of the applications is capable of working in
   several modes (such as being able to use additional RTP streams in
   one RTP session or multiple RTP sessions at will), and the other one
   is not, successful interconnection depends on locking the more
   flexible application into the operating mode where interconnection
   can be successful, even if none of the participants are using the
   less flexible application when the RTP sessions are being created.

4.1.3.  Gateway Interworking

   When one terminates RTP sessions at the gateway, there are certain
   tasks that the gateway has to carry out:

   o  Generating appropriate RTCP reports for all RTP streams (possibly
      based on incoming RTCP reports), originating from SSRCs controlled
      by the gateway.

   o  Handling SSRC collision resolution in each application's RTP
      sessions.

   o  Signalling, choosing and policing appropriate bit-rates for each
      session.

   For applications that use any security mechanism, e.g., in the form
   of SRTP, the gateway needs to be able to decrypt and verify source
   integrity of the incoming packets, and re-encrypt, integrity protect,
   and sign the packets as peer in the other application's security
   context.  This is necessary even if all that's needed is a simple
   remapping of SSRC numbers.  If this is done, the gateway also needs
   to be a member of the security contexts of both sides, of course.

   The gateway might also need to apply transcoding (for incompatible
   codec types), media-level adaptations that cannot be solved through
   media negotiation (such as rescaling for incompatible video size
   requirements), suppression of content that is known not to be handled
   in the destination application, or the addition or removal of
   redundancy coding or scalability layers to fit the needs of the
   destination domain.

   From the above, we can see that the gateway needs to have an intimate
   knowledge of the application requirements; a gateway is by its nature
   application specific, not a commodity product.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   These gateways might therefore potentially block application
   evolution by blocking RTP and RTCP extensions that the applications
   have been extended with but that are unknown to the gateway.

   If one uses security functions, like SRTP, and as can be seen from
   above, they incur both additional risk due to the requirement to have
   the gateway in the security association between the endpoints (unless
   the gateway is on the transport level), and additional complexities
   in form of the decrypt-encrypt cycles needed for each forwarded
   packet.  SRTP, due to its keying structure, also requires that each
   RTP session needs different master keys, as use of the same key in
   two RTP sessions can for some ciphers result in two-time pads that
   completely breaks the confidentiality of the packets.

4.1.4.  Multiple SSRC Legacy Considerations

   Historically, the most common RTP use cases have been point-to-point
   Voice over IP (VoIP) or streaming applications, commonly with no more
   than one media source per endpoint and media type (typically audio or
   video).  Even in conferencing applications, especially voice-only,
   the conference focus or bridge has provided a single stream to each
   participant containing a mix of the other participants.  It is also
   common to have individual RTP sessions between each endpoint and the
   RTP mixer, meaning that the mixer functions as an RTP-terminating
   gateway.

   Endpoints that aren't updated to handle multiple streams following
   these recommendations can have issues with participating in RTP
   sessions containing multiple SSRCs within a single session, such as:

   1.  Need to handle more than one stream simultaneously rather than
       replacing an already existing stream with a new one.

   2.  Be capable of decoding multiple streams simultaneously.

   3.  Be capable of rendering multiple streams simultaneously.

   This indicates that gateways attempting to interconnect to this class
   of devices have to make sure that only one RTP stream of each media
   type gets delivered to the endpoint if it's expecting only one, and
   that the multiplexing format is what the device expects.  It is
   highly unlikely that RTP translator-based interworking can be made to
   function successfully in such a context.








Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


4.2.  Network Considerations

   The RTP implementer needs to consider that the RTP multiplexing
   choice also impacts network level mechanisms.

4.2.1.  Quality of Service

   Quality of Service mechanisms are either flow based or packet marking
   based.  RSVP [RFC2205] is an example of a flow based mechanism, while
   Diff-Serv [RFC2474] is an example of a packet marking based one.

   For a flow based scheme, additional SSRC will receive the same QoS as
   all other RTP streams being part of the same 5-tuple (protocol,
   source address, destination address, source port, destination port),
   which is the most common selector for flow based QoS.

   For a packet marking based scheme, the method of multiplexing will
   not affect the possibility to use QoS.  Different Differentiated
   Services Code Points (DSCP) can be assigned to different packets
   within a flow as well as within an RTP stream.  However, care must be
   taken when considering which forwarding behaviours that are applied
   on path due to these DSCPs.  In some cases the forwarding behaviour
   can result in packet reordering.  For more discussion of this see
   [RFC7657].

   The method for assigning marking to packets can impact what number of
   RTP sessions to choose.  If this marking is done using a network
   ingress function, it can have issues discriminating the different RTP
   streams.  The network API on the endpoint also needs to be capable of
   setting the marking on a per-packet basis to reach the full
   functionality.

4.2.2.  NAT and Firewall Traversal

   In today's networks there exist a large number of middleboxes.  The
   ones that normally have most impact on RTP are Network Address
   Translators (NAT) and Firewalls (FW).

   Below we analyse and comment on the impact of requiring more
   underlying transport flows in the presence of NATs and Firewalls:

   End-Point Port Consumption:  A given IP address only has 65536
      available local ports per transport protocol for all consumers of
      ports that exist on the machine.  This is normally never an issue
      for an end-user machine.  It can become an issue for servers that
      handle large number of simultaneous streams.  However, if the
      application uses ICE to authenticate STUN requests, a server can
      serve multiple endpoints from the same local port, and use the



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


      whole 5-tuple (source and destination address, source and
      destination port, protocol) as identifier of flows after having
      securely bound them to the remote endpoint address using the STUN
      request.  In theory, the minimum number of media server ports
      needed are the maximum number of simultaneous RTP sessions a
      single endpoint can use.  In practice, implementation will
      probably benefit from using more server ports to simplify
      implementation or avoid performance bottlenecks.

   NAT State:  If an endpoint sits behind a NAT, each flow it generates
      to an external address will result in a state that has to be kept
      in the NAT.  That state is a limited resource.  In home or Small
      Office/Home Office (SOHO) NATs, memory or processing are usually
      the most limited resources.  For large scale NATs serving many
      internal endpoints, available external ports are likely the scarce
      resource.  Port limitations is primarily a problem for larger
      centralised NATs where endpoint independent mapping requires each
      flow to use one port for the external IP address.  This affects
      the maximum number of internal users per external IP address.
      However, as a comparison, a real-time video conference session
      with audio and video likely uses less than 10 UDP flows, compared
      to certain web applications that can use 100+ TCP flows to various
      servers from a single browser instance.

   NAT Traversal Extra Delay:  Performing the NAT/FW traversal takes a
      certain amount of time for each flow.  It also takes time in a
      phase of communication between accepting to communicate and the
      media path being established, which is fairly critical.  The best
      case scenario for additional NAT/FW traversal time after finding
      the first valid candidate pair following the specified ICE
      procedures is 1.5*RTT + Ta*(Additional_Flows-1), where Ta is the
      pacing timer.  That assumes a message in one direction,
      immediately followed by a check back.  The reason it isn't more,
      is that ICE first finds one candidate pair that works prior to
      attempting to establish multiple flows.  Thus, there is no extra
      time until one has found a working candidate pair.  Based on that
      working pair, the extra time is needed to in parallel establish
      the, in most cases 2-3, additional flows.  However, packet loss
      causes extra delays, at least 100 ms, which is the minimal
      retransmission timer for ICE.

   NAT Traversal Failure Rate:  Due to the need to establish more than a
      single flow through the NAT, there is some risk that establishing
      the first flow succeeds but that one or more of the additional
      flows fail.  The risk that this happens is hard to quantify, but
      ought to be fairly low as one flow from the same interfaces has
      just been successfully established.  Thus only rare events such as




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


      NAT resource overload, or selecting particular port numbers that
      are filtered etc., ought to be reasons for failure.

   Deep Packet Inspection and Multiple Streams:  Firewalls differ in how
      deeply they inspect packets.  There exist some risk that deeply
      inspecting firewalls will have similar legacy issues with multiple
      SSRCs as some RTP stack implementations.

   Using additional RTP streams in the same RTP session and transport
   flow does not introduce any additional NAT traversal complexities per
   RTP stream.  This can be compared with normally one or two additional
   transport flows per RTP session when using multiple RTP sessions.
   Additional lower layer transport flows will be needed, unless an
   explicit de-multiplexing layer is added between RTP and the transport
   protocol.  At time of writing no such mechanism was defined.

4.2.3.  Multicast

   Multicast groups provides a powerful tool for a number of real-time
   applications, especially the ones that desire broadcast-like
   behaviours with one endpoint transmitting to a large number of
   receivers, like in IPTV.  There is also the RTP/RTCP extension to
   better support Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [RFC5760].  Many-to-
   many communication, which RTP [RFC3550] was originally built to
   support, has several limitations in common with multicast.

   One limitation is that, for any group, sender side adaptation with
   the intent to suit all receivers would have to adapt to the most
   limited receiver experiencing the worst conditions among the group
   participants, which imposes degradation for all participants.  For
   broadcast-type applications with a large number of receivers, this is
   not acceptable.  Instead, various receiver-based solutions are
   employed to ensure that the receivers achieve best possible
   performance.  By using scalable encoding and placing each scalability
   layer in a different multicast group, the receiver can control the
   amount of traffic it receives.  To have each scalability layer on a
   different multicast group, one RTP session per multicast group is
   used.

   In addition, the transport flow considerations in multicast are a bit
   different from unicast; NATs with port translation are not useful in
   the multicast environment, meaning that the entire port range of each
   multicast address is available for distinguishing between RTP
   sessions.

   Thus, when using broadcast applications it appears easiest and most
   straightforward to use multiple RTP sessions for sending different
   media flows used for adapting to network conditions.  It is also



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   common that streams improving transport robustness are sent in their
   own multicast group to allow for interworking with legacy or to
   support different levels of protection.

   Many-to-many applications have different needs and the most
   appropriate multiplexing choice will depend on how the actual
   application is realized.  Multicast applications that are capable of
   using sender side congestion control can avoid the use of multiple
   multicast sessions and RTP sessions that result from use of receiver
   side congestion control.

   The properties of a broadcast application using RTP multicast:

   1.  Uses a group of RTP sessions, not just one.  Each endpoint will
       need to be a member of a number of RTP sessions in order to
       perform well.

   2.  Within each RTP session, the number of RTP receivers is likely to
       be much larger than the number of RTP senders.

   3.  The applications need signalling functions to identify the
       relationships between RTP sessions.

   4.  The applications need signalling or RTP/RTCP functions to
       identify the relationships between SSRCs in different RTP
       sessions when needs beyond CNAME exist.

   Both broadcast and many-to-many multicast applications share a
   signalling requirement; all of the participants need the same RTP and
   payload type configuration.  Otherwise, A could for example be using
   payload type 97 as the video codec H.264 while B thinks it is MPEG-2.
   SDP offer/answer [RFC3264] is not appropriate for ensuring this
   property in broadcast/multicast context.  The signalling aspects of
   broadcast/multicast are not explored further in this memo.

   Security solutions for this type of group communication are also
   challenging.  First, the key-management and the security protocol
   need to support group communication.  Second, source authentication
   requires special solutions.  For more discussion on this please
   review Options for Securing RTP Sessions [RFC7201].

4.3.  Security and Key Management Considerations

   When dealing with point-to-point, 2-member RTP sessions only, there
   are few security issues that are relevant to the choice of having one
   RTP session or multiple RTP sessions.  However, there are a few
   aspects of multiparty sessions that might warrant consideration.  For




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   general information of possible methods of securing RTP, please
   review RTP Security Options [RFC7201].

4.3.1.  Security Context Scope

   When using SRTP [RFC3711], the security context scope is important
   and can be a necessary differentiation in some applications.  As
   SRTP's crypto suites are (so far) built around symmetric keys, the
   receiver will need to have the same key as the sender.  This results
   in that no one in a multi-party session can be certain that a
   received packet really was sent by the claimed sender and not by
   another party having access to the key.  The single SRTP algorithm
   not having this propery is the TESLA source authentication [RFC4383].
   However, TESLA adds delay to achieve source authentication.  In most
   cases, symmetric ciphers provide sufficient security properties but
   create issues in a few cases.

   The first case is when someone leaves a multi-party session and one
   wants to ensure that the party that left can no longer access the RTP
   streams.  This requires that everyone re-keys without disclosing the
   new keys to the excluded party.

   A second case is when using security as an enforcing mechanism for
   stream access differentiation between different receivers.  Take for
   example a scalable layer or a high quality simulcast version that
   only premium users are allowed to access.  The mechanism preventing a
   receiver from getting the high quality stream can be based on the
   stream being encrypted with a key that user can't access without
   paying premium, using the key-management to limit access to the key.

   SRTP [RFC3711] has no special functions for dealing with different
   sets of master keys for different SSRCs.  The key-management
   functions have different capabilities to establish different sets of
   keys, normally on a per-endpoint basis.  For example, DTLS-SRTP
   [RFC5764] and Security Descriptions [RFC4568] establish different
   keys for outgoing and incoming traffic from an endpoint.  This key
   usage has to be written into the cryptographic context, possibly
   associated with different SSRCs.

4.3.2.  Key Management for Multi-party Sessions

   The capabilities of the key-management combined with the RTP
   multiplexing choices affects the resulting security properties,
   control over the secured media, and who have access to it.

   Multi-party sessions contain at least one RTP stream from each active
   participant.  Depending on the multi-party topology [RFC7667], each
   participant can both send and receive multiple RTP streams.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   Transport translator-based sessions and multicast sessions, can
   neither use Security Description [RFC4568] nor DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764]
   without an extension as each endpoint provides its set of keys.  In
   centralised conferences, the signalling counterpart is a conference
   server, and the transport translator is the media plane unicast
   counterpart (to which DTLS messages would be sent).  Thus, an
   extension like Encrypted Key Transport [I-D.ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet]
   or a MIKEY [RFC3830] based solution that allows for keying all
   session participants with the same master key is needed.

   Privacy Enchanced RTP Conferencing (PERC) also enables a different
   trust model with semi-trusted media switching RTP middleboxes
   [I-D.ietf-perc-private-media-framework].

4.3.3.  Complexity Implications

   The usage of security functions can surface complexity implications
   from the choice of multiplexing and topology.  This becomes
   especially evident in RTP topologies having any type of middlebox
   that processes or modifies RTP/RTCP packets.  While there is very
   small overhead for an RTP translator or mixer to rewrite an SSRC
   value in the RTP packet of an unencrypted session, the cost is higher
   when using cryptographic security functions.  For example, if using
   SRTP [RFC3711], the actual security context and exact crypto key are
   determined by the SSRC field value.  If one changes SSRC, the
   encryption and authentication must use another key.  Thus, changing
   the SSRC value implies a decryption using the old SSRC and its
   security context, followed by an encryption using the new one.

5.  RTP Multiplexing Design Choices

   This section discusses how some RTP multiplexing design choices can
   be used in applications to achieve certain goals, and a summary of
   the implications of such choices.  For each design there is
   discussion of benefits and downsides.

5.1.  Multiple Media Types in One Session

   This design uses a single RTP session for multiple different media
   types, like audio and video, and possibly also transport robustness
   mechanisms like FEC or retransmission.  An endpoint can send zero,
   one or more media sources per media type, resulting in a number of
   RTP streams of various media types for both source and redundancy
   streams.

   The Advantages:

   1.  Only a single RTP session is used, which implies:



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


       *  Minimal need to keep NAT/FW state.

       *  Minimal NAT/FW-traversal cost.

       *  Fate-sharing for all media flows.

       *  Minimal overhead for security association establishment.

   2.  Dynamic allocation of RTP streams can be handled almost entirely
       at RTP level.  How localized this can be kept to RTP level
       depends on the application's needs for explicit indication of the
       stream usage and how timely that can be signalled.

   The Disadvantages:

   a.  It is less suitable for interworking with other applications that
       use individual RTP sessions per media type or multiple sessions
       for a single media type, due to the risk of SSRC collision and
       thus potential need for SSRC translation.

   b.  Negotiation of individual bandwidths for the different media
       types is currently only possible in SDP when using RID
       [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid].

   c.  It is not suitable for Split Component Terminal (see Section 3.10
       of [RFC7667]).

   d.  Flow-based QoS cannot be used to provide separate treatment of
       RTP streams compared to others in the single RTP session.

   e.  If there is significant asymmetry between the RTP streams' RTCP
       reporting needs, there are some challenges in configuration and
       usage to avoid wasting RTCP reporting on the RTP stream that does
       not need that frequent reporting.

   f.  It is not suitable for applications where some receivers like to
       receive only a subset of the RTP streams, especially if multicast
       or transport translator is being used.

   g.  There is some additional concern with legacy implementations that
       do not support the RTP specification fully when it comes to
       handling multiple SSRC per endpoint, as multiple simultaneous
       media types are sent as separate SSRC in the same RTP session.

   h.  If the applications need finer control over which session
       participants that are included in different sets of security
       associations, most key-management will have difficulties
       establishing such a session.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


5.2.  Multiple SSRCs of the Same Media Type

   In this design, each RTP session serves only a single media type.
   The RTP session can contain multiple RTP streams, either from a
   single endpoint or from multiple endpoints.  This commonly creates a
   low number of RTP sessions, typically only one for audio and one for
   video, with a corresponding need for two listening ports when using
   RTP/RTCP multiplexing [RFC5761].

   The Advantages

   1.  It works well with Split Component Terminal (see Section 3.10 of
       [RFC7667]) where the split is per media type.

   2.  It enables flow-based QoS with different prioritisation between
       media types.

   3.  For applications with dynamic usage of RTP streams, i.e.
       frequently added and removed, having much of the state associated
       with the RTP session rather than per individual SSRC can avoid
       the need for in-session signalling of meta-information about each
       SSRC.

   4.  There is low overhead for security association establishment.

   The Disadvantages

   a.  There are a slightly higher number of RTP sessions needed
       compared to Multiple Media Types in one Session Section 5.1.
       This implies:

       *  More NAT/FW state is needed.

       *  There is increased NAT/FW-traversal cost in both processing
          and delay.

   b.  There is some potential for concern with legacy implementations
       that don't support the RTP specification fully when it comes to
       handling multiple SSRC per endpoint.

   c.  It is not possible to control security association for sets of
       RTP streams within the same media type with today's key-
       management mechanisms, unless these are split into different RTP
       sessions (Section 5.3).

   For RTP applications where all RTP streams of the same media type
   share same usage, this structure provides efficiency gains in amount
   of network state used and provides more fate sharing with other media



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   flows of the same type.  At the same time, it is still maintaining
   almost all functionalities for the negotiation signaling of
   properties per individual media type, and also enables flow based QoS
   prioritisation between media types.  It handles multi-party sessions
   well, independently of multicast or centralised transport
   distribution, as additional sources can dynamically enter and leave
   the session.

5.3.  Multiple Sessions for One Media Type

   This design goes one step further than above (Section 5.2) by using
   multiple RTP sessions also for a single media type.  The main reason
   for going in this direction is that the RTP application needs
   separation of the RTP streams due to their usage, such as e.g.
   scalability over multicast, simulcast, need for extended QoS
   prioritisation, or the need for fine-grained signalling using RTP
   session-focused signalling tools.

   The Advantages:

   1.  This is more suitable for multicast usage where receivers can
       individually select which RTP sessions they want to participate
       in, assuming each RTP session has its own multicast group.

   2.  The application can indicate its usage of the RTP streams on RTP
       session level, in case multiple different usages exist.

   3.  There is less need for SSRC-specific explicit signalling for each
       media stream and thus reduced need for explicit and timely
       signalling when RTP streams are added or removed.

   4.  It enables detailed QoS prioritisation for flow-based mechanisms.

   5.  It works well with Split Component Terminal (see Section 3.10 of
       [RFC7667]).

   6.  The scope for who is included in a security association can be
       structured around the different RTP sessions, thus enabling such
       functionality with existing key-management.

   The Disadvantages:

   a.  There is an increased amount of session configuration state
       compared to Multiple SSRCs of the Same Media Type, due to the
       increased amount of RTP sessions.






Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   b.  For RTP streams that are part of scalability, simulcast or
       transport robustness, a method to bind sources across multiple
       RTP sessions is needed.

   c.  There is some potential for concern with legacy implementations
       that don't support the RTP specification fully when it comes to
       handling multiple SSRC per endpoint.

   d.  There is higher overhead for security association establishment,
       due to the increased number of RTP sessions.

   e.  If the applications need more fine-grained control than per RTP
       session over which participants that are included in different
       sets of security associations, most of today's key-management
       will have difficulties establishing such a session.

   For more complex RTP applications that have several different usages
   for RTP streams of the same media type, or uses scalability or
   simulcast, this solution can enable those functions at the cost of
   increased overhead associated with the additional sessions.  This
   type of structure is suitable for more advanced applications as well
   as multicast-based applications requiring differentiation to
   different participants.

5.4.  Single SSRC per Endpoint

   In this design each endpoint in a point-to-point session has only a
   single SSRC, thus the RTP session contains only two SSRCs, one local
   and one remote.  This session can be used both unidirectional, i.e.
   only a single RTP stream, or bi-directional, i.e. both endpoints have
   one RTP stream each.  If the application needs additional media flows
   between the endpoints, it will have to establish additional RTP
   sessions.

   The Advantages:

   1.  This design has great legacy interoperability potential as it
       will not tax any RTP stack implementations.

   2.  The signalling has good possibilities to negotiate and describe
       the exact formats and bitrates for each RTP stream, especially
       using today's tools in SDP.

   3.  It is possible to control security association per RTP stream
       with current key-management, since each RTP stream is directly
       related to an RTP session, and the most used keying mechanisms
       operates on a per-session basis.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   The Disadvantages:

   a.  There is a linear growth of the amount of NAT/FW state with
       number of RTP streams.

   b.  There is increased delay and resource consumption from NAT/FW-
       traversal.

   c.  There are likely larger signalling message and signalling
       processing requirements due to the increased amount of session-
       related information.

   d.  There is higher potential for a single RTP stream to fail during
       transport between the endpoints, due to the need for separate
       NAT/FW- traversal for every RTP stream since there is only one
       stream per session.

   e.  The amount of explicit state for relating RTP streams grows,
       depending on how the application relates RTP streams.

   f.  The port consumption might become a problem for centralised
       services, where the central node's port or 5-tuple filter
       consumption grows rapidly with the number of sessions.

   g.  For applications where the RTP stream usage is highly dynamic,
       i.e.  entering and leaving, the amount of signalling can become
       high.  Issues can also arise from the need for timely
       establishment of additional RTP sessions.

   h.  If, against the recommendation, the same SSRC value is reused in
       multiple RTP sessions rather than being randomly chosen,
       interworking with applications that use a different multiplexing
       structure will require SSRC translation.

   RTP applications with a strong need to interwork with legacy RTP
   applications can potentially benefit from this structure.  However, a
   large number of media descriptions in SDP can also run into issues
   with existing implementations.  For any application needing a larger
   number of media flows, the overhead can become very significant.
   This structure is also not suitable for non-mixed multi-party
   sessions, as any given RTP stream from each participant, although
   having same usage in the application, needs its own RTP session.  In
   addition, the dynamic behaviour that can arise in multi-party
   applications can tax the signalling system and make timely media
   establishment more difficult.






Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


5.5.  Summary

   Both the "Single SSRC per Endpoint" and the "Multiple Media Types in
   One Session" are cases that require full explicit signalling of the
   media stream relations.  However, they operate on two different
   levels where the first primarily enables session level binding, and
   the second needs SSRC level binding.  From another perspective, the
   two solutions are the two extreme points when it comes to number of
   RTP sessions needed.

   The two other designs, "Multiple SSRCs of the Same Media Type" and
   "Multiple Sessions for One Media Type", are two examples that
   primarily allows for some implicit mapping of the role or usage of
   the RTP streams based on which RTP session they appear in.  It thus
   potentially allows for less signalling and in particular reduces the
   need for real-time signalling in sessions with dynamically changing
   number of RTP streams.  They also represent points in-between the
   first two designs when it comes to amount of RTP sessions
   established, i.e. representing an attempt to balance the amount of
   RTP sessions with the functionality the communication session
   provides both on network level and on signalling level.

6.  Guidelines

   This section contains a number of multi-stream guidelines for
   implementers or specification writers.

   Do not require use of the same SSRC value across RTP sessions:
      As discussed in Section 3.4.3 there exist drawbacks in using the
      same SSRC in multiple RTP sessions as a mechanism to bind related
      RTP streams together.  It is instead recommended to use a
      mechanism to explicitly signal the relation, either in RTP/RTCP or
      in the signalling mechanism used to establish the RTP session(s).

   Use additional RTP streams for additional media sources:  In the
      cases where an RTP endpoint needs to transmit additional RTP
      streams of the same media type in the application, with the same
      processing requirements at the network and RTP layers, it is
      suggested to send them in the same RTP session.  For example a
      telepresence room where there are three cameras, and each camera
      captures 2 persons sitting at the table, sending each camera as
      its own RTP stream within a single RTP session is suggested.

   Use additional RTP sessions for streams with different requirements:

      When RTP streams have different processing requirements from the
      network or the RTP layer at the endpoints, it is suggested that
      the different types of streams are put in different RTP sessions.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


      This includes the case where different participants want different
      subsets of the set of RTP streams.

   When using multiple RTP sessions, use grouping:  When using multiple
      RTP session solutions, it is suggested to explicitly group the
      involved RTP sessions when needed using a signalling mechanism,
      for example The Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping
      Framework [RFC5888], using some appropriate grouping semantics.

   RTP/RTCP Extensions Support Multiple RTP Streams as Well as Multiple
   RTP Sessions:
      When defining an RTP or RTCP extension, the creator needs to
      consider if this extension is applicable to use with additional
      SSRCs and multiple RTP sessions.  Any extension intended to be
      generic must support both.  Extensions that are not as generally
      applicable will have to consider if interoperability is better
      served by defining a single solution or providing both options.

   Transport Support Extensions:  When defining new RTP/RTCP extensions
      intended for transport support, like the retransmission or FEC
      mechanisms, they must include support for both multiple RTP
      streams in the same RTP session and multiple RTP sessions, such
      that application developers can choose freely from the set of
      mechanisms without concerning themselves with which of the
      multiplexing choices a particular solution supports.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section can be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of the RTP specification [RFC3550], any
   applicable RTP profile [RFC3551],[RFC4585],[RFC3711], and the
   extensions for sending multiple media types in a single RTP session
   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session], RID
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], BUNDLE
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], [RFC5760], [RFC5761], apply
   if selected and thus need to be considered in the evaluation.

   There is discussion of the security implications of choosing multiple
   SSRC vs multiple RTP sessions in Section 4.3.






Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


9.  Contributors

   Hui Zheng (Marvin) contributed to WG draft versions -04 and -05 of
   the document.

10.  Acknowledgments

   The Authors like to acknowledge and thank Cullen Jennings, Dale R
   Worley, Huang Yihong (Rachel), and Vijay Gurbani for review and
   comments.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session]
              Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and J. Lennox, "Sending
              Multiple Types of Media in a Single RTP Session", draft-
              ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-13 (work in
              progress), December 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid]
              Roach, A., "RTP Payload Format Restrictions", draft-ietf-
              mmusic-rid-15 (work in progress), May 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
              Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
              negotiation-54 (work in progress), December 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast]
              Burman, B., Westerlund, M., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty,
              "Using Simulcast in SDP and RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
              mmusic-sdp-simulcast-14 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet]
              Jennings, C., Mattsson, J., McGrew, D., Wing, D., and F.
              Andreasen, "Encrypted Key Transport for DTLS and Secure
              RTP", draft-ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet-10 (work in progress),
              July 2019.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.





Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.

   [RFC3830]  Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K.
              Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3830, August 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3830>.

   [RFC4585]  Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
              "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
              Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.

   [RFC5576]  Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
              Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
              (SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.

   [RFC5760]  Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
              Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
              Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5760, February 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5760>.

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5761>.

   [RFC7656]  Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
              B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms
              for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.

   [RFC7667]  Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7667, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7667>.





Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


11.2.  Informative References

   [ALF]      Clark, D. and D. Tennenhouse, "Architectural
              Considerations for a New Generation of Protocols", SIGCOMM
              Symposium on Communications Architectures and
              Protocols (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), pp. 200--208, IEEE
              Computer Communications Review, Vol. 20(4), September
              1990.

   [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid]
              Roach, A., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream
              Identifier Source Description (SDES)", draft-ietf-avtext-
              rid-09 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-perc-private-media-framework]
              Jones, P., Benham, D., and C. Groves, "A Solution
              Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP
              Conferencing (PERC)", draft-ietf-perc-private-media-
              framework-12 (work in progress), June 2019.

   [JINGLE]   Ludwig, S., Beda, J., Saint-Andre, P., McQueen, R., Egan,
              S., and J. Hildebrand, "XEP-0166: Jingle", XMPP.org
              https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html, September 2018.

   [RFC2198]  Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
              Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
              Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2198, September 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2198>.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2974]  Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
              Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, DOI 10.17487/RFC2974,
              October 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2974>.







Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.

   [RFC3389]  Zopf, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
              Comfort Noise (CN)", RFC 3389, DOI 10.17487/RFC3389,
              September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3389>.

   [RFC4103]  Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
              Conversation", RFC 4103, DOI 10.17487/RFC4103, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4103>.

   [RFC4383]  Baugher, M. and E. Carrara, "The Use of Timed Efficient
              Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) in the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 4383,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4383, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4383>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC4568]  Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing, "Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media
              Streams", RFC 4568, DOI 10.17487/RFC4568, July 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4568>.

   [RFC4588]  Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
              Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.

   [RFC5104]  Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
              "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
              with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10.17487/RFC5104,
              February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5104>.

   [RFC5109]  Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
              Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109, December
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
              "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.

   [RFC5764]  McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.

   [RFC5888]  Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5888, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5888>.

   [RFC6465]  Ivov, E., Ed., Marocco, E., Ed., and J. Lennox, "A Real-
              time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-
              to-Client Audio Level Indication", RFC 6465,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6465, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6465>.

   [RFC7201]  Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
              Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201>.

   [RFC7657]  Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
              (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [RFC7826]  Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M.,
              and M. Stiemerling, Ed., "Real-Time Streaming Protocol
              Version 2.0", RFC 7826, DOI 10.17487/RFC7826, December
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7826>.

   [RFC7983]  Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
              Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
              Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
              RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.

   [RFC8088]  Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload Format",
              RFC 8088, DOI 10.17487/RFC8088, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8088>.






Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   [RFC8108]  Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, Q., and C. Perkins,
              "Sending Multiple RTP Streams in a Single RTP Session",
              RFC 8108, DOI 10.17487/RFC8108, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8108>.

   [RFC8445]  Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
              Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
              Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.

Appendix A.  Dismissing Payload Type Multiplexing

   This section documents a number of reasons why using the payload type
   as a multiplexing point is unsuitable for most issues related to
   multiple RTP streams.  Attempting to use Payload type multiplexing
   beyond its defined usage has well known negative effects on RTP
   discussed below.  To use payload type as the single discriminator for
   multiple streams implies that all the different RTP streams are being
   sent with the same SSRC, thus using the same timestamp and sequence
   number space.  This has many effects:

   1.   Putting constraints on RTP timestamp rate for the multiplexed
        media.  For example, RTP streams that use different RTP
        timestamp rates cannot be combined, as the timestamp values need
        to be consistent across all multiplexed media frames.  Thus
        streams are forced to use the same RTP timestamp rate.  When
        this is not possible, payload type multiplexing cannot be used.

   2.   Many RTP payload formats can fragment a media object over
        multiple RTP packets, like parts of a video frame.  These
        payload formats need to determine the order of the fragments to
        correctly decode them.  Thus, it is important to ensure that all
        fragments related to a frame or a similar media object are
        transmitted in sequence and without interruptions within the
        object.  This can relatively simple be solved on the sender side
        by ensuring that the fragments of each RTP stream are sent in
        sequence.

   3.   Some media formats require uninterrupted sequence number space
        between media parts.  These are media formats where any missing
        RTP sequence number will result in decoding failure or invoking
        a repair mechanism within a single media context.  The text/
        T140 payload format [RFC4103] is an example of such a format.
        These formats will need a sequence numbering abstraction
        function between RTP and the individual RTP stream before being
        used with payload type multiplexing.




Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   4.   Sending multiple streams in the same sequence number space makes
        it impossible to determine which payload type, which stream a
        packet loss relates to, and thus to which stream to potentially
        apply packet loss concealment or other stream-specific loss
        mitigation mechanisms.

   5.   If RTP Retransmission [RFC4588] is used and there is a loss, it
        is possible to ask for the missing packet(s) by SSRC and
        sequence number, not by payload type.  If only some of the
        payload type multiplexed streams are of interest, there is no
        way of telling which missing packet(s) belong to the interesting
        stream(s) and all lost packets need be requested, wasting
        bandwidth.

   6.   The current RTCP feedback mechanisms are built around providing
        feedback on RTP streams based on stream ID (SSRC), packet
        (sequence numbers) and time interval (RTP timestamps).  There is
        almost never a field to indicate which payload type is reported,
        so sending feedback for a specific RTP payload type is difficult
        without extending existing RTCP reporting.

   7.   The current RTCP media control messages [RFC5104] specification
        is oriented around controlling particular media flows, i.e.
        requests are done addressing a particular SSRC.  Such mechanisms
        would need to be redefined to support payload type multiplexing.

   8.   The number of payload types are inherently limited.
        Accordingly, using payload type multiplexing limits the number
        of streams that can be multiplexed and does not scale.  This
        limitation is exacerbated if one uses solutions like RTP and
        RTCP multiplexing [RFC5761] where a number of payload types are
        blocked due to the overlap between RTP and RTCP.

   9.   At times, there is a need to group multiplexed streams and this
        is currently possible for RTP sessions and for SSRC, but there
        is no defined way to group payload types.

   10.  It is currently not possible to signal bandwidth requirements
        per RTP stream when using payload type multiplexing.

   11.  Most existing SDP media level attributes cannot be applied on a
        per payload type level and would require re-definition in that
        context.

   12.  A legacy endpoint that does not understand the indication that
        different RTP payload types are different RTP streams might be
        slightly confused by the large amount of possibly overlapping or
        identically defined RTP payload types.



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


Appendix B.  Signalling Considerations

   Signalling is not an architectural consideration for RTP itself, so
   this discussion has been moved to an appendix.  However, it is
   extremely important for anyone building complete applications, so it
   is deserving of discussion.

   We document salient issues here that need to be addressed by the WGs
   that use some form of signaling to establish RTP sessions.  These
   issues cannot simply be addressed by tweaking, extending, or
   profiling RTP, but require a dedicated and indepth look at the
   signaling primitives that set up the RTP sessions.

   There exist various signalling solutions for establishing RTP
   sessions.  Many are SDP [RFC4566] based, however SDP functionality is
   also dependent on the signalling protocols carrying the SDP.  RTSP
   [RFC7826] and SAP [RFC2974] both use SDP in a declarative fashion,
   while SIP [RFC3261] uses SDP with the additional definition of Offer/
   Answer [RFC3264].  The impact on signalling and especially SDP needs
   to be considered as it can greatly affect how to deploy a certain
   multiplexing point choice.

B.1.  Session Oriented Properties

   One aspect of the existing signalling is that it is focused on RTP
   sessions, or at least in the case of SDP the media description.
   There are a number of things that are signalled on media description
   level but those are not necessarily strictly bound to an RTP session
   and could be of interest to signal specifically for a particular RTP
   stream (SSRC) within the session.  The following properties have been
   identified as being potentially useful to signal not only on RTP
   session level:

   o  Bitrate/Bandwidth exist today only at aggregate or as a common
      "any RTP stream" limit, unless either codec-specific bandwidth
      limiting or RTCP signalling using TMMBR is used.

   o  Which SSRC that will use which RTP payload type (this will be
      visible from the first media packet, but is sometimes useful to
      know before packet arrival).

   Some of these issues are clearly SDP's problem rather than RTP
   limitations.  However, if the aim is to deploy an solution using
   additional SSRCs that contains several sets of RTP streams with
   different properties (encoding/packetization parameter, bit-rate,
   etc.), putting each set in a different RTP session would directly
   enable negotiation of the parameters for each set.  If insisting on
   additional SSRC only, a number of signalling extensions are needed to



Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   clarify that there are multiple sets of RTP streams with different
   properties and that they need in fact be kept different, since a
   single set will not satisfy the application's requirements.

   For some parameters, such as RTP payload type, resolution and
   framerate, a SSRC-linked mechanism has been proposed in
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid]

B.2.  SDP Prevents Multiple Media Types

   SDP chose to use the m= line both to delineate an RTP session and to
   specify the top level of the MIME media type; audio, video, text,
   image, application.  This media type is used as the top-level media
   type for identifying the actual payload format and is bound to a
   particular payload type using the rtpmap attribute.  This binding has
   to be loosened in order to use SDP to describe RTP sessions
   containing multiple MIME top level types.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] describes how to let
   multiple SDP media descriptions use a single underlying transport in
   SDP, which allows to define one RTP session with media types having
   different MIME top level types.

B.3.  Signalling RTP Stream Usage

   RTP streams being transported in RTP has some particular usage in an
   RTP application.  This usage of the RTP stream is in many
   applications so far implicitly signalled.  For example, an
   application might choose to take all incoming audio RTP streams, mix
   them and play them out.  However, in more advanced applications that
   use multiple RTP streams there will be more than a single usage or
   purpose among the set of RTP streams being sent or received.  RTP
   applications will need to signal this usage somehow.  The signalling
   used will have to identify the RTP streams affected by their RTP-
   level identifiers, which means that they have to be identified either
   by their session or by their SSRC + session.

   In some applications, the receiver cannot utilise the RTP stream at
   all before it has received the signalling message describing the RTP
   stream and its usage.  In other applications, there exists a default
   handling that is appropriate.

   If all RTP streams in an RTP session are to be treated in the same
   way, identifying the session is enough.  If SSRCs in a session are to
   be treated differently, signalling needs to identify both the session
   and the SSRC.





Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   If this signalling affects how any RTP central node, like an RTP
   mixer or translator that selects, mixes or processes streams, treats
   the streams, the node will also need to receive the same signalling
   to know how to treat RTP streams with different usage in the right
   fashion.

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Torshamnsgatan 23
   SE-164 80 Kista
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 10 714 82 87
   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


   Bo Burman
   Ericsson
   Gronlandsgatan 31
   SE-164 60 Kista
   Sweden

   Email: bo.burman@ericsson.com


   Colin Perkins
   University of Glasgow
   School of Computing Science
   Glasgow G12 8QQ
   United Kingdom

   Email: csp@csperkins.org


   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
   Google
   Kungsbron 2
   Stockholm 11122
   Sweden

   Email: harald@alvestrand.no








Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft     Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP          July 2019


   Roni Even
   Huawei

   Email: roni.even@huawei.com















































Westerlund, et al.      Expires January 23, 2020               [Page 43]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/