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

Versions: (draft-burman-mmusic-sdp-simulcast) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Network Working Group                                          B. Burman
Internet-Draft                                             M. Westerlund
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: January 21, 2018                                  S. Nandakumar
                                                               M. Zanaty
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           July 20, 2017


                Using Simulcast in SDP and RTP Sessions
                   draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast-10

Abstract

   In some application scenarios it may be desirable to send multiple
   differently encoded versions of the same media source in different
   RTP streams.  This is called simulcast.  This document describes how
   to accomplish simulcast in RTP and how to signal it in SDP.  The
   described solution uses an RTP/RTCP identification method to identify
   RTP streams belonging to the same media source, and makes an
   extension to SDP to relate those RTP streams as being different
   simulcast formats of that media source.  The SDP extension consists
   of a new media level SDP attribute that expresses capability to send
   and/or receive simulcast RTP 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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Reaching a Diverse Set of Receivers . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Application Specific Media Source Handling  . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Receiver Media Source Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Detailed Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Simulcast Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Simulcast Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  Offer/Answer Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.1.  Generating the Initial SDP Offer  . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.2.  Creating the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.3.  Offerer Processing the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.3.4.  Modifying the Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.4.  Use with Declarative SDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.5.  Relating Simulcast Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.6.  Signaling Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.6.1.  Single-Source Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       5.6.2.  Multi-Source Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  RTP Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.1.  Outgoing from Endpoint with Media Source  . . . . . . . .  21
     6.2.  RTP Middlebox to Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       6.2.1.  Media-Switching Mixer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       6.2.2.  Selective Forwarding Middlebox  . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.3.  RTP Middlebox to RTP Middlebox  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Network Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.1.  Bitrate Adaptation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   8.  Limitation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions  . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     B.1.  Modifications Between WG Version -09 and -10  . . . . . .  33
     B.2.  Modifications Between WG Version -08 and -09  . . . . . .  33
     B.3.  Modifications Between WG Version -07 and -08  . . . . . .  34
     B.4.  Modifications Between WG Version -06 and -07  . . . . . .  34
     B.5.  Modifications Between WG Version -05 and -06  . . . . . .  34
     B.6.  Modifications Between WG Version -04 and -05  . . . . . .  35
     B.7.  Modifications Between WG Version -03 and -04  . . . . . .  35
     B.8.  Modifications Between WG Version -02 and -03  . . . . . .  36
     B.9.  Modifications Between WG Version -01 and -02  . . . . . .  36
     B.10. Modifications Between WG Version -00 and -01  . . . . . .  36
     B.11. Modifications Between Individual Version -00 and WG
           Version -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37

1.  Introduction

   Most of today's multiparty video conference solutions make use of
   centralized servers to reduce the bandwidth and CPU consumption in
   the endpoints.  Those servers receive RTP streams from each
   participant and send some suitable set of possibly modified RTP
   streams to the rest of the participants, which usually have
   heterogeneous capabilities (screen size, CPU, bandwidth, codec, etc).
   One of the biggest issues is how to perform RTP stream adaptation to
   different participants' constraints with the minimum possible impact
   on both video quality and server performance.

   Simulcast is defined in this memo as the act of simultaneously
   sending multiple different encoded streams of the same media source,
   e.g. the same video source encoded with different video encoder types
   or image resolutions.  This can be done in several ways and for
   different purposes.  This document focuses on the case where it is
   desirable to provide a media source as multiple encoded streams over
   RTP [RFC3550] towards an intermediary so that the intermediary can
   provide the wanted functionality by selecting which RTP stream(s) to
   forward to other participants in the session, and more specifically
   how the identification and grouping of the involved RTP streams are
   done.

   The intended scope of the defined mechanism is to support negotiation
   and usage of simulcast when using SDP offer/answer and media
   transport over RTP.  The media transport topologies considered are
   point to point RTP sessions as well as centralized multi-party RTP
   sessions, where a media sender will provide the simulcasted streams
   to an RTP middlebox or endpoint, and middleboxes may further



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   distribute the simulcast streams to other middleboxes or endpoints.
   Usage of multicast or broadcast transport is out of scope and left
   for future extension.

   This document describes a few scenarios where it is motivated to use
   simulcast, and also defines the needed RTP/RTCP and SDP signaling for
   it.

2.  Definitions

2.1.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the terminology defined in RTP Taxonomy
   [RFC7656], and RTP Topologies [RFC7667].  The following terms are
   especially noted or here defined:

   RTP Mixer:  An RTP middle node, defined in [RFC7667] (Section 3.6 to
      3.9).

   RTP Session:  An association among a group of participants
      communicating with RTP, as defined in [RFC3550] and amended by
      [RFC7656].

   RTP Stream:  A stream of RTP packets containing media data, as
      defined in [RFC7656].

   RTP Switch:  A common short term for the terms "switching RTP mixer",
      "source projecting middlebox", and "video switching MCU" as
      discussed in [RFC7667].

   Simulcast Stream:  One encoded stream or dependent stream from a set
      of concurrently transmitted encoded streams and optional dependent
      streams, all sharing a common media source, as defined in
      [RFC7656].  For example, HD and thumbnail video simulcast versions
      of a single media source sent concurrently as separate RTP
      Streams.

   Simulcast Format:  Different formats of a simulcast stream serve the
      same purpose as alternative RTP payload types in non-simulcast
      SDP: to allow multiple alternative media formats for a given RTP
      stream.  As for multiple RTP payload types on the m-line in offer/
      answer [RFC3264], any one of the negotiated alternative formats
      can be used in a single RTP stream at a given point in time, but
      not more than one (based on RTP timestamp).  What format is used
      can change dynamically from one RTP packet to another.






Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


2.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Use Cases

   The use cases of simulcast described in this document relate to a
   multi-party communication session where one or more central nodes are
   used to adapt the view of the communication session towards
   individual participants, and facilitate the media transport between
   participants.  Thus, these cases target the RTP Mixer type of
   topology.

   There are two principle approaches for an RTP Mixer to provide this
   adapted view of the communication session to each receiving
   participant:

   o  Transcoding (decoding and re-encoding) received RTP streams with
      characteristics adapted to each receiving participant.  This often
      include mixing or composition of media sources from multiple
      participants into a mixed media source originated by the RTP
      Mixer.  The main advantage of this approach is that it achieves
      close to optimal adaptation to individual receiving participants.
      The main disadvantages are that it can be very computationally
      expensive to the RTP Mixer, typically degrades media Quality of
      Experience (QoE) such as end-to-end delay for the receiving
      participants, and requires RTP Mixer access to media content.

   o  Switching a subset of all received RTP streams or sub-streams to
      each receiving participant, where the used subset is typically
      specific to each receiving participant.  The main advantages of
      this approach are that it is computationally cheap to the RTP
      Mixer, has very limited impact on media QoE, and does not require
      RTP Mixer (full) access to media content.  The main disadvantage
      is that it can be difficult to combine a subset of received RTP
      streams into a perfect fit to the resource situation of a
      receiving participant.

   The use of simulcast relates to the latter approach, where it is more
   important to reduce the load on the RTP Mixer and/or minimize QoE
   impact than to achieve an optimal adaptation of resource usage.








Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


3.1.  Reaching a Diverse Set of Receivers

   The media sources provided by a sending participant potentially need
   to reach several receiving participants that differ in terms of
   available resources.  The receiver resources that typically differ
   include, but are not limited to:

   Codec:  This includes codec type (such as SDP MIME type) and can
      include codec configuration.  A couple of codec resources that
      differ only in codec configuration will be "different" if they are
      somehow not "compatible", like if they differ in video codec
      profile, or the transport packetization configuration.

   Sampling:  This relates to how the media source is sampled, in
      spatial as well as in temporal domain.  For video streams, spatial
      sampling affects image resolution and temporal sampling affects
      video frame rate.  For audio, spatial sampling relates to the
      number of audio channels and temporal sampling affects audio
      bandwidth.  This may be used to suit different rendering
      capabilities or needs at the receiving endpoints.

   Bitrate:  This relates to the amount of bits sent per second to
      transmit the media source as an RTP stream, which typically also
      affects the Quality of Experience (QoE) for the receiving user.

   Letting the sending participant create a simulcast of a few
   differently configured RTP streams per media source can be a good
   tradeoff when using an RTP switch as middlebox, instead of sending a
   single RTP stream and using an RTP mixer to create individual
   transcodings to each receiving participant.

   This requires that the receiving participants can be categorized in
   terms of available resources and that the sending participant can
   choose a matching configuration for a single RTP stream per category
   and media source.  For example, a set of receiving participants
   differ only in screen resolution; some are able to display video with
   at most 360p resolution and some support 720p resolution.  A sending
   participant can then reach all receivers with best possible
   resolution by creating a simulcast of RTP streams with 360p and 720p
   resolution for each sent video media source.

   The maximum number of simulcasted RTP streams that can be sent is
   mainly limited by the amount of processing and uplink network
   resources available to the sending participant.







Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


3.2.  Application Specific Media Source Handling

   The application logic that controls the communication session may
   include special handling of some media sources.  It is, for example,
   commonly the case that the media from a sending participant is not
   sent back to itself.

   It is also common that a currently active speaker participant is
   shown in larger size or higher quality than other participants (the
   sampling or bitrate aspects of Section 3.1).  Not sending the active
   speaker media back to itself means there is some other participant's
   media that instead has to receive special handling towards the active
   speaker; typically the previous active speaker.  This way, the
   previously active speaker is needed both in larger size (to current
   active speaker) and in small size (to the rest of the participants),
   which can be solved with a simulcast from the previously active
   speaker to the RTP switch.

3.3.  Receiver Media Source Preferences

   The application logic that controls the communication session may
   allow receiving participants to apply preferences to the
   characteristics of the RTP stream they receive, for example in terms
   of the aspects listed in Section 3.1.  Sending a simulcast of RTP
   streams is one way of accommodating receivers with conflicting or
   otherwise incompatible preferences.

4.  Overview

   This memo defines SDP [RFC4566] signaling that covers the above
   described simulcast use cases and functionalities.  A number of
   requirements for such signaling are elaborated in Appendix A.

   A new SDP media level attribute "a=simulcast" is defined.  The
   attribute describes, independently for send and receive directions,
   the number of simulcast RTP streams as well as potential alternative
   formats for each simulcast RTP stream.  Each simulcast RTP stream,
   including alternatives, is identified using the RID identifier (rid-
   id), defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid].

   a=simulcast:send 1;2,3 recv 4

   If the above line is included in an SDP offer, the "send" part
   indicates the offerer's capability and proposal to send two simulcast
   RTP streams.  Each simulcast RTP stream identifier (rid-id) is
   separated by a semicolon (";").  When rid-ids are separated by a
   comma (","), they describe alternative representations for that
   particular simulcast RTP stream.  Thus, the above "send" part is



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   interpreted as an intention to send two simulcast RTP streams.  The
   first simulcast RTP stream is identified and restricted according to
   rid-id 1.  The second simulcast RTP stream can be sent as two
   alternatives, identified and restricted according to rid-ids 2 and 3.
   The "recv" part of the above line indicates that the offerer desires
   to receive a single RTP stream (no simulcast) according to rid-id 4.

   The RID mechanism, as defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid], enables an
   SDP offerer or answerer to specify a number of different RTP stream
   restrictions for a rid-id by using the "a=rid" line.  Examples of
   such restrictions are maximum bitrate, maximum spatial video
   resolution (width and height), maximum video framerate, etc.  Each
   rid-id may also be restricted to use only a subset of the RTP payload
   types in the associated SDP media description.  Those RTP payload
   types can have their own configurations and parameters affecting what
   can be sent or received, using the "a=fmtp" line as well as other SDP
   attributes.

   A more complete example SDP offer media description is provided
   below:

   m=video 49300 RTP/AVP 97 98 99
   a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:99 VP8/90000
   a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42c01f;max-fs=3600;max-mbps=108000
   a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42c00b;max-fs=240;max-mbps=3600
   a=fmtp:99 max-fs=240;max-fr=30
   a=imageattr:97 send [x=1280,y=720] recv [x=1280,y=720]
   a=imageattr:98 send [x=320,y=180] recv [x=320,y=180]
   a=imageattr:99 send [x=320,y=180] recv [x=320,y=180]
   a=rid:1 send pt=97
   a=rid:2 send pt=98
   a=rid:3 send pt=99
   a=rid:4 recv pt=97
   a=simulcast:send 1;2,3 recv 4
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId

          Figure 1: Example Simulcast Media Description in Offer

   The above SDP media description can be interpreted on a high level to
   say that the offerer is capable of sending two simulcast RTP streams,
   one H.264 encoded stream in up to 720p resolution, and one additional
   stream encoded as either H.264 or VP8 with a maximum resolution of
   320x180 pixels.  The offerer can receive one H.264 stream with
   maximum 720p resolution.





Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   The receiver of this SDP offer can generate an SDP answer that
   indicates what it accepts.  It uses the "a=simulcast" attribute to
   indicate simulcast capability and specify what simulcast RTP streams
   and alternatives to receive and/or send.  An example of such
   answering "a=simulcast" attribute, corresponding to the above offer,
   is:

   a=simulcast:recv 1;2 send 4

   With this SDP answer, the answerer indicates in the "recv" part that
   it wants to receive the two simulcast RTP streams.  It has removed an
   alternative that it doesn't support (rid-id 3).  The send part
   confirms to the offerer that it will receive one stream for this
   media source according to rid-id 4.  The corresponding, more complete
   example SDP answer media description could look like:

   m=video 49674 RTP/AVP 97 98
   a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42c01f;max-fs=3600;max-mbps=108000
   a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42c00b;max-fs=240;max-mbps=3600
   a=imageattr:97 send [x=1280,y=720] recv [x=1280,y=720]
   a=imageattr:98 send [x=320,y=180] recv [x=320,y=180]
   a=rid:1 recv pt=97
   a=rid:2 recv pt=98
   a=rid:4 send pt=97
   a=simulcast:recv 1;2 send 4
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId

          Figure 2: Example Simulcast Media Description in Answer

   It is assumed that a single SDP media description is used to describe
   a single media source.  This is aligned with the concepts defined in
   [RFC7656] and will work in a WebRTC context, both with and without
   BUNDLE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] grouping of media
   descriptions.

   The "a=simulcast" line describes send and receive direction simulcast
   streams separately.  Each direction can in turn describe one or more
   simulcast streams, separated by semicolon.  The identifiers
   describing simulcast streams on the "a=simulcast" line are rid-id, as
   defined by "a=rid" lines in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid].  Each simulcast
   stream can be offered as a list of alternative rid-id, with each
   alternative separated by comma (not in the examples above).  A
   detailed specification can be found in Section 5 and more detailed
   examples are outlined in Section 5.6.





Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


5.  Detailed Description

   This section further details the overview above (Section 4).  First,
   formal syntax is provided (Section 5.1), followed by the rest of the
   SDP attribute definition in Section 5.2.  Relating Simulcast Streams
   (Section 5.5) provides the definition of the RTP/RTCP mechanisms
   used.  The section is concluded with a number of examples.

5.1.  Simulcast Attribute

   This document defines a new SDP media-level "a=simulcast" attribute,
   with value according to the following ABNF [RFC5234] syntax:

    sc-value     = ( sc-send [SP sc-recv] ) / ( sc-recv [SP sc-send] )
    sc-send      = "send" SP sc-str-list
    sc-recv      = "recv" SP sc-str-list
    sc-str-list  = sc-alt-list *( ";" sc-alt-list )
    sc-alt-list  = sc-id *( "," sc-id )
    sc-id-paused = "~"
    sc-id        = [sc-id-paused] rid-id
    ; SP defined in [RFC5234]
    ; rid-id defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid]

                    Figure 3: ABNF for Simulcast Value

      Note to RFC Editor: Replace "I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid" in the above
      figure with RFC number of draft-ietf-mmusic-rid before publication
      of this document.

   The "a=simulcast" attribute has a parameter in the form of one or two
   simulcast stream descriptions, each consisting of a direction ("send"
   or "recv"), followed by a list of one or more simulcast streams.
   Each simulcast stream consists of one or more alternative simulcast
   formats.  Each simulcast format is identified by a simulcast stream
   identifier (rid-id).  The rid-id MUST have the form of an RTP stream
   identifier, as described by RTP Payload Format Restrictions
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid].

   In the list of simulcast streams, each simulcast stream is separated
   by a semicolon (";").  Each simulcast stream can in turn be offered
   in one or more alternative formats, represented by rid-ids, separated
   by a comma (",").  Each rid-id can also be specified as initially
   paused [RFC7728], indicated by prepending a "~" to the rid-id.  The
   reason to allow separate initial pause states for each rid-id is that
   pause capability can be specified individually for each RTP payload
   type referenced by an rid-id.  Since pause capability specified via
   the "a=rtcp-fb" attribute and rid-id specified by "a=rid" can refer
   to common payload types, it is unfeasible to pause streams with rid-



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   id where any of the related RTP payload type(s) do not have pause
   capability.

   It is possible to use source-specific signaling [RFC5576] with
   "a=simulcast", but it is only in certain cases possible to learn from
   that signaling which SSRC will belong to a particular simulcast
   stream.

5.2.  Simulcast Capability

   Simulcast capability is expressed through a new media level SDP
   attribute, "a=simulcast" (Section 5.1).  The meaning of the attribute
   on SDP session level is undefined, MUST NOT be used by
   implementations of this specification and MUST be ignored if received
   on session level.  Extensions to this specification MAY define such
   session level usage.  Each SDP media description MUST contain at most
   one "a=simulcast" line.

   There are separate and independent sets of simulcast streams in send
   and receive directions.  When listing multiple directions, each
   direction MUST NOT occur more than once on the same line.

   Simulcast streams using undefined rid-id MUST NOT be used as valid
   simulcast streams by an RTP stream receiver.  The direction for an
   rid-id MUST be aligned with the direction specified for the
   corresponding RTP stream identifier on the "a=rid" line.

   The listed number of simulcast streams for a direction sets a limit
   to the number of supported simulcast streams in that direction.  The
   order of the listed simulcast streams in the "send" direction
   suggests a proposed order of preference, in decreasing order: the
   rid-id listed first is the most preferred and subsequent streams have
   progressively lower preference.  The order of the listed rid-id in
   the "recv" direction expresses which simulcast streams that are
   preferred, with the leftmost being most preferred.  This can be of
   importance if the number of actually sent simulcast streams have to
   be reduced for some reason.

   rid-id that have explicit dependencies [RFC5583]
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] to other rid-id (even in the same media
   description) MAY be used.

   Use of more than a single, alternative simulcast format for a
   simulcast stream MAY be specified as part of the attribute parameters
   by expressing the simulcast stream as a comma-separated list of
   alternative rid-id.  In this case, it is not possible to align what
   alternative rid-id that are used across different simulcast streams,
   like requiring all simulcast streams to use rid-id alternatives



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   referring to the same codec format.  The order of the rid-id
   alternatives within a simulcast stream is significant; the rid-id
   alternatives are listed from (left) most preferred to (right) least
   preferred.  For the use of simulcast, this overrides the normal codec
   preference as expressed by format type ordering on the "m=" line,
   using regular SDP rules.  This is to enable a separation of general
   codec preferences and simulcast stream configuration preferences.

   A simulcast stream can use a codec defined such that the same RTP
   SSRC can change RTP payload type multiple times during a session,
   possibly even on a per-packet basis.  A typical example can be a
   speech codec that makes use of Comfort Noise [RFC3389] and/or DTMF
   [RFC4733] formats.  In those cases, such "related" formats MUST NOT
   be defined as having their own rid-id listed explicitly in the
   attribute parameters, since they are not strictly simulcast streams
   of the media source, but rather a specific way of generating the RTP
   stream of a single simulcast stream with varying RTP payload type.

   If RTP stream pause/resume [RFC7728] is supported, any rid-id MAY be
   prefixed by a "~" character to indicate that the corresponding
   simulcast stream is initially paused already from start of the RTP
   session.  In this case, support for RTP stream pause/resume MUST also
   be included under the same "m=" line where "a=simulcast" is included.
   All RTP payload types related to such initially paused simulcast
   stream MUST be listed in the SDP as pause/resume capable as specified
   by [RFC7728], e.g. by using the "*" wildcard format for "a=rtcp-fb".

   An initially paused simulcast stream in "send" direction for the part
   sending the SDP MUST be considered equivalent to an unsolicited
   locally paused stream, and be handled accordingly.  Initially paused
   simulcast streams are resumed as described by the RTP pause/resume
   specification.  An RTP stream receiver that wishes to resume an
   unsolicited locally paused stream needs to know the SSRC of that
   stream.  The SSRC of an initially paused simulcast stream can be
   obtained from an RTP stream sender RTCP Sender Report (SR) including
   both the desired SSRC as "SSRC of sender", and the rid-id value in an
   RtpStreamId RTCP SDES item [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid].

   Including an initially paused simulcast stream in "recv" direction
   for the part sending the SDP, sent towards an RTP sender, SHOULD
   cause the remote RTP sender to put the stream as unsolicited locally
   paused, unless there are other RTP stream receivers that do not mark
   the simulcast stream as initially paused.  The reason to require an
   initially paused "recv" stream to be considered locally paused by the
   remote RTP sender, instead of making it equivalent to implicitly
   sending a pause request, is because the pausing RTP sender cannot
   know which receiving SSRC owns the restriction when TMMBR/TMMBN are




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   used for pause/resume signaling (Section 5.6 of [RFC7728]) since the
   RTP receiver's SSRC in send direction is sometimes not yet known.

   Use of the redundant audio data [RFC2198] format could be seen as a
   form of simulcast for loss protection purposes, but is not considered
   conflicting with the mechanisms described in this memo and MAY
   therefore be used as any other format.  In this case the "red"
   format, rather than the carried formats, SHOULD be the one to list as
   a simulcast stream on the "a=simulcast" line.

   The media formats and corresponding characteristics of simulcast
   streams SHOULD be chosen such that they are different, e.g. as
   different SDP formats with differing "a=rtpmap" and/or "a=fmtp"
   lines, or as differently defined RTP payload format restrictions.  If
   this difference is not required, RTP duplication [RFC7104] procedures
   SHOULD be considered instead of simulcast.  To avoid complications in
   implementations, a single rid-id MUST NOT occur more than once per
   "a=simulcast" line.  Note that this does not eliminate use of
   simulcast as an RTP duplication mechanism, since it is possible to
   define multiple different rid-id that are effectively equivalent.

5.3.  Offer/Answer Use

      Note: The inclusion of "a=simulcast" or the use of simulcast does
      not change any of the interpretation or Offer/Answer procedures
      for other SDP attributes, like "a=fmtp" or "a=rid".

5.3.1.  Generating the Initial SDP Offer

   An offerer wanting to use simulcast for a media description SHALL
   include one "a=simulcast" attribute in that media description in the
   offer.  An offerer listing a set of receive simulcast streams and/or
   alternative formats as rid-id in the offer MUST be prepared to
   receive RTP streams for any of those simulcast streams and/or
   alternative formats from the answerer.

5.3.2.  Creating the SDP Answer

   An answerer that does not understand the concept of simulcast will
   also not know the attribute and will remove it in the SDP answer, as
   defined in existing SDP Offer/Answer [RFC3264] procedures.  Since SDP
   session level simulcast is undefined in this memo, an answerer that
   receives an offer with the "a=simulcast" attribute on SDP session
   level SHALL remove it in the answer.  An answerer that understands
   the attribute but receives multiple "a=simulcast" attributes in the
   same media description SHALL disable use of simulcast by removing all
   "a=simulcast" lines for that media description in the answer.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   An answerer that does understand the attribute and that wants to
   support simulcast in an indicated direction SHALL reverse
   directionality of the unidirectional direction parameters; "send"
   becomes "recv" and vice versa, and include it in the answer.

   An answerer that receives an offer with simulcast containing an
   "a=simulcast" attribute listing alternative rid-id MAY keep all the
   alternative rid-id in the answer, but it MAY also choose to remove
   any non-desirable alternative rid-id in the answer.  The answerer
   MUST NOT add any alternative rid-id in send direction in the answer
   that were not present in the offer receive direction.  The answerer
   MUST be prepared to receive any of the receive direction rid-id
   alternatives, and MAY send any of the send direction alternatives
   that are kept in the answer.

   An answerer that receives an offer with simulcast that lists a number
   of simulcast streams, MAY reduce the number of simulcast streams in
   the answer, but MUST NOT add simulcast streams.

   An answerer that receives an offer without RTP stream pause/resume
   capability MUST NOT mark any simulcast streams as initially paused in
   the answer.

   An RTP stream pause/resume capable answerer that receives an offer
   with RTP stream pause/resume capability MAY mark any rid-id that
   refer to pause/resume capable formats as initially paused in the
   answer.

   An answerer that receives indication in an offer of an rid-id being
   initially paused SHOULD mark that rid-id as initially paused also in
   the answer, regardless of direction, unless it has good reason for
   the rid-id not being initially paused.  One reason to remove an
   initial pause in the answer compared to the offer could, for example,
   be that all receive direction simulcast streams for a media source
   the answerer accepts in the answer would otherwise be paused.

5.3.3.  Offerer Processing the SDP Answer

   An offerer that receives an answer without "a=simulcast" MUST NOT use
   simulcast towards the answerer.  An offerer that receives an answer
   with "a=simulcast" without any rid-id in a specified direction MUST
   NOT use simulcast in that direction.

   An offerer that receives an answer where some rid-id alternatives are
   kept MUST be prepared to receive any of the kept send direction rid-
   id alternatives, and MAY send any of the kept receive direction rid-
   id alternatives.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   An offerer that receives an answer where some of the rid-id are
   removed compared to the offer MAY release the corresponding resources
   (codec, transport, etc) in its receive direction and MUST NOT send
   any RTP packets corresponding to the removed rid-id.

   An offerer that offered some of its rid-id as initially paused and
   that receives an answer that does not indicate RTP stream pause/
   resume capability, MUST NOT initially pause any simulcast streams.

   An offerer with RTP stream pause/resume capability that receives an
   answer where some rid-id are marked as initially paused, SHOULD
   initially pause those RTP streams regardless if they were marked as
   initially paused also in the offer, unless it has good reason for
   those RTP streams not being initially paused.  One such reason could,
   for example, be that the answerer would otherwise initially not
   receive any media of that type at all.

5.3.4.  Modifying the Session

   Offers inside an existing session follow the same rules as for
   initial SDP offer, with these additions:

   1.  rid-id marked as initially paused in the offerer's send direction
       SHALL reflect the offerer's opinion of the current pause state at
       the time of creating the offer.  This is purely informational,
       and RTP stream pause/resume [RFC7728] signaling in the ongoing
       session SHALL take precedence in case of any conflict or
       ambiguity.

   2.  rid-id marked as initially paused in the offerer's receive
       direction SHALL (as in an initial offer) reflect the offerer's
       desired rid-id pause state.  Except for the case where the
       offerer already paused the corresponding RTP stream through RTP
       stream pause/resume [RFC7728] signaling , this is identical to
       the conditions at an initial offer.

   Creation of SDP answers and processing of SDP answers inside an
   existing session follow the same rules as described above for initial
   SDP offer/answer.

   Session modification restrictions in section 6.5 of RTP payload
   format restrictions [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] also apply.

5.4.  Use with Declarative SDP

   This document does not define the use of "a=simulcast" in declarative
   SDP, partly motivated by use of the simulcast format identification
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] not being defined for use in declarative SDP.



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   If concrete use cases for simulcast in declarative SDP are identified
   in the future, the authors of this memo expect that additional
   specifications will address such use.

5.5.  Relating Simulcast Streams

   Simulcast RTP streams MUST be related on RTP level through
   RtpStreamId [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid], as specified in the SDP
   "a=simulcast" attribute (Section 5.2) parameters.  This is sufficient
   as long as there is only a single media source per SDP media
   description.  When using BUNDLE
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], where multiple SDP media
   descriptions jointly specify a single RTP session, the SDES MID
   identification mechanism in BUNDLE allows relating RTP streams back
   to individual media descriptions, after which the above described
   RtpStreamId relations can be used.  Use of the RTP header extension
   [RFC5285] for both MID and RtpStreamId identifications can be
   important to ensure rapid initial reception, required to correctly
   interpret and process the RTP streams.  Implementers of this
   specification MUST support the RTCP source description (SDES) item
   method and SHOULD support RTP header extension method to signal
   RtpStreamId on RTP level.

   NOTE:  For the case where it is clear from SDP that RTP PT uniquely
      maps to corresponding RtpStreamId, an RTP receiver can use RTP PT
      to relate simulcast streams.  This can sometimes enable decoding
      even in advance to receiving RtpStreamId information in RTCP SDES
      and/or RTP header extensions.

   RTP streams MUST only use a single alternative rid-id at a time
   (based on RTP timestamps), but MAY change format (and rid-id) on a
   per-RTP packet basis.  This corresponds to the existing (non-
   simulcast) SDP offer/answer case when multiple formats are included
   on the "m=" line in the SDP answer, enabling per-RTP packet change of
   RTP payload type.

5.6.  Signaling Examples

   These examples describe a client to video conference service, using a
   centralized media topology with an RTP mixer.











Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


                    +---+      +-----------+      +---+
                    | A |<---->|           |<---->| B |
                    +---+      |           |      +---+
                               |   Mixer   |
                    +---+      |           |      +---+
                    | F |<---->|           |<---->| J |
                    +---+      +-----------+      +---+

                Figure 4: Four-party Mixer-based Conference

5.6.1.  Single-Source Client

   Alice is calling in to the mixer with a simulcast-enabled client
   capable of a single media source per media type.  The client can send
   a simulcast of 2 video resolutions and frame rates: HD 1280x720p
   30fps and thumbnail 320x180p 15fps.  This is defined below using the
   "imageattr" [RFC6236].  In this example, only the "pt" "a=rid"
   parameter is used, effectively achieving a 1:1 mapping between
   RtpStreamId and media formats (RTP payload types), to describe
   simulcast stream formats.  Alice's Offer:

   v=0
   o=alice 2362969037 2362969040 IN IP4 192.0.2.156
   s=Simulcast Enabled Client
   t=0 0
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.156
   m=audio 49200 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   m=video 49300 RTP/AVP 97 98
   a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42c01f; max-fs=3600; max-mbps=108000
   a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42c00b; max-fs=240; max-mbps=3600
   a=imageattr:97 send [x=1280,y=720] recv [x=1280,y=720]
   a=imageattr:98 send [x=320,y=180] recv [x=320,y=180]
   a=rid:1 send pt=97
   a=rid:2 send pt=98
   a=rid:3 recv pt=97
   a=simulcast:send 1;2 recv 3
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId

                  Figure 5: Single-Source Simulcast Offer

   The only thing in the SDP that indicates simulcast capability is the
   line in the video media description containing the "simulcast"
   attribute.  The included "a=fmtp" and "a=imageattr" parameters
   indicates that sent simulcast streams can differ in video resolution.
   The RTP header extension for RtpStreamId is offered to avoid issues



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   with the initial binding between RTP streams (SSRCs) and the
   RtpStreamId identifying the simulcast stream and its format.

   The Answer from the server indicates that it too is simulcast
   capable.  Should it not have been simulcast capable, the
   "a=simulcast" line would not have been present and communication
   would have started with the media negotiated in the SDP.  Also the
   usage of the RtpStreamId RTP header extension is accepted.

   v=0
   o=server 823479283 1209384938 IN IP4 192.0.2.2
   s=Answer to Simulcast Enabled Client
   t=0 0
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.43
   m=audio 49672 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   m=video 49674 RTP/AVP 97 98
   a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:98 H264/90000
   a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42c01f; max-fs=3600; max-mbps=108000
   a=fmtp:98 profile-level-id=42c00b; max-fs=240; max-mbps=3600
   a=imageattr:97 send [x=1280,y=720] recv [x=1280,y=720]
   a=imageattr:98 send [x=320,y=180] recv [x=320,y=180]
   a=rid:1 recv pt=97
   a=rid:2 recv pt=98
   a=rid:3 send pt=97
   a=simulcast:recv 1;2 send 3
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId

                 Figure 6: Single-Source Simulcast Answer

   Since the server is the simulcast media receiver, it reverses the
   direction of the "simulcast" and "rid" attribute parameters.

5.6.2.  Multi-Source Client

   Fred is calling in to the same conference as in the example above
   with a two-camera, two-display system, thus capable of handling two
   separate media sources in each direction, where each media source is
   simulcast-enabled in the send direction.  Fred's client is restricted
   to a single media source per media description.

   The first two simulcast streams for the first media source use
   different codecs, H264-SVC [RFC6190] and H264 [RFC6184].  These two
   simulcast streams also have a temporal dependency.  Two different
   video codecs, VP8 [RFC7741] and H264, are offered as alternatives for
   the third simulcast stream for the first media source.  Only the




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   highest fidelity simulcast stream is sent from start, the lower
   fidelity streams being initially paused.

   The second media source is offered with three different simulcast
   streams.  All video streams of this second media source are loss
   protected by RTP retransmission [RFC4588].  Also here, all but the
   highest fidelity simulcast stream are initially paused.

   Fred's client is also using BUNDLE to send all RTP streams from all
   media descriptions in the same RTP session on a single media
   transport.  Although using many different simulcast streams in this
   example, the use of RtpStreamId as simulcast stream identification
   enables use of a low number of RTP payload types.  Note that the use
   of both BUNDLE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] and "a=rid"
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] recommends using the RTP header extension
   [RFC5285] for carrying these RTP stream identification fields, which
   is consequently also included in the SDP.  Note also that for
   "a=rid", the corresponding SDES attribute is named RtpStreamId
   [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid].
































Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   v=0
   o=fred 238947129 823479223 IN IP6 2001:db8::c000:27d
   s=Offer from Simulcast Enabled Multi-Source Client
   t=0 0
   c=IN IP6 2001:db8::c000:27d
   a=group:BUNDLE foo bar zen

   m=audio 49200 RTP/AVP 99
   a=mid:foo
   a=rtpmap:99 G722/8000

   m=video 49600 RTP/AVPF 100 101 103
   a=mid:bar
   a=rtpmap:100 H264-SVC/90000
   a=rtpmap:101 H264/90000
   a=rtpmap:103 VP8/90000
   a=fmtp:100 profile-level-id=42400d; max-fs=3600; max-mbps=108000; \
       mst-mode=NI-TC
   a=fmtp:101 profile-level-id=42c00d; max-fs=3600; max-mbps=54000
   a=fmtp:103 max-fs=900; max-fr=30
   a=rid:1 send pt=100;max-width=1280;max-height=720;max-fps=60;depend=2
   a=rid:2 send pt=101;max-width=1280;max-height=720;max-fps=30
   a=rid:3 send pt=101;max-width=640;max-height=360
   a=rid:4 send pt=103;max-width=640;max-height=360
   a=depend:100 lay bar:101
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
   a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId
   a=rtcp-fb:* ccm pause nowait
   a=simulcast:send 1;2;~4,3

   m=video 49602 RTP/AVPF 96 104
   a=mid:zen
   a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
   a=fmtp:96 max-fs=3600; max-fr=30
   a=rtpmap:104 rtx/90000
   a=fmtp:104 apt=96;rtx-time=200
   a=rid:1 send pt=96;max-fs=921600;max-fps=30
   a=rid:2 send pt=96;max-fs=614400;max-fps=15
   a=rid:3 send pt=96;max-fs=230400;max-fps=30
   a=extmap:1 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:mid
   a=extmap:2 urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:RtpStreamId
   a=rtcp-fb:* ccm pause nowait
   a=simulcast:send 1;~2;~3

               Figure 7: Fred's Multi-Source Simulcast Offer

      Note: Empty lines in the SDP above are added only for readability
      and would not be present in an actual SDP.



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


6.  RTP Aspects

   This section discusses what the different entities in a simulcast
   media path can expect to happen on RTP level.  This is explored from
   source to sink by starting in an endpoint with a media source that is
   simulcasted to an RTP middlebox.  That RTP middlebox sends media
   sources both to other RTP middleboxes (cascaded middleboxes), as well
   as selecting some simulcast format of the media source and sending it
   to receiving endpoints.  Different types of RTP middleboxes and their
   usage of the different simulcast formats results in several different
   behaviors.

6.1.  Outgoing from Endpoint with Media Source

   The most straightforward simulcast case is the RTP streams being
   emitted from the endpoint that originates a media source.  When
   simulcast has been negotiated in the sending direction, the endpoint
   can transmit up to the number of RTP streams needed for the
   negotiated simulcast streams for that media source.  Each RTP stream
   (SSRC) is identified by associating (Section 5.5) it with an
   RtpStreamId SDES item, transmitted in RTCP and possibly also as an
   RTP header extension.  In cases where multiple media sources have
   been negotiated for the same RTP session and thus BUNDLE
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] is used, also the MID SDES
   item will be sent similarly to the RtpStreamId.

   Each RTP stream may not be continuously transmitted due to any of the
   following reasons; temporarily paused using Pause/Resume [RFC7728],
   sender side application logic temporarily pausing it, or lack of
   network resources to transmit this simulcast stream.  However, all
   simulcast streams that have been negotiated have active and
   maintained SSRC (at least in regular RTCP reports), even if no RTP
   packets are currently transmitted.  The relation between an RTP
   Stream (SSRC) and a particular simulcast stream is not expected to
   change, except in exceptional situations such as SSRC collisions.  At
   SSRC changes, the usage of MID and RtpStreamId should enable the
   receiver to correctly identify the RTP streams even after an SSRC
   change.

6.2.  RTP Middlebox to Receiver

   RTP streams in a multi-party RTP session can be used in multiple
   different ways, when the session utilizes simulcast at least on the
   media source to middlebox legs.  This is to a large degree due to the
   different RTP middlebox behaviors, but also the needs of the
   application.  This text assumes that the RTP middlebox will select a
   media source and choose which simulcast stream for that media source
   to deliver to a specific receiver.  In many cases, at most one



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   simulcast stream per media source will be forwarded to a particular
   receiver at any instant in time, even if the selected simulcast
   stream may vary.  For cases where this does not hold due to
   application needs, then the RTP stream aspects will fall under the
   middlebox to middlebox case Section 6.3.

   The selection of which simulcast streams to forward towards the
   receiver, is application specific.  However, in conferencing
   applications, active speaker selection is common.  In case the number
   of media sources possible to forward, N, is less than the total
   amount of media sources available in an multi-media session, the
   current and previous speakers (up to N in total) are often the ones
   forwarded.  To avoid the need for media specific processing to
   determine the current speaker(s) in the RTP middlebox, the endpoint
   providing a media source may include meta data, such as the RTP
   Header Extension for Client-to-Mixer Audio Level Indication
   [RFC6464].

   The possibilities for stream switching are media type specific, but
   for media types with significant interframe dependencies in the
   encoding, like most video coding, the switching needs to be made at
   suitable switching points in the media stream that breaks or
   otherwise deals with the dependency structure.  Even if switching
   points can be included periodically, it is common to use mechanisms
   like Full Intra Requests [RFC5104] to request switching points from
   the endpoint performing the encoding of the media source.

   Inclusion of the RtpStreamId SDES item for an SSRC in the middlebox
   to receiver direction should only occur when use of RtpStreamId has
   been negotiated in that direction.  It is worth noting that one can
   signal multiple RtpStreamIds when simulcast signalling indicates only
   a single simulcast stream, allowing one to use all of the
   RtpStreamIds as alternatives for that simulcast stream.  One reason
   for including the RtpStreamId in the middlebox to receiver direction
   for an RTP stream is to let the receiver know which restrictions
   apply to the currently delivered RTP stream.  In case the RtpStreamId
   is negotiated to be used, it is important to remember that the used
   identifiers will be specific to each signalling session.  Even if the
   central entity can attempt to coordinate, it is likely that the
   RtpStreamIds need to be translated to the leg specific values.  The
   below cases will have as base line that RtpStreamId is not used in
   the mixer to receiver direction.

6.2.1.  Media-Switching Mixer

   This section discusses the behavior in cases where the RTP middlebox
   behaves like the Media-Switching Mixer (Section 3.6.2) in RTP
   Topologies [RFC7667].  The fundamental aspect here is that the media



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   sources delivered from the middlebox will be the mixer's conceptual
   or functional ones.  For example, one media source may be the main
   speaker in high resolution video, while a number of other media
   sources are thumbnails of each participant.

   The above results in that the RTP stream produced by the mixer is one
   that switches between a number of received incoming RTP streams for
   different media sources and in different simulcast versions.  The
   mixer selects the media source to be sent as one of the RTP streams,
   and then selects among the available simulcast streams for the most
   appropriate one.  The selection criteria include available bandwidth
   on the mixer to receiver path and restrictions based on the
   functional usage of the RTP stream delivered to the receiver.  As an
   example of the latter, it is unnecessary to forward a full HD video
   to a receiver if the display area is just a thumbnail.  Thus,
   restrictions may exist to not allow some simulcast streams to be
   forwarded for some of the mixer's media sources.

   This will result in a single RTP stream being used for each of the
   RTP mixer's media sources.  This RTP stream is at any point in time a
   selection of one particular RTP stream arriving to the mixer, where
   the RTP header field values are rewritten to provide a consistent,
   single RTP stream.  If the RTP mixer doesn't receive any incoming
   stream matched to this media source, the SSRC will not transmit, but
   be kept alive using RTCP.  The SSRC and thus RTP stream for the
   mixer's media source is expected to be long term stable.  It will
   only be changed by signalling or other disruptive events.  Note that
   although the above talks about a single RTP stream, there can in some
   cases be multiple RTP streams carrying the selected simulcast stream
   for the originating media source, including redundancy or other
   auxiliary RTP streams.

   The mixer may communicate the identity of the originating media
   source to the receiver by including the CSRC field with the
   originating media source's SSRC value.  Note that due to the
   possibility that the RTP mixer switches between simulcast versions of
   the media source, the CSRC value may change, even if the media source
   is kept the same.

   It is important to note that any MID SDES item from the originating
   media source needs to be removed and not be associated with the RTP
   stream's SSRC.  That is, there is nothing in the signalling between
   the mixer and the receiver that is structured around the originating
   media sources, only the mixer's media sources.  If they would be
   associated with the SSRC, the receiver would likely believe that
   there has been an SSRC collision, and that the RTP stream is spurious
   as it doesn't carry the identifiers used to relate it to the correct
   context.  However, this is not true for CSRC values, as long as they



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   are never used as SSRC.  In these cases one could provide CNAME and
   MID as SDES items.  A receiver could use this to determine which CSRC
   values that are associated with the same originating media source.

   If RtpStreamIds are used in the scenario described by this section,
   it should be noted that the RtpStreamId on a particular SSRC will
   change based on the actual simulcast stream selected for switching.
   These RtpStreamId identifiers will be local to this leg's signalling
   context.  In addition, the defined RtpStreamIds and their parameters
   need to cover all the media sources and simulcast streams received by
   the RTP mixer that can be switched into this media source, sent by
   the RTP mixer.

6.2.2.  Selective Forwarding Middlebox

   This section discusses the behavior in cases where the RTP middlebox
   behaves like the Selective Forwarding Middlebox (Section 3.7) in RTP
   Topologies [RFC7667].  Applications for this type of RTP middlebox
   results in that each originating media source will have a
   corresponding media source on the leg between the middlebox and the
   receiver.  A Selective Forwarding Middlebox (SFM) could go as far as
   exposing all the simulcast streams for an media source, however this
   section will focus on having a single simulcast stream that can
   contain any of the simulcast formats.  This section will assume that
   the SFM projection mechanism works on media source level, and maps
   one of the media source's simulcast streams onto one RTP stream from
   the SFM to the receiver.

   This usage will result in that the individual RTP stream(s) for one
   media source can switch between being active to paused, based on the
   subset of media sources the SFM wants to provide the receiver for the
   moment.  With SFMs there exist no reasons to use CSRC to indicate the
   originating stream, as there is a one to one media source mapping.
   If the application requires knowing the simulcast version received to
   function well, then RtpStreamId should be negotiated on the SFM to
   receiver leg.  Which simulcast stream that is being forwarded is not
   made explicit unless RtpStreamId is used on the leg.

   Any MID SDES items being sent by the SFM to the receiver are only
   those agreed between the SFM and the receiver, and no MID values from
   the originating side of the SFM are to be forwarded.

   A SFM could expose corresponding RTP streams for all the media
   sources and their simulcast streams, and then for any media source
   that is to be provided forward one selected simulcast stream.
   However, this is not recommended as it would unnecessarily increase
   the number of RTP streams and require the receiver to timely detect
   switching between simulcast streams.  The above usage requires the



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   same SFM functionality for switching, while avoiding the
   uncertainties of timely detecting that a RTP stream ends.  The
   benefit would be that the received simulcast stream would be
   implicitly provided by which RTP stream would be active for a media
   source.  However, using RtpStreamId to make this explicit also
   exposes which alternative format is used.  The conclusion is that
   using one RTP stream per simulcast stream is unnecessary.  The issue
   with timely detecting end of streams, independent if they are stopped
   temporarily or long term, is that there is no explicit indication
   that the transmission has intentionally been stopped.  The RTCP based
   Pause and Resume mechanism [RFC7728] includes a PAUSED indication
   that provides the last RTP sequence number transmitted prior to the
   pause.  Due to usage, the timeliness of this solution depends on when
   delivery using RTCP can occur in relation to the transmission of the
   last RTP packet.  If no explicit information is provided at all, then
   detection based on non increasing RTCP SR field values and timers
   need to be used to determine pause in RTP packet delivery.  This
   results in that one can usually not determine when the last RTP
   packet arrives (if it arrives) that this will be the last.  That it
   was the last is something that one learns later.

6.3.  RTP Middlebox to RTP Middlebox

   This relates to the transmission of simulcast streams between RTP
   middleboxes or other usages where one wants to enable the delivery of
   multiple simultaneous simulcast streams per media source, but the
   transmitting entity is not the originating endpoint.  For a
   particular direction between middlebox A and B, this looks very
   similar to the originating to middlebox case on a media source basis.
   However, in this case there is usually multiple media sources,
   originating from multiple endpoints.  This can create situations
   where limitations in the number of simultaneously received media
   streams can arise, for example due to limitation in network
   bandwidth.  In this case, a subset of not only the simulcast streams,
   but also media sources can be selected.  This results in that
   individual RTP streams can be become paused at any point and later
   being resumed based on various criteria.

   The MIDs used between A and B are the ones agreed between these two
   identities in signalling.  The RtpStreamId values will also be
   provided to ensure explicit information about which simulcast stream
   they are.  The RTP stream to MID and RtpStreamId associations should
   here be long term stable.








Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


7.  Network Aspects

   Simulcast is in this memo defined as the act of sending multiple
   alternative encoded streams of the same underlying media source.
   When transmitting multiple independent streams that originate from
   the same source, it could potentially be done in several different
   ways using RTP.  A general discussion on considerations for use of
   the different RTP multiplexing alternatives can be found in
   Guidelines for Multiplexing in RTP
   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines].  Discussion and
   clarification on how to handle multiple streams in an RTP session can
   be found in [RFC8108].

   The network aspects that are relevant for simulcast are:

   Quality of Service:  When using simulcast it might be of interest to
      prioritize a particular simulcast stream, rather than applying
      equal treatment to all streams.  For example, lower bit-rate
      streams may be prioritized over higher bit-rate streams to
      minimize congestion or packet losses in the low bit-rate streams.
      Thus, there is a benefit to use a simulcast solution with good QoS
      support.

   NAT/FW Traversal:  Using multiple RTP sessions incurs more cost for
      NAT/FW traversal unless they can re-use the same transport flow,
      which can be achieved by Multiplexing Negotiation Using SDP Port
      Numbers [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].

7.1.  Bitrate Adaptation

   Use of multiple simulcast streams can require a significant amount of
   network resources.  If the amount of available network resources
   varies during an RTP session such that it does not match what is
   negotiated in SDP, the bitrate used by the different simulcast
   streams may have to be reduced dynamically.  What simulcast streams
   to prioritize when allocating available bitrate among the simulcast
   streams in such adaptation SHOULD be taken from the simulcast stream
   order on the "a=simulcast" line and ordering of alternative simulcast
   formats Section 5.2.  Simulcast streams that have pause/resume
   capability and that would be given such low bitrate by the adaptation
   process that they are considered not really useful can be temporarily
   paused until the limiting condition clears.

8.  Limitation

   The chosen approach has a limitation that relates to the use of a
   single RTP session for all simulcast formats of a media source, which




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   comes from sending all simulcast streams related to a media source
   under the same SDP media description.

   It is not possible to use different simulcast streams on different
   media transports, limiting the possibilities to apply different QoS
   to different simulcast streams.  When using unicast, QoS mechanisms
   based on individual packet marking are feasible, since they do not
   require separation of simulcast streams into different RTP sessions
   to apply different QoS.

   It is also not possible to separate different simulcast streams into
   different multicast groups to allow a multicast receiver to pick the
   stream it wants, rather than receive all of them.  In this case, the
   only reasonable implementation is to use different RTP sessions for
   each multicast group so that reporting and other RTCP functions
   operate as intended.  Such simulcast usage in multicast context is
   out of scope for the current document and would require additional
   specification.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests to register a new media-level SDP attribute,
   "simulcast", in the "att-field (media level only)" registry within
   the SDP parameters registry, according to the procedures of [RFC4566]
   and [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes].

   Contact name, email:  IETF, contacted via mmusic@ietf.org, or a
      successor address designated by IESG

   Attribute name:  simulcast

   Long-form attribute name:  Simulcast stream description

   Charset dependent:  No

   Attribute value:  sc-value; see Section 5.1 of RFC XXXX.

   Purpose:  Signals simulcast capability for a set of RTP streams

   MUX category:  NORMAL

   Note to RFC Editor: Please replace "RFC XXXX" with the assigned
   number of this RFC.








Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


10.  Security Considerations

   The simulcast capability, configuration attributes, and parameters
   are vulnerable to attacks in signaling.

   A false inclusion of the "a=simulcast" attribute may result in
   simultaneous transmission of multiple RTP streams that would
   otherwise not be generated.  The impact is limited by the media
   description joint bandwidth, shared by all simulcast streams
   irrespective of their number.  There may however be a large number of
   unwanted RTP streams that will impact the share of bandwidth
   allocated for the originally wanted RTP stream.

   A hostile removal of the "a=simulcast" attribute will result in
   simulcast not being used.

   Neither of the above will likely have any major consequences and can
   be mitigated by signaling that is at least integrity and source
   authenticated to prevent an attacker to change it.

   Security considerations related to the use of "a=rid" and the
   RtpStreamId SDES item is covered in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid] and
   [I-D.ietf-avtext-rid].  There are no additional security concerns
   related to their use in this specification.

11.  Contributors

   Morgan Lindqvist and Fredrik Jansson, both from Ericsson, have
   contributed with important material to the first versions of this
   document.  Robert Hansen and Cullen Jennings, from Cisco, Peter
   Thatcher, from Google, and Adam Roach, from Mozilla, contributed
   significantly to subsequent versions.

12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Thomas Belling, Roni
   Even, Adam Roach, Inaki Baz Castillo, Paul Kyzivat, and Arun
   Arunachalam for the feedback they provided during the development of
   this document.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [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.



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rid]
              Thatcher, P., Zanaty, M., Nandakumar, S., Burman, B.,
              Roach, A., and B. Campen, "RTP Payload Format
              Restrictions", draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-11 (work in
              progress), July 2017.

   [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-38 (work in progress), April 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
              Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
              Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-16
              (work in progress), December 2016.

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

   [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

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

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC7728]  Burman, B., Akram, A., Even, R., and M. Westerlund, "RTP
              Stream Pause and Resume", RFC 7728, DOI 10.17487/RFC7728,
              February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7728>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines]
              Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and H. Alvestrand,
              "Guidelines for using the Multiplexing Features of RTP to
              Support Multiple Media Streams", draft-ietf-avtcore-
              multiplex-guidelines-03 (work in progress), October 2014.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2198>.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
              <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3389>.

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

   [RFC4733]  Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "RTP Payload for DTMF
              Digits, Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals", RFC 4733,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4733, December 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4733>.

   [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, <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.

   [RFC5285]  Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "A General Mechanism for RTP
              Header Extensions", RFC 5285, DOI 10.17487/RFC5285, July
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5285>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.

   [RFC5583]  Schierl, T. and S. Wenger, "Signaling Media Decoding
              Dependency in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
              RFC 5583, DOI 10.17487/RFC5583, July 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5583>.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   [RFC6184]  Wang, Y., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
              Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6184, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6184>.

   [RFC6190]  Wenger, S., Wang, Y., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis,
              "RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6190, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6190>.

   [RFC6236]  Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image
              Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
              RFC 6236, DOI 10.17487/RFC6236, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6236>.

   [RFC6464]  Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
              Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
              Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6464, December 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6464>.

   [RFC7104]  Begen, A., Cai, Y., and H. Ou, "Duplication Grouping
              Semantics in the Session Description Protocol", RFC 7104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7104, January 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7104>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.

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

   [RFC7741]  Westin, P., Lundin, H., Glover, M., Uberti, J., and F.
              Galligan, "RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video", RFC 7741,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7741, March 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7741>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8108>.






Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


Appendix A.  Requirements

   The following requirements have to be met to support the use cases
   (Section 3):

   REQ-1:  Identification:

      REQ-1.1:  It must be possible to identify a set of simulcasted RTP
         streams as originating from the same media source in SDP
         signaling.

      REQ-1.2:  An RTP endpoint must be capable of identifying the
         simulcast stream a received RTP stream is associated with,
         knowing the content of the SDP signalling.

   REQ-2:  Transport usage.  The solution must work when using:

      REQ-2.1:  Legacy SDP with separate media transports per SDP media
         description.

      REQ-2.2:  Bundled [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] SDP
         media descriptions.

   REQ-3:  Capability negotiation.  It must be possible that:

      REQ-3.1:  Sender can express capability of sending simulcast.

      REQ-3.2:  Receiver can express capability of receiving simulcast.

      REQ-3.3:  Sender can express maximum number of simulcast streams
         that can be provided.

      REQ-3.4:  Receiver can express maximum number of simulcast streams
         that can be received.

      REQ-3.5:  Sender can detail the characteristics of the simulcast
         streams that can be provided.

      REQ-3.6:  Receiver can detail the characteristics of the simulcast
         streams that it prefers to receive.

   REQ-4:  Distinguishing features.  It must be possible to have
      different simulcast streams use different codec parameters, as can
      be expressed by SDP format values and RTP payload types.

   REQ-5:  Compatibility.  It must be possible to use simulcast in
      combination with other RTP mechanisms that generate additional RTP
      streams:



Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


      REQ-5.1:  RTP Retransmission [RFC4588].

      REQ-5.2:  RTP Forward Error Correction [RFC5109].

      REQ-5.3:  Related payload types such as audio Comfort Noise and/or
         DTMF.

      REQ-5.4:  A single simulcast stream can consist of multiple RTP
         streams, to support codecs where a dependent stream is
         dependent on a set of encoded and dependent streams, each
         potentially carried in their own RTP stream.

   REQ-6:  Interoperability.  The solution must be possible to use in:

      REQ-6.1:  Interworking with non-simulcast legacy clients using a
         single media source per media type.

      REQ-6.2:  WebRTC environment with a single media source per SDP
         media description.

Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions

   NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please remove this section prior to publication.

B.1.  Modifications Between WG Version -09 and -10

   o  Amended overview section with a bit more explanation on the
      examples, and added an rid-id alternative for one of the streams.

   o  Removed SCID also from the Terminology section, which was
      forgotten in -09 when changing SCID to rid-id.

B.2.  Modifications Between WG Version -08 and -09

   o  Changed SCID to rid-id, to align with ietf-draft-mmusic-rid
      naming.

   o  Changed Overview to be based on examples and shortened it.

   o  Changed semantics of initially paused rid-id in modified SDP
      offers from requiring it to follow actual RFC 7728 pause state to
      an informational offerer's opinion at the time of offer creation,
      not in any way overriding or amending RFC 7728 signaling.

   o  Replaced text on ignoring all but the first of multiple
      "a=simulcast" lines in a media description with mandating that at
      most one "a=simulcast" line is included.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   o  Clarified with a note that, for the case it is clear from the SDP
      that RTP PT uniquely maps to RtpStreamId, an RTP receiver can use
      RTP PT to relate simulcast streams.

   o  Moved Section 4 Requirements to become Appendix A.

   o  Editorial corrections and clarifications.

B.3.  Modifications Between WG Version -07 and -08

   o  Correcting syntax of SDP examples in section 6.6.1, as found by
      Inaki Baz Castillo.

   o  Changing ABNF to only define the sc-value, not the SDP attribute
      itself, as suggested by Paul Kyzivat.

   o  Changing I-D reference to newly published RFC 8108.

   o  Adding list of modifications between -06 and -07.

B.4.  Modifications Between WG Version -06 and -07

   o  A scope clarification, as result of the discussion with Roni Even.

   o  A reformulation of the identification requirements for simulcast
      stream.

   o  Correcting the statement related to source specific signalling
      (RFC 5576) to address Roni Even's comment.

   o  Update of the last paragraph in Section 6.2 regarding simulcast
      stream differences as well as forbidding multiple instances of the
      same SCID within a single a=simulcast line.

   o  Removal of note in Section 6.4 as result of issue raised by Roni
      Even.

   o  Use of "m=" has been changed to media description and a few other
      editorial improvements and clarifications.

B.5.  Modifications Between WG Version -05 and -06

   o  Added section on RTP Aspects

   o  Added a requirement (5-4) on that capability exchange must be
      capable of handling multi RTP stream cases.





Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   o  Added extmap attribute also on first signalling example as it is a
      recommended to use mechanism.

   o  Clarified the definition of the simulcast attribute and how
      simulcast streams relates to simulcast formats and SCIDs.

   o  Updated References list and moved around some references between
      informative and normative categories.

   o  Editorial improvements and corrections.

B.6.  Modifications Between WG Version -04 and -05

   o  Aligned with recent changes in draft-ietf-mmusic-rid and draft-
      ietf-avtext-rid.

   o  Modified the SDP offer/answer section to follow the generally
      accepted structure, also adding a brief text on modifying the
      session that is aligned with draft-ietf-mmusic-rid.

   o  Improved text around simulcast stream identification (as opposed
      to the simulcast stream itself) to consistently use the acronym
      SCID and defined that in the Terminology section.

   o  Changed references for RTP-level pause/resume and VP8 payload
      format that are now published as RFC.

   o  Improved IANA registration text.

   o  Removed unused reference to draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-
      scheme.

   o  Editorial improvements and corrections.

B.7.  Modifications Between WG Version -03 and -04

   o  Changed to only use RID identification, as was consensus during
      IETF 94.

   o  ABNF improvements.

   o  Clarified offer-answer rules for initially paused streams.

   o  Changed references for RTP topologies and RTP taxonomy documents
      that are now published as RFC.

   o  Added reference to the new RID draft in AVTEXT.




Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


   o  Re-structured section 6 to provide an easy reference by the
      updated IANA section.

   o  Added a sub-section 7.1 with a discussion of bitrate adaptation.

   o  Editorial improvements.

B.8.  Modifications Between WG Version -02 and -03

   o  Removed text on multicast / broadcast from use cases, since it is
      not supported by the solution.

   o  Removed explicit references to unified plan draft.

   o  Added possibility to initiate simulcast streams in paused mode.

   o  Enabled an offerer to offer multiple stream identification (pt or
      rid) methods and have the answerer choose which to use.

   o  Added a preference indication also in send direction offers.

   o  Added a section on limitations of the current proposal, including
      identification method specific limitations.

B.9.  Modifications Between WG Version -01 and -02

   o  Relying on the new RID solution for codec constraints and
      configuration identification.  This has resulted in changes in
      syntax to identify if pt or RID is used to describe the simulcast
      stream.

   o  Renamed simulcast version and simulcast version alternative to
      simulcast stream and simulcast format respectively, and improved
      definitions for them.

   o  Clarification that it is possible to switch between simulcast
      version alternatives, but that only a single one be used at any
      point in time.

   o  Changed the definition so that ordering of simulcast formats for a
      specific simulcast stream do have a preference order.

B.10.  Modifications Between WG Version -00 and -01

   o  No changes.  Only preventing expiry.






Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                  Simulcast                      July 2017


B.11.  Modifications Between Individual Version -00 and WG Version -00

   o  Added this appendix.

Authors' Addresses

   Bo Burman
   Ericsson
   Gronlandsgatan 31
   SE-164 60 Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: bo.burman@ericsson.com


   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Farogatan 2
   SE-164 80 Stockholm
   Sweden

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


   Suhas Nandakumar
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: snandaku@cisco.com


   Mo Zanaty
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: mzanaty@cisco.com










Burman, et al.          Expires January 21, 2018               [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/