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

Versions: (draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7742

Network Working Group                                         A.B. Roach
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 25, 2014
Expires: May 29, 2015


             WebRTC Video Processing and Codec Requirements
                       draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03

Abstract

   This specification provides the requirements and considerations for
   WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network.  It
   specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video
   codecs and their parameters.

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 May 29, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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




Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Pre and Post Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.1.  Camera Source Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Screen Source Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Stream Orientation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Mandatory to Implement Video Codec  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Codec-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  VP8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  H.264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   One of the major functions of WebRTC endpoints is the ability to send
   and receive interactive video.  The video might come from a camera, a
   screen recording, a stored file, or some other source.  This
   specification defines how the video is used and discusses special
   considerations for processing the video.  It also covers the video-
   related algorithms WebRTC devices need to support.

   Note that this document only discusses those issues dealing with
   video codec handling.  Issues that are related to transport of media
   streams across the network are specified in
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].

2.  Terminology

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

3.  Pre and Post Processing

   This section provides guidance on pre- or post-processing of video
   streams.

   Unless specified otherwise by the SDP or codec, the color space
   SHOULD be sRGB [SRGB].




Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


   TODO: I'm just throwing this out there to see if a specific proposal,
   even if wrong, might draw more comment than "TBD".  If you don't like
   sRGB for this purpose, comment on the rtcweb@ietf.org mailing list.
   It has been suggested that the MPEG "Coding independent media
   description code points" specification [IEC23001-8] may have
   applicability here.

3.1.  Camera Source Video

   This document imposes no normative requirements on camera capture;
   however, implementors are encouraged to take advantage of the
   following features, if feasible for their platform:

   o  Automatic focus, if applicable for the camera in use

   o  Automatic white balance

   o  Automatic light level control

3.2.  Screen Source Video

   If the video source is some portion of a computer screen (e.g.,
   desktop or application sharing), then the considerations in this
   section also apply.

   Because screen-sourced video can change resolution (due to, e.g.,
   window resizing and similar operations), WebRTC video recipients MUST
   be prepared to handle mid-stream resolution changes in a way that
   preserves their utility.  Precise handling (e.g., resizing the
   element a video is rendered in versus scaling down the received
   stream; decisions around letter/pillarboxing) is left to the
   discretion of the application.

   Additionally, attention is drawn to the requirements in
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] section 5.2 and the considerations in
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] section 4.1.1.

4.  Stream Orientation

   In some circumstances - and notably those involving mobile devices -
   the orientation of the camera may not match the orientation used by
   the encoder.  Of more importance, the orientation may change over the
   course of a call, requiring the receiver to change the orientation in
   which it renders the stream.

   While the sender may elect to simply change the pre-encoding
   orientation of frames, this may not be practical or efficient (in
   particular, in cases where the interface to the camera returns pre-



Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


   compressed video frames).  Note that the potential for this behavior
   adds another set of circumstances under which the resolution of a
   screen might change in the middle of a video stream, in addition to
   those mentioned under "Screen Sourced Video," above.

   To accommodate these circumstances, RTCWEB implementations that can
   generate media in orientations other than the default MUST support
   generating the R0 and R1 bits of the Coordination of Video
   Orientation (CVO) mechanism described in section 7.4.5 of [TS26.114],
   and MUST send them for all orientations when the peer indicates
   support for the mechanism.  They MAY support sending the other bits
   in the CVO extension, including the higher-resolution rotation bits.
   All implementations SHOULD support interpretation of the R0 and R1
   bits, and MAY support the other CVO bits.

   Further, some codecs support in-band signaling of orientation (for
   example, the SEI "Display Orientation" messages in H.264 and H.265).
   If CVO has been negotiated, then the sender MUST NOT make use of such
   codec-specific mechanisms.  However, when support for CVO is not
   signaled in the SDP, then such implementations MAY make use of the
   codec-specific mechanisms instead.

5.  Mandatory to Implement Video Codec

   For the definitions of "WebRTC Brower," "WebRTC Non-Browser", and
   "WebRTC-Compatible Endpoint" as they are used in this section, please
   refer to [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview].

   WebRTC Browsers MUST implement the VP8 video codec as described in
   [RFC6386] and H.264 as described in [H264].

   WebRTC Non-Browsers that support transmitting and/or receiving video
   MUST implement the VP8 video codec as described in [RFC6386] and
   H.264 as described in [H264].

      To promote the use of non-royalty bearing video codecs,
      participants in the RTCWEB working group, and any successor
      working groups in the IETF, intend to monitor the evolving
      licensing landscape as it pertains to the two mandatory-to-
      implement codecs.  If compelling evidence arises that one of the
      codecs is available for use on a royalty-free basis, the working
      group plans to revisit the question of which codecs are required
      for Non-Browsers, with the intention being that the royalty-free
      codec will remain mandatory to implement, and the other will
      become optional.

      These provisions apply to WebRTC Non-Browsers only.  There is no
      plan to revisit the codecs required for WebRTC Browsers.



Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


   "WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs
   they see fit.  This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-
   compatible endpoint."  It is, of course, advisable to implement at
   least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC Browsers,
   and implementors are encouraged to do so.

6.  Codec-Specific Considerations

   SDP allows for codec-independent indication of preferred video
   resolutions using the mechanism described in [RFC6236].  If a
   recipient of video indicates a receiving resolution, the sender
   SHOULD accommodate this resolution, as the receiver may not be
   capable of handling higher resolutions.

   Additionally, codecs may include codec-specific means of signaling
   maximum receiver abilities with regards to resolution, frame rate,
   and bitrate.

   Unless otherwise signaled in SDP, recipients of video streams are
   MUST be able to decode video at a rate of at least 20 fps at a
   resolution of at least 320x240.  These values are selected based on
   the recommendations in [HSUP1].

   Encoders are encouraged to support encoding media with at least the
   same resolution and frame rates cited above.

6.1.  VP8

   For the VP8 codec, defined in [RFC6386], endpoints MUST support the
   payload formats defined in [I-D.ietf-payload-vp8].  In addition they
   MUST support the 'bilinear' and 'none' reconstruction filters.

   TODO: There have been claims that VP8 already requires supporting
   both filters; if true, these do not need to be reiterated here.

   In addition to the [RFC6236] mechanism, VP8 encoders MUST limit the
   streams they send to conform to the values indicated by receivers in
   the corresponding max-fr and max-fs SDP attributes.

6.2.  H.264

   For the [H264] codec, endpoints MUST support the payload formats
   defined in [RFC6184].  In addition, they MUST support Constrained
   Baseline Profile Level 1.2, and they SHOULD support H.264 Constrained
   High Profile Level 1.3.






Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


   Implementations of the H.264 codec have utilized a wide variety of
   optional parameters.  To improve interoperability the following
   parameter settings are specified:

   packetization-mode:  Packetization-mode 1 MUST be supported.  Other
      modes MAY be negotiated and used.

   profile-level-id:  Implementations MUST include this parameter within
      SDP and SHOULD interpret it when receiving it.

   max-mbps, max-smbps, max-fs, max-cpb, max-dpb, and max-br:  These par
      ameters allow the implementation to specify that they can support
      certain features of H.264 at higher rates and values than those
      signalled by their level (set with profile-level-id).
      Implementations MAY include these parameters in their SDP, but
      SHOULD interpret them when receiving them, allowing them to send
      the highest quality of video possible.

   sprop-parameter-sets:  H.264 allows sequence and picture information
      to be sent both in-band, and out-of-band.  WebRTC implementations
      MUST signal this information in-band; as a result, this parameter
      will not be present in SDP.

   TODO: Do we need to require the handling of specific SEI messages?
   One example that has been raised is freeze-frame messages.

7.  Security Considerations

   This specification does not introduce any new mechanisms or security
   concerns beyond what the other documents it references.  In WebRTC,
   video is protected using DTLS/SRTP.  A complete discussion of the
   security can be found in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].  Implementers should consider
   whether the use of variable bit rate video codecs are appropriate for
   their application based on [RFC6562].

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no actions from IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Gaelle Martin-Cocher, Stephan Wenger,
   and Bernard Aboba for their detailed feedback and assistance with
   this document.  Thanks to Cullen Jennings for providing text and
   review.  This draft includes text from draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec.





Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [H264]     ITU-T Recommendation H.264, "Advanced video coding for
              generic audiovisual services", April 2013.

   [HSUP1]    ITU-T Recommendation H.Sup1, "Application profile - Sign
              language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low
              bit rate video communication", May 1999.

   [I-D.ietf-payload-vp8]
              Westin, P., Lundin, H., Glover, M., Uberti, J., and F.
              Galligan, "RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video", draft-ietf-
              payload-vp8-11 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
              Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
              Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12
              (work in progress), October 2014.

   [IEC23001-8]
              ISO/IEC 23001-8:2013/DCOR1, "Coding independent media
              description code points", 2013.

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

   [RFC4175]  Gharai, L. and C. Perkins, "RTP Payload Format for
              Uncompressed Video", RFC 4175, September 2005.

   [RFC4421]  Perkins, C., "RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video:
              Additional Colour Sampling Modes", RFC 4421, February
              2006.

   [RFC5104]  Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman,
              "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile
              with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, February 2008.

   [RFC6184]  Wang, Y.-K., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP
              Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184, May 2011.

   [RFC6236]  Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image
              Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC
              6236, May 2011.






Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                WebRTC Video                 November 2014


   [RFC6386]  Bankoski, J., Koleszar, J., Quillio, L., Salonen, J.,
              Wilkins, P., and Y. Xu, "VP8 Data Format and Decoding
              Guide", RFC 6386, November 2011.

   [RFC6562]  Perkins, C. and JM. Valin, "Guidelines for the Use of
              Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", RFC 6562, March
              2012.

   [SRGB]     IEC 61966-2-1, "Multimedia systems and equipment - Colour
              measurement and management - Part 2-1: Colour management -
              Default RGB colour space - sRGB.", October 1999.

   [TS26.114]
              3GPP TS 26.114 V12.7.0, "3rd Generation Partnership
              Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System
              Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia
              Telephony; Media handling and interaction (Release 12)",
              September 2014.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
              Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
              Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
              draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06 (work in progress),
              February 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
              Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", draft-ietf-
              rtcweb-security-arch-09 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
              Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
              ietf-rtcweb-security-06 (work in progress), January 2014.

Author's Address

   Adam Roach
   Mozilla
   \
   Dallas
   US

   Phone: +1 650 903 0800 x863
   Email: adam@nostrum.com





Roach                     Expires May 29, 2015                  [Page 8]


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