[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                            S. Zhao
Internet-Draft                                                 S. Wenger
Intended status: Standards Track                                 Tencent
Expires: June 6, 2020                                  December 04, 2019


          RTP Payload Format for Essential Video Coding (EVC)
                     draft-zhao-avtcore-rtp-evc-00

Abstract

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding
   standard ISO/IEC International Standard 23094-1, also known as
   Essential Video Coding (EVC) and developed by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11.
   The RTP payload format allows for packetization of one or more
   Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet payload as
   well as fragmentation of a NAL unit into multiple RTP packets.  The
   payload format has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet
   video streaming, and high-bitrate entertainment-quality video, among
   others.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   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
     1.1.  Overview of the EVC Codec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.1.  Coding-Tool Features (informative)  . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.2.  Systems and Transport Interfaces  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       1.1.3.  Parallel Processing Support (informative) . . . . . .   8
       1.1.4.  NAL Unit Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     1.2.  Overview of the Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Definitions and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.1.1.  Definitions from the EVC Specification  . . . . . . .  10
       3.1.2.  Definitions Specific to This Memo . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  RTP Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  RTP Header Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Payload Header Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Payload Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.1.  Single NAL Unit Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.2.  Aggregation Packets (APs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.3.  Fragmentation Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.4.  Decoding Order Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Packetization Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  De-packetization Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.  Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Use with Feedback Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.1.  Picture Loss Indication (PLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.2.  Slice Loss Indication (SLI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.3.  Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI) . . . . . .  25
     8.4.  Full Intra Request (FIR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Use With Framemarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. IANA Considertaions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30






Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


1.  Introduction

   The EVC specification, which will be formally designatited (once
   approved) as ISO/IEC International Standard 23094-1 [EVC], is planned
   for ratification in early 2020.  A draft that's currently in the
   approval process of ISO/IEC can be found as [EVC] (Essential Video
   Coding).  One goal of MPEG is to keep [EVC]'s baseline essentially
   royalty free by agreement among the key contributors, whereas more
   advanced profiles follow a reasonable and non-dscriminatory licensing
   policy.  Both baseline and higher profiles of [EVC] are reported to
   provide coding efficiency gains over H.265 and H.264 under certain
   configurations.

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for [EVC].  It shares its
   basic design with the NAL unit-based RTP payload formats of [VVC],
   [RFC7798], [RFC6184] and [RFC6190].  With respect to design
   philosophy, security, congestion control, and overall implementation
   complexity, it has similar properties to those earlier payload format
   specifications.  This is a conscious choice, as at least RFC 6184 is
   widely deployed and generally known in the relevant implementer
   communities.  Certain mechanisms known from [RFC6190] were
   incorporated as EVC supports temporal scalability.  [EVC] does not
   offer higher forms of scalability.

1.1.  Overview of the EVC Codec

   EVC, H.265 and H.266 share a similar hybrid video codec design.  In
   this memo, we provide a very brief overview of those features of EVC
   that are, in some form, addressed by the payload format specified
   herein.  Implementers have to read, understand, and apply the ISO/IEC
   specifications pertaining to EVC to arrive at interoperable, well-
   performing implementations.  The EVC standard has a baseline profile
   and on top of that, a main profile, the latter including more
   advanced features.  A "toolset" syntax element allows encoders to
   mark a bitstream as to what of the many independent coding tools are
   exercised in the bitstream, in a spirit similar to the
   general_constraint_flags of H.266.

   Conceptually, All [EVC], HEVC and [VVC] include a Video Coding Layer
   (VCL), which is often used to refer to the coding-tool features, and
   a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL), which is often used to refer to
   the systems and transport interface aspects of the codecs.

1.1.1.  Coding-Tool Features (informative)

   Coding blocks and transform structure





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   [EVC] uses a traditional quad-tree coding structure, which divides
   the encoded image into blocks of up to 128x128 luma samples, which
   can be recursively divided into smaller blocks.  The main profile
   adds two advanced coding structure tools: Binary Ternary Tree (BTT)
   that allows non-square coding units and segmentation that changes the
   processing order of the segmentation unit from traditional left-
   scanning order processing to right-scanning order processing Unit
   Coding Order (SUCO).  In the main profile, the picture can be divided
   into rectangular tiles, and these tiles can be independently encoded
   and/or decoded in parallel.

   When predicting a data block using intra prediction or inter
   prediction, the remaining data is usually added to the prediction
   block.  The residual data is added to the prediction block.  The
   resildual data is obtained by applying an inverse quantization
   process and an inverse transform.  [EVC] includes integer discrete
   cosine transform (DCT2) and scalar quantization.  For the main
   profile, Improved Quantization and Transform (IQT) uses a different
   mapping/clipping function for quantization.  An inverse zig-zag
   scanning order is used for coefficient coding.  Advanced Coefficient
   Coding (ADCC) in the main profile can code coefficient values more
   efficiently, for example, indicated by the last non-zero coefficient.
   In main profile, Adaptive Transformation Selection (ATS) is also
   available and can be applied to integer versions of DST7 or DCT8, and
   not just DCT2.

   Entropy coding

   [EVC] uses a similar binary arithmetic coding mechanism as H.264.
   The mechanism includes a binarization step and a probability update
   defined by a lookup table.  In the main profile, the derivation
   process of syntax elements based on adjacent blocks makes the context
   modeling and initialization process more efficient.

   In-loop filtering

   The baseline profile of [EVC] uses the deblocking filter defined in
   H.263 Annex J.  In the main profile, compared to the deblocking
   filter in the baseline profile, an Advanced Deblocking Filter (ADDB)
   can be used, which can further reduce artifacts.  The main profile
   also defines two additional in-loop filters that can be used to
   improve the quality of decoded pictures before output and/or for
   inter prediction.  A Walsh-Hadamard Transform Domain Filter (HTDF) is
   applied to the luma samples before deblocking, and the scanning
   process is used to determine 4 adjacent samples for filtering.  An
   adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) allows to send signals of up to 25
   different filters for the luma components, and the best filter can be
   selected through the classification process for each 4x4 block.  The



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   filter parameters of the ALF filter are signaled in the Adaptation
   Parameter Set (APS).

   Inter-prediction

   The basis of [EVC] inter prediction is motion compensation using
   interpolation filters with a quarter sample resolution.  In baseline
   profile, a motion vector signal is transmitted using one of three
   spatially neighboring motion vectors and a temporally collocated
   motion vector as a predictor.  The motion vector difference may be
   signaled relative to the selected predictor, but for the case where
   no motion vector difference is signaled and there is no remaining
   data in the block, there is a specific mode called a skip mode.  The
   main profile includes six additional tools to provide improved inter
   prediction.  With advanced Motion Interpolation and Signaling (AMIS),
   adjacent blocks can be conceptually merged to indicate that they use
   the same motion, but more advanced schemes can also be used to create
   predictions from the basic model list of candidate predictors.  The
   Merge with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD) tool uses a process
   similar to the concept of merging neighboring blocks, but also allows
   the use of expressions that include a starting point, motion
   amplitude, and direction of motion to send a motion vector signal.

   Using Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP), candidate motion
   vector predictions for the block can be derived from its neighboring
   blocks in the same picture and collocated blocks in the reference
   picture.  The Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) tool provides
   a way to reduce the accuracy of a motion vector from a quarter sample
   to half sample, full sample, double sample, or quad sample, which
   provides the efficiency advantage, such as when sending large motion
   vector differences.  The main profile also includes the Decoder-side
   Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR), which uses a bilateral template
   matching process to refine the motion vectors in a bidirectional
   fashion.

   Intra prediction and intra-coding

   Intra prediction in [EVC] is performed on adjacent samples of coding
   units in a partitioned structure.  For the baseline profile, all
   coding units are square, and there are five different prediction
   modes: DC (mean value of the neighborhood), horizontal, vertical, and
   two different diagonal directions.  In the main profile, intra
   prediction can be applied to any rectangular coding unit, and there
   are 28 additional direction modes available in the so-called Enhanced
   Intra Prediction Directions (EIPD).  In the main profile, an encoder
   can also use Intra Block Copy (IBC), where a previously decoded
   sample blocks of the same picture is used as a predictor.  A
   displacement vector in integer sample precision is signaled to



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   indicate where the prediction block in the current picture is used
   for this mode.

   Decoded picture buffer management

   In the previous technology, decoded pictures can be stored in a
   decoded picture buffer (Decoded Picture Buffer, DPB) for predicting
   pictures that follow them in decoding order.  In the baseline
   profile, the management of the DPB (i.e. the process of adding and
   deleting reference pictures) is controlled by the information in the
   SPS.  For the main profile, if an Reference Picture List (RPL) scheme
   is used, DPB management can be controlled by information that is
   signaled at the picture level.

1.1.2.  Systems and Transport Interfaces

   [EVC] inherited the basic systems and transport interfaces designs
   from H.264 and H.265.  These include the NAL-unit-based syntax
   structure, the hierarchical syntax and data unit structure and the
   Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) message mechanism.  The
   hierarchical syntax and data unit structure consists of a sequence-
   level parameter set (SPS), two picture-level parameter sets (PPS and
   APS, each of which can apply to oen or more pictures), slice-level
   header parameters, and lower-level parameters.

   Below described are a number of key components that influenced the
   Network Abstraction Layer design of EVC as well as this memo.

   Sequence parameter set

   The Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) contains syntax elements pertaining
   to a coded video sequence (CVS), which is a group of pictures,
   starting with a random access point, and followed by pictures that
   may depend on each other and the random access point picture.  In
   MPGEG-2, the equivalent of a CVS was a Group of Pictures (GOP), which
   normally started with an I frame and was followed by P and B frames.
   While more complex in its options of random access points, EVC
   retains this basic concept.  In many TV-like applications, a CVS
   contains a few hundred milliseconds to a few seconds of video.  In
   video conferencing (without switching MCUs involved), a CVS can be as
   long in duration as the whole session.

   Picture and Adaptation parameter set

   The Picture Parameter Set and the Adaptation Parameter Set (PPS and
   APS, respectively) carry information pertaining to a single picture.
   The PPS contains information that is likely to stay constant from
   picture to picture-at least for pictures for a certain type-whereas



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   the APS contains information, such as adaptive loop filter
   coefficients, that are likely to change from picture to picture.

   Profile, level and toolsets

   Profiles and levels follow the same design considerations ask known
   form H.264, H.265, and in fact video codecs as old as MPEG-1 visual.
   A profile defines a set of tools (not to confuse with the "toolset"
   discussed below) that a decoder compliant with this profile has to
   support.  In [EVC], profiles are defined in Annex A.  Formally, they
   are defined as a set of constraints that a bitstream needs to conform
   to.  In [EVC], the baseline profile is much more severely constraint
   than main profile, reducing implementation complexity.  Levels relate
   to bitstream complexity in dimensions such as maximum sample decoding
   rate, maximum picture size, etc parameters that are directly related
   to computational complexity.

   Profiles and levels are signaled in the highest parameter set
   available, the SPS.

   [EVC] contains another mechanism related to the use of coding tools,
   known as the toolset syntax element.  This syntax element, also
   located in the SPS, is a bitmask that allows encoders to indicate
   which coding tools they are using, within the menu of profiles
   offered by the profile that is also signaled.  No decoder conformance
   point is associated with the toolset, but a bitstream that were using
   a coding tool that is indicated as not used in the toolset syntax
   element would obviously be non-compliant.  While MPEG specifically
   rules out the use of the toolset syntax element as a conformance
   point, walled garden implementations could do so without incurring
   the interoperability problems MPEG fears, and create bitstreams and
   decoders that do not support one or more given tools.  That, in turn,
   may be useful to mitigate certain patent related risks.

   Bitstream and elementary stream

   Above the Coded Video Sequence (CVS), [EVC] defines a video bitstream
   that can be used in the MPEG systems context as an elementary stream.
   For the purpose of this memo, this is not relevant.

   Random access support

   At this point, the authors believe [EVC] supports only clean random
   access.  WG input is solicited.

   Temporal scalability support





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   [EVC] includes support for temporal scalability through the
   generalized reference picture selection approach known since H.264/
   SVC.  Up to six temporal layers are supported.  The temporal layer is
   signaled in the NAL unit header (which co-serves as athe payload
   header in this memo), in the nuh_temporal_id field.

   Reference picture management

   TBD

   SEI Message

   [EVC] inherits many of H.265's SEI Messages, occasionally with
   changes in syntax and/or semantics making them applicable to EVC.

1.1.3.  Parallel Processing Support (informative)

      Placeholder

1.1.4.  NAL Unit Header

   EVC maintains the NAL unit concept of H.265 with different parameter
   options.  EVC also uses a two-byte NAL unit header, as shown in
   Figure 1.  The payload of a NAL unit refers to the NAL unit excluding
   the NAL unit header.

                       +---------------+---------------+
                       |0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       |F|   Type    | TID | Reserve |E|
                       +-------------+-----------------+

                   The Structure of the EVC NAL Unit Header

                                 Figure 1

   The semantics of the fields in the NAL unit header are as specified
   in [EVC] and described briefly below for convenience.  In addition to
   the name and size of each field, the corresponding syntax element
   name in [EVC] is also provided.

   F: 1 bit

      forbidden_zero_bit.  Required to be zero in [EVC].  Note that the
      inclusion of this bit in the NAL unit header was to enable
      transport of EVC video over MPEG-2 transport systems (avoidance of
      start code emulations) [MPEG2S].  In the context of this memo,the
      value 1 may be used to indicate a syntax violation, e.g., for a



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


      NAL unit resulted from aggregating a number of fragmented units of
      a NAL unit but missing the last fragment, as described in
      Section xxx. (section # placeholder)

   Type: 6 bits

      nal_unit_type_plus1.  This field specifies the NAL unit type as
      defined in Table 7-1 of [EVC].  If the most significant bit of
      this field of a NAL unit is equal to 0 (i.e., the value of this
      field is less than 32), the NAL unit is a VCL NAL unit.
      Otherwise, the NAL unit is a non-VCL NAL unit.  For a reference of
      all currently defined NAL unit types and their semantics, please
      refer to Section 7.3.1.2 in [EVC].

   TID: 3 bits

      nuh_temporal_id.  This field specifies the temporal identifier of
      the NAL unit plus 1.  The value of TemporalId is equal to TID
      minus 1.  A TID value of 0 is illegal to ensure that there is at
      least one bit in the NAL unit header equal to 1, so to enable
      independent considerations of start code emulations in the NAL
      unit header and in the NAL unit payload data.

   Reserve: 5 bits

      nuh_reserved_zero_5bits.  This field shall be equal to the version
      of the [EVC] specification.  Values of nuh_reserved_zero_5bits
      greater than 0 are reserved for future use by ISO/IEC.  Decoders
      conforming to a profile specified in [EVC] Annex A shall ignore
      (i.e., remove from the bitstream and discard) all NAL units with
      values of nuh_reserved_zero_5bits greater than 0.

   E: 1 bit

      nuh_extension_flag.  This field shall be equal the version of the
      [EVC] specification.  Value of nuh_extesion_flag equal to 1 is
      reserved for future use by ISO/IEC.  Decoders conforming to a
      profile specified in Annex A shall ignore (i.e., remove from the
      bitstream and discard) all NAL units with values of
      nuh_extension_flag equal to 1.

1.2.  Overview of the Payload Format

   This payload format defines the following processes required for
   transport of [EVC] coded data over RTP [RFC3550]:

   o  Usage of RTP header with this payload format




Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   o  Packetization of EVC coded NAL units into RTP packets using three
      types of payload structures: a single NAL unit packet, aggregation
      packet, and fragment unit

   o  Transmission of EVC NAL units of the same bitstream within a
      single RTP stream.

   o  Media type parameters to be used with the Session Description
      Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119].  In
   this document, the above key words will convey that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lowercase uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying the significance described in [RFC2119].
   This specification uses the notion of setting and clearing a bit when
   bit fields are handled.  Setting a bit is the same as assigning that
   bit the value of 1 (On).  Clearing a bit is the same as assigning
   that bit the value of 0 (Off).

3.  Definitions and Abbreviations

3.1.  Definitions

   This document uses the terms and definitions of EVC.  Section 3.1.1
   lists relevant definitions from EVC for convenience.  Section 3.1.2

3.1.1.  Definitions from the EVC Specification

      PlaceHolder

3.1.2.  Definitions Specific to This Memo

      PlaceHolder

4.  RTP Payload Format

4.1.  RTP Header Usage

   The format of the RTP header is specified in [RFC3550] (reprinted as
   Figure 2 for convenience).  This payload format uses the fields of
   the header in a manner consistent with that specification.






Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   The RTP payload (and the settings for some RTP header bits) for
   aggregation packets and fragmentation units are specified in
   Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3, respectively.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |V=2|P|X|  CC   |M|     PT      |       sequence number         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           timestamp                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
      |            contributing source (CSRC) identifiers             |
      |                             ....                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        RTP Header According to {{RFC3550}}

                                 Figure 2

   The RTP header information to be set according to this RTP payload
   format is set as follows:

   Marker bit (M): 1 bit

      Set for the last packet of the access unit, carried in the current
      RTP stream.  This is in line with the normal use of the M bit in
      video formats to allow an efficient playout buffer handling.



         Informative note: The content of a NAL unit does not tell
         whether or not the NAL unit is the last NAL unit, in decoding
         order, of an access unit.  An RTP sender implementation may
         obtain this information from the video encoder

   Payload Type (PT): 7 bits

      The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new payload format
      is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified
      here.  The assignment of a payload type has to be performed either
      through the profile used or in a dynamic way.

   Sequence Number (SN): 16 bits

      Set and used in accordance with [RFC3550].




Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   Timestamp: 32 bits

      The RTP timestamp is set to the sampling timestamp of the content.
      A 90 kHz clock rate MUST be used.  If the NAL unit has no timing
      properties of its own (e.g., parameter sets or certain SEI NAL
      units), the RTP timestamp MUST be set to the RTP timestamp of the
      coded picture of the access unit in which the NAL unit (according
      to Annex D of [EVC]) is included.  Receivers MUST use the RTP
      timestamp for the display process, even when the bitstream
      contains picture timing SEI messages or decoding unit information
      SEI messages as specified in [EVC].

   Synchronization source (SSRC): 32 bits

      Used to identify the source of the RTP packets.  When using SRST,
      by definition a single SSRC is used for all parts of a single
      bitstream.

4.2.  Payload Header Usage

   The first two bytes of the payload of an RTP packet are referred to
   as the payload header.  The payload header consists of the same
   fields (F, TID, Reserve and E) as the NAL unit header as shown in
   Section 1.1.4, irrespective of the type of the payload structure.

   The TID value indicates (among other things) the relative importance
   of an RTP packet, for example, because NAL units belonging to higher
   temporal sub-layers are not used for the decoding of lower temporal
   sub-layers.  A lower value of TID indicates a higher importance.
   More-important NAL units MAY be better protected against transmission
   losses than less-important NAL units.

4.3.  Payload Structures

   Three different types of RTP packet payload structures are specified.
   A receiver can identify the type of an RTP packet payload through the
   Type field in the payload header.

   The Three different payload structures are as follows:

   o  Single NAL unit packet: Contains a single NAL unit in the payload,
      and the NAL unit header of the NAL unit also serves as the payload
      header.  This payload structure is specified in Section 4.3.1.

   o  Aggregation Packet (AP): Contains more than one NAL unit within
      one access unit.  This payload structure is specified in
      Section 4.3.2.




Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   o  Fragmentation Unit (FU): Contains a subset of a single NAL unit.
      This payload structure is specified in Section 4.3.3.

4.3.1.  Single NAL Unit Packets

   A single NAL unit packet contains exactly one NAL unit, and consists
   of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), a conditional 16-bit
   DONL field (in network byte order), and the NAL unit payload data
   (the NAL unit excluding its NAL unit header) of the contained NAL
   unit, as shown in Figure 3.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           PayloadHdr          |      DONL (conditional)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                  NAL unit payload data                        |
     |                                                               |
     |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                  The Structure of a Single NAL Unit Packet

                                 Figure 3

   The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
   significant bits of the decoding order number of the contained NAL
   unit.  If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP
   streams, the DONL field MUST be present, and the variable DON for the
   contained NAL unit is derived as equal to the value of the DONL
   field.  Otherwise sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0 for all the RTP
   streams), the DONL field MUST NOT be present.

4.3.2.  Aggregation Packets (APs)

   Aggregation Packets (APs) are introduced to enable the reduction of
   packetization overhead for small NAL units, such as most of the non-
   VCL NAL units, which are often only a few octets in size.

   An AP aggregates NAL units within one access unit.  Each NAL unit to
   be carried in an AP is encapsulated in an aggregation unit.  NAL
   units aggregated in one AP are in NAL unit decoding order.

   An AP consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr) followed
   by two or more aggregation units, as shown in Figure 4.



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    PayloadHdr (Type=56)       |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
    |                                                               |
    |             two or more aggregation units                     |
    |                                                               |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   The Structure of an Aggregation Packet

                                 Figure 4

   The fields in the payload header are set as follows.  The F bit MUST
   be equal to 0 if the F bit of each aggregated NAL unit is equal to
   zero; otherwise, it MUST be equal to 1.  The Type field MUST be equal
   to 56.

   The value of TID MUST be the lowest value of TID of all the
   aggregated NAL units.  The value of Reserve and E Must match the
   version of [EVC] specification.

      Informative note: All VCL NAL units in an AP have the same TID
      value since they belong to the same access unit.  However, an AP
      may contain non-VCL NAL units for which the TID value in the NAL
      unit header may be different than the TID value of the VCL NAL
      units in the same AP.

   An AP MUST carry at least two aggregation units and can carry as many
   aggregation units as necessary; however, the total amount of data in
   an AP obviously MUST fit into an IP packet, and the size SHOULD be
   chosen so that the resulting IP packet is smaller than the MTU size
   so to avoid IP layer fragmentation.  An AP MUST NOT contain FUs
   specified in Section 4.3.3.  APs MUST NOT be nested; i.e., an AP must
   not contain another AP.

   The first aggregation unit in an AP consists of a conditional 16-bit
   DONL field (in network byte order) followed by a 16-bit unsigned size
   information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the
   NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but including the NAL
   unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL unit
   header, as shown in Figure 5.






Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |               :       DONL (conditional)      |   NALU size   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   NALU size   |                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+         NAL unit                              |
    |                                                               |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               :
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         The Structure of the First Aggregation Unit in an AP

                                 Figure 5

   The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
   significant bits of the decoding order number of the aggregated NAL
   unit.

   If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP streams,
   the DONL field MUST be present in an aggregation unit that is the
   first aggregation unit in an AP, and the variable DON for the
   aggregated NAL unit is derived as equal to the value of the DONL
   field.  Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0 for all the RTP
   streams), the DONL field MUST NOT be present in an aggregation unit
   that is the first aggregation unit in an AP.

   An aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP
   consists of a conditional 8-bit DOND field followed by a 16-bit
   unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the
   size of the NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets, but
   including the NAL unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself,
   including its NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 6.

















Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      : DOND (cond)   |          NALU size            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       NAL unit                                |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             The Structure of an Aggregation Unit That Is Not
                   the First Aggregation Unit in an AP

                                 Figure 6

   When present, the DOND field plus 1 specifies the difference between
   the decoding order number values of the current aggregated NAL unit
   and the preceding aggregated NAL unit in the same AP.

   If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP streams,
   the DOND field MUST be present in an aggregation unit that is not the
   first aggregation unit in an AP, and the variable DON for the
   aggregated NAL unit is derived as equal to the DON of the preceding
   aggregated NAL unit in the same AP plus the value of the DOND field
   plus 1 modulo 65536.  Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0 for
   all the RTP streams), the DOND field MUST NOT be present in an
   aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP, and
   in this case the transmission order and decoding order of NAL units
   carried in the AP are the same as the order the NAL units appear in
   the AP.

   Figure 7 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
   units, labeled as 1 and 2 in Figure 7, without the DONL and DOND
   fields being present.
















Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          RTP Header                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   PayloadHdr (Type=56)        |         NALU 1 Size           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          NALU 1 HDR           |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+         NALU 1 Data           |
      |                   . . .                                       |
      |                                                               |
      +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  . . .        | NALU 2 Size                   | NALU 2 HDR    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | NALU 2 HDR    |                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              NALU 2 Data                      |
      |                   . . .                                       |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           An Example of an AP Packet Containing Two Aggregation
               Units without the DONL and DOND Fields

                                 Figure 7

   Figure 8 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation
   units, labeled as 1 and 2 in the figure, with the DONL and DOND
   fields being present.






















Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          RTP Header                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   PayloadHdr (Type=56)        |        NALU 1 DONL            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          NALU 1 Size          |            NALU 1 HDR         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                 NALU 1 Data   . . .                           |
      |                                                               |
      +     . . .     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               |  NALU 2 DOND  |          NALU 2 Size          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          NALU 2 HDR           |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          NALU 2 Data          |
      |                                                               |
      |        . . .                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           An Example of an AP Containing Two Aggregation Units
                 with the DONL and DOND Fields

                                 Figure 8

4.3.3.  Fragmentation Units

   Fragmentation Units (FUs) are introduced to enable fragmenting a
   single NAL unit into multiple RTP packets, possibly without
   cooperation or knowledge of the EVC [EVC] encoder.  A fragment of a
   NAL unit consists of an integer number of consecutive octets of that
   NAL unit.  Fragments of the same NAL unit MUST be sent in consecutive
   order with ascending RTP sequence numbers (with no other RTP packets
   within the same RTP stream being sent between the first and last
   fragment).

   When a NAL unit is fragmented and conveyed within FUs, it is referred
   to as a fragmented NAL unit.  APs MUST NOT be fragmented.  FUs MUST
   NOT be nested; i.e., an FU must not contain a subset of another FU.

   The RTP timestamp of an RTP packet carrying an FU is set to the NALU-
   time of the fragmented NAL unit.

   An FU consists of a payload header (denoted as PayloadHdr), an FU
   header of one octet, a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte
   order), and an FU payload, as shown in Figure 9.



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    PayloadHdr (Type=57)       |   FU header   | DONL (cond)   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
    | DONL (cond)   |                                               |
    |-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               |
    |                         FU payload                            |
    |                                                               |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               :...OPTIONAL RTP padding        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          The Structure of an FU

                                 Figure 9

   The fields in the payload header are set as follows.  The Type field
   MUST be equal to 57.  The fields F, TID, Reserve and E MUST be equal
   to the fields F, TID, Reserve and E, respectively, of the fragmented
   NAL unit.

   The FU header consists of an S bit, an E bit, and a 6-bit FuType
   field, as shown in Figure 10.

                             +---------------+
                             |0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             |S|E|  FuType   |
                             +---------------+

                         The Structure of FU Header

                                 Figure 10

   The semantics of the FU header fields are as follows:

   S: 1 bit

      When set to 1, the S bit indicates the start of a fragmented NAL
      unit, i.e., the first byte of the FU payload is also the first
      byte of the payload of the fragmented NAL unit.  When the FU
      payload is not the start of the fragmented NAL unit payload, the S
      bit MUST be set to 0.

   E: 1 bit





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


      When set to 1, the E bit indicates the end of a fragmented NAL
      unit, i.e., the last byte of the payload is also the last byte of
      the fragmented NAL unit.  When the FU payload is not the last
      fragment of a fragmented NAL unit, the E bit MUST be set to 0.

   FuType: 6 bits

      The field FuType MUST be equal to the field Type of the fragmented
      NAL unit.

   The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least
   significant bits of the decoding order number of the fragmented NAL
   unit.

   If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP streams,
   and the S bit is equal to 1, the DONL field MUST be present in the
   FU, and the variable DON for the fragmented NAL unit is derived as
   equal to the value of the DONL field.  Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff
   is equal to 0 for all the RTP streams, or the S bit is equal to 0),
   the DONL field MUST NOT be present in the FU.

   A non-fragmented NAL unit MUST NOT be transmitted in one FU; i.e.,
   the Start bit and End bit must not both be set to 1 in the same FU
   header.

   The FU payload consists of fragments of the payload of the fragmented
   NAL unit so that if the FU payloads of consecutive FUs, starting with
   an FU with the S bit equal to 1 and ending with an FU with the E bit
   equal to 1, are sequentially concatenated, the payload of the
   fragmented NAL unit can be reconstructed.  The NAL unit header of the
   fragmented NAL unit is not included as such in the FU payload, but
   rather the information of the NAL unit header of the fragmented NAL
   unit is conveyed in F, TID, Reserve and E fields of the FU payload
   headers of the FUs and the FuType field of the FU header of the FUs.
   An FU payload MUST NOT be empty.

   If an FU is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all following
   fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to the same
   fragmented NAL unit, unless the decoder in the receiver is known to
   gracefully handle incomplete NAL units.

   A receiver in an endpoint or in a MANE MAY aggregate the first n-1
   fragments of a NAL unit to an (incomplete) NAL unit, even if fragment
   n of that NAL unit is not received.  In this case, the
   forbidden_zero_bit of the NAL unit MUST be set to 1 to indicate a
   syntax violation.





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


4.4.  Decoding Order Number

   For each NAL unit, the variable AbsDon is derived, representing the
   decoding order number that is indicative of the NAL unit decoding
   order.

   Let NAL unit n be the n-th NAL unit in transmission order within an
   RTP stream.

   If sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0 for all the RTP streams carrying
   the HEVC bitstream, AbsDon[n], the value of AbsDon for NAL unit n, is
   derived as equal to n.

   Otherwise (sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP
   streams), AbsDon[n] is derived as follows, where DON[n] is the value
   of the variable DON for NAL unit n:

   o  If n is equal to 0 (i.e., NAL unit n is the very first NAL unit in
      transmission order), AbsDon[0] is set equal to DON[0].

   o  Otherwise (n is greater than 0), the following applies for
      derivation of AbsDon[n]:

         If DON[n] == DON[n-1],
            AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1]

         If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] < 32768),
            AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + DON[n] - DON[n-1]

         If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] >= 32768),
            AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] + 65536 - DON[n-1] + DON[n]

         If (DON[n] > DON[n-1] and DON[n] - DON[n-1] >= 32768),
            AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] + 65536 -
            DON[n])

         If (DON[n] < DON[n-1] and DON[n-1] - DON[n] < 32768),
            AbsDon[n] = AbsDon[n-1] - (DON[n-1] - DON[n])

   For any two NAL units m and n, the following applies:

   o  AbsDon[n] greater than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n follows
      NAL unit m in NAL unit decoding order.

   o  When AbsDon[n] is equal to AbsDon[m], the NAL unit decoding order
      of the two NAL units can be in either order.





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   o  AbsDon[n] less than AbsDon[m] indicates that NAL unit n precedes
      NAL unit m in decoding order.



         Informative note: When two consecutive NAL units in the NAL
         unit decoding order have different values of AbsDon, the
         absolute difference between the two AbsDon values may be
         greater than or equal to 1.



         Informative note: There are multiple reasons to allow for the
         absolute difference of the values of AbsDon for two consecutive
         NAL units in the NAL unit decoding order to be greater than
         one.  An increment by one is not required, as at the time of
         associating values of AbsDon to NAL units, it may not be known
         whether all NAL units are to be delivered to the receiver.  For
         example, a gateway may not forward VCL NAL units of higher sub-
         layers or some SEI NAL units when there is congestion in the
         network.  In another example, the first intra-coded picture of
         a pre-encoded clip is transmitted in advance to ensure that it
         is readily available in the receiver, and when transmitting the
         first intra-coded picture, the originator does not exactly know
         how many NAL units will be encoded before the first intra-coded
         picture of the pre-encoded clip follows in decoding order.
         Thus, the values of AbsDon for the NAL units of the first
         intra-coded picture of the pre-encoded clip have to be
         estimated when they are transmitted, and gaps in values of
         AbsDon may occur.

5.  Packetization Rules

   The following packetization rules apply:

   o  If sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for any of the RTP
      streams, the transmission order of NAL units carried in the RTP
      stream MAY be different than the NAL unit decoding order and the
      NAL unit output order.

   o  A NAL unit of a small size SHOULD be encapsulated in an
      aggregation packet together with one or more other NAL units in
      order to avoid the unnecessary packetization overhead for small
      NAL units.  For example, non-VCL NAL units such as access unit
      delimiters, parameter sets, or SEI NAL units are typically small
      and can often be aggregated with VCL NAL units without violating
      MTU size constraints.




Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   o  Each non-VCL NAL unit SHOULD, when possible from an MTU size match
      viewpoint, be encapsulated in an aggregation packet together with
      its associated VCL NAL unit, as typically a non-VCL NAL unit would
      be meaningless without the associated VCL NAL unit being
      available.

   o  For carrying exactly one NAL unit in an RTP packet, a single NAL
      unit packet MUST be used.

6.  De-packetization Process

   The general concept behind de-packetization is to get the NAL units
   out of the RTP packets in an RTP stream and pass them to the decoder
   in the NAL unit decoding order.

   The de-packetization process is implementation dependent.  Therefore,
   the following description should be seen as an example of a suitable
   implementation.  Other schemes may be used as well, as long as the
   output for the same input is the same as the process described below.
   The output is the same when the set of output NAL units and their
   order are both identical.  Optimizations relative to the described
   algorithms are possible.

   All normal RTP mechanisms related to buffer management apply.  In
   particular, duplicated or outdated RTP packets (as indicated by the
   RTP sequences number and the RTP timestamp) are removed.  To
   determine the exact time for decoding, factors such as a possible
   intentional delay to allow for proper inter-stream synchronization
   must be factored in.

   NAL units with NAL unit type values in the range of 0 to 55,
   inclusive, may be passed to the decoder.  NAL-unit-like structures
   with NAL unit type values in the range of 56 to 63, inclusive, MUST
   NOT be passed to the decoder.

   The receiver includes a receiver buffer, which is used to compensate
   for transmission delay jitter within individual RTP streams and
   across RTP streams, to reorder NAL units from transmission order to
   the NAL unit decoding order.  In this section, the receiver operation
   is described under the assumption that there is no transmission delay
   jitter within an RTP stream.  To make a difference from a practical
   receiver buffer that is also used for compensation of transmission
   delay jitter, the receiver buffer is hereafter called the de-
   packetization buffer in this section.  Receivers should also prepare
   for transmission delay jitter; that is, either reserve separate
   buffers for transmission delay jitter buffering and de-packetization
   buffering or use a receiver buffer for both transmission delay jitter
   and de-packetization.  Moreover, receivers should take transmission



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   delay jitter into account in the buffering operation, e.g., by
   additional initial buffering before starting of decoding and
   playback.

   When sprop-max-don-diff is equal to 0 for the received RTP stream,
   the de-packetization buffer size is zero bytes, and the process
   described in the remainder of this paragraph applies.  The NAL units
   carried in the RTP stream are directly passed to the decoder in their
   transmission order, which is identical to their decoding order.  When
   there are several NAL units of the same RTP stream with the same NTP
   timestamp, the order to pass them to the decoder is their
   transmission order.

      Informative note: The mapping between RTP and NTP timestamps is
      conveyed in RTCP SR packets.  In addition, the mechanisms for
      faster media timestamp synchronization discussed in [RFC6051] may
      be used to speed up the acquisition of the RTP-to-wall-clock
      mapping.

   When sprop-max-don-diff is greater than 0 for the received RTP stream
   the process described in the remainder of this section applies.

   There are two buffering states in the receiver: initial buffering and
   buffering while playing.  Initial buffering starts when the reception
   is initialized.  After initial buffering, decoding and playback are
   started, and the buffering-while-playing mode is used.

   Regardless of the buffering state, the receiver stores incoming NAL
   units, in reception order, into the de-packetization buffer.  NAL
   units carried in RTP packets are stored in the de-packetization
   buffer individually, and the value of AbsDon is calculated and stored
   for each NAL unit.

   Initial buffering lasts until condition A (the difference between the
   greatest and smallest AbsDon values of the NAL units in the de-
   packetization buffer is greater than or equal to the value of sprop-
   max-don-diff) or condition B (the number of NAL units in the de-
   packetization buffer is greater than the value of sprop-depack-buf-
   nalus) is true.

   After initial buffering, whenever condition A or condition B is true,
   the following operation is repeatedly applied until both condition A
   and condition B become false:

   o  The NAL unit in the de-packetization buffer with the smallest
      value of AbsDon is removed from the de-packetization buffer and
      passed to the decoder.




Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   When no more NAL units are flowing into the de-packetization buffer,
   all NAL units remaining in the de-packetization buffer are removed
   from the buffer and passed to the decoder in the order of increasing
   AbsDon values.

7.  Payload Format Parameters

      Placeholder

8.  Use with Feedback Messages

      Placeholder

8.1.  Picture Loss Indication (PLI)

      Placeholder

8.2.  Slice Loss Indication (SLI)

      Placeholder

8.3.  Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI)

      Placeholder

8.4.  Full Intra Request (FIR)

      Placeholder

9.  Use With Framemarking

      Placeholder

10.  Security Considerations

   The scope of this Security Considerations section is limited to the
   payload format itself and to one feature of [EVC] that may pose a
   particularly serious security risk if implemented naively.  The
   payload format, in isolation, does not form a complete system.
   Implementers are advised to read and understand relevant security-
   related documents, especially those pertaining to RTP (see the
   Security Considerations section in [RFC3550] ), and the security of
   the call-control stack chosen (that may make use of the media type
   registration of this memo).  Implementers should also consider known
   security vulnerabilities of video coding and decoding implementations
   in general and avoid those.





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   Within this RTP payload format, neither the various media-plane-based
   mechanisms, nor the signaling part of this memo, seems to pose a
   security risk beyond those common to all RTP-based systems.

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
   specification [RFC3550] , and in any applicable RTP profile such as
   RTP/AVP [RFC3551] , RTP/AVPF [RFC4585] , RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/
   SAVPF [RFC5124] .  However, as "Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP
   Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202]
   discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility to
   discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic security
   goals like confidentiality, integrity and source authenticity for RTP
   in general.  This responsibility lays on anyone using RTP in an
   application.  They can find guidance on available security mechanisms
   and important considerations in "Options for Securing RTP Sessions"
   [RFC7201].  Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong
   security mechanisms.  The rest of this section discusses the security
   impacting properties of the payload format itself.

   Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied
   end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression.
   A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encodings using
   compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
   computational load.  The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
   into the bitstream that are complex to decode and that cause the
   receiver to be overloaded.  EVC is particularly vulnerable to such
   attacks, as it is extremely simple to generate datagrams containing
   NAL units that affect the decoding process of many future NAL units.
   Therefore, the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity
   protection of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example,
   with SRTP [RFC3711].

   End-to-end security with authentication, integrity, or
   confidentiality protection will prevent a MANE from performing media-
   aware operations other than discarding complete packets.  In the case
   of confidentiality protection, it will even be prevented from
   discarding packets in a media-aware way.  To be allowed to perform
   such operations, a MANE is required to be a trusted entity that is
   included in the security context establishment.

11.  Congestion Control

   Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RTP
   [RFC3550] and with any applicable RTP profile, e.g., AVP [RFC3551].
   If best-effort service is being used, an additional requirement is
   that users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure
   that the packet loss rate is within an acceptable range.  Packet loss



Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path,
   and experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an
   average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not
   less than all RTP streams combined is achieving.  This condition can
   be satisfied by implementing congestion-control mechanisms to adapt
   the transmission rate, the number of layers subscribed for a layered
   multicast session, or by arranging for a receiver to leave the
   session if the loss rate is unacceptably high.

   The bitrate adaptation necessary for obeying the congestion control
   principle is easily achievable when real-time encoding is used, for
   example, by adequately tuning the quantization parameter.  However,
   when pre-encoded content is being transmitted, bandwidth adaptation
   requires the pre-coded bitstream to be tailored for such adaptivity.
   The key mechanism available in [EVC] is temporal scalability.  A
   media sender can remove NAL units belonging to higher temporal sub-
   layers (i.e., those NAL. units with a high value of TID) until the
   sending bitrate drops to an acceptable range.

   Above mechanisms generally work within a defined profile and level
   and, therefore, no renegotiation of the channel is required.  Only
   when non-downgradable parameters (such as profile) are required to be
   changed does it become necessary to terminate and restart the RTP
   stream(s).  This may be accomplished by using different RTP payload
   types.

   MANEs MAY remove certain unusable packets from the RTP stream when
   that RTP stream was damaged due to previous packet losses.  This can
   help reduce the network load in certain special cases.  For example,
   MANES can remove those FUs where the leading FUs belonging to the
   same NAL unit have been lost or those dependent slice segments when
   the leading slice segments belonging to the same slice have been
   lost, because the trailing FUs or dependent slice segments are
   meaningless to most decoders.  MANES can also remove higher temporal
   scalable layers if the outbound transmission (from the MANE's
   viewpoint) experiences congestion.

12.  IANA Considertaions

   Placeholder

13.  Acknowledgements

   Large parts of this specification share text with the RTP payload
   format for HEVC [RFC7798].  We thank the authors of that
   specification for their excellent work.





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [ISO23090-3]
              Bradner, S, ., "Versatile Video Coding",
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [ISO23094-1]
              N/A, ., "Essential Video Coding", 2020.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

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

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

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

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

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





Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   [RFC5124]  Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
              Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
              (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10.17487/RFC5124, February
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5124>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [CABAC]    Sole, J, . and . et al, "Transform coefficient coding in
              HEVC, IEEE Transactions on Circuts and Systems for Video
              Technology", DOI 10.1109/TCSVT.2012.2223055, December
              2012.

   [EVC]      "w18774_Text_DIS_23094-1_draft_final_v3.docx", 2019.

   [Girod99]  Girod, B, . and . et al, "Feedback-based error control for
              mobile video transmission, Proceedings of the IEEE",
              DOI 110.1109/5.790632, October 1999.

   [MPEG2S]   IS0/IEC, ., "Information technology - Generic coding
              ofmoving pictures and associated audio information - Part
              1:Systems, ISO International Standard 13818-1", 2013.

   [RFC6051]  Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
              Flows", RFC 6051, DOI 10.17487/RFC6051, November 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6051>.

   [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,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6190>.

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

   [RFC7202]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
              Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
              Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>.







Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft         RTP payload format for EVC          December 2019


   [RFC7798]  Wang, Y., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M.
              Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video
              Coding (HEVC)", RFC 7798, DOI 10.17487/RFC7798, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7798>.

   [VVC]      "JVET-P2001-vE-draft-7.docx", 2019.

   [Wang05]   Wang, YK, ., Zhu, C, ., and . Li, H, "Error resilient
              video coding using flexible reference fames", Visual
              Communications and Image Processing 2005 (VCIP 2005) ,
              July 2005.

Appendix A.  Change History

Authors' Addresses

   Shuai Zhao
   Tencent
   2747 Park Blvd
   Palo Alto  94588
   USA

   Email: shuaiizhao@tencent.com


   Stephan Wenger
   Tencent
   2747 Park Blvd
   Palo Alto  94588

   Email: stewe@stewe.org




















Zhao & Wenger             Expires June 6, 2020                 [Page 30]


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