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



Internet Draft                                               Waqar Zia,
                                                     Thomas Stockhammer
Intended status: Informational                    Qualcomm Incorporated
Expires: December 2020                                    June 29, 2020


     Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
                                  (ROUTE)
                          draft-zia-route-00.txt


Status of this Memo

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

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   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.

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
   protocol (ROUTE Protocol) is specified for robust delivery of
   application objects, including application objects with real-time
   delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
   Application objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
   that use the ROUTE Protocol for delivery of data to receivers, for
   example, it can be a file, or a DASH or HLS segment, a WAV audio
   clip, etc. The ROUTE Protocol also supports low-latency streaming
   applications.

   The ROUTE Protocol is suitable for unicast, broadcast, and multicast
   transport. Therefore, it can be run over IP/UDP including multicast
   IP. ROUTE Protocol can leverage the features of the underlying
   protocol layer, e.g. to provide security it can leverage IP security
   protocols such as IPSec.

Conventions used in this document

   In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
   server respectively.

   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].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................4
      1.1. Overview..................................................4
      1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE..................................5
      1.3. Data Model................................................5
      1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification...................6
   2. ROUTE Packet Format............................................7
      2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields........................7


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


      2.2. LCT header extensions.....................................9
      2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows..........................10
      2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows..........................10
   3. Session metadata..............................................11
      3.1. Generic metadata.........................................11
      3.2. Session metadata for Source Flows........................11
      3.3. Session metadata for Repair Flows........................12
   4. Delivery object mode..........................................13
      4.1. File Mode................................................13
         4.1.1. Extensions to FDT...................................13
         4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT.........................15
      4.2. Entity Mode..............................................15
      4.3. Unsigned Package Mode....................................16
      4.4. Signed Package Mode......................................16
   5. Sender operation..............................................16
      5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow.....................16
      5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow......................17
         5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization...........................18
         5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content........18
      5.3. Timing of Packet Emission................................19
      5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending..............19
      5.5. FEC Framework Considerations.............................19
      5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction........................20
      5.7. Super-Object Construction................................21
      5.8. Repair Packet Considerations.............................22
      5.9. Summary FEC Information..................................22
   6. Receiver operation............................................23
      6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows.......23
      6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition..................................25
      6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance for File Mode...........25
         6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location
         Derivation.................................................25
         6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation.....................26
         6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation.....................26
   7. FEC Application...............................................26
      7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines.......................26
      7.2. TOI Mapping..............................................27
      7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout........................27
      7.4. Example FEC Operation....................................27
   8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles....................28
   9. ROUTE Concepts................................................29
      9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery..................................29
      9.2. File Mode Optimizations..................................30
      9.3. In band Signaling of Object Transfer Length..............30
      9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts.................................31
   10. Interoperability Chart.......................................31
   11. Security Considerations......................................33


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   12. IANA Considerations..........................................33
   13. References...................................................33
      13.1. Normative References....................................33
      13.2. Informative References..................................34
   14. Acknowledgments..............................................35

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

   The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
   protocol (ROUTE Protocol) can be used for robust delivery of
   Application Objects, including Application Objects with real-time
   delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.

   Application objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
   that use the ROUTE Protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g.,
   an Application Object can be a file, or a DASH [DASH] video segment,
   a WAV audio clip, a CMAF [CMAF] addressable resource, an MP4 video
   clip, etc. The ROUTE Protocol is designed to enable delivery of
   sequences of related Application Objects in a timely manner to
   receivers, e.g., a sequence of DASH video segments associated to a
   Representation or a sequence of CMAF addressable resources associated
   to a CMAF Track. The ROUTE Protocol supports chunked delivery of
   real-time Application Objects to enable low latency streaming
   applications (similar in its properties to chunked delivery using
   HTTP). The protocol also enables low-latency delivery of DASH and HLS
   content with CMAF Chunks.

   Content not intended for rendering in real time as it is received
   e.g. a downloaded application, or a file comprising continuous or
   discrete media and belonging to an app-based feature, or a file
   containing (opaque) data to be consumed by a DRM system client can
   also delivered by ROUTE.

   The ROUTE Protocol supports a caching model, where application
   objects are recovered into a cache at the receiver and may be made
   available to applications via standard HTTP requests from the cache.

   Profiles of ROUTE Protocol have already been specified in ATSC 3.0
   [ATSCA331] and DVB Adaptive Media Streaming over IP Multicast
   [DVBMABR]. Hence in the context of this RFC, the aforementioned ATSC
   3.0 and DVB systems are the applications using ROUTE. This RFC serves
   as a direct reference for such applications in the future and allows
   for deriving specific profiles based on the protocol specified in
   this RFC.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE

   ROUTE delivers application objects such as MPEG DASH or HLS segments
   and optionally the associated repair data, operating over UDP/IP
   networks supporting IP multicast. The session metadata signaling to
   realize ROUTE session as specified in this RFC MAY be delivered out-
   of-band or in band as well. Additionally, the application may use
   unicast delivery mechanisms over e.g. HTTP over TCP/IP in conjunction
   with ROUTE to augment the services. The latter unicast delivery
   aspects are beyond the scope of this RFC.


                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |Application (DASH, HLS, CMAF, etc.)|
                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |              ROUTE                |
                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |               UDP                 |
                    +-----------------------------------+
                    |               IP                  |
                    +-----------------------------------+


                          Figure 1 Protocol Layering


1.3. Data Model

   The ROUTE data model is constituted by the following key concepts.

   Application object - data that has meaning to the application that
   uses the ROUTE Protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g., an
   application object can be a file, or a DASH video segment, a WAV
   audio clip, an MP4 video clip, etc.

   Delivery objects - Objects on course of delivery to the application
   from the ROUTE sender to ROUTE receiver.

   Transport Object - as defined by RFC 5651 [RFC5651], it MAY be a
   either a source or a repair object.

   Transport Session - An LCT channel, as defined by RFC 5651
   [RFC5651]. Transport session SHALL be uniquely identified by a
   unique Transport Session Identifier (TSI) value in the LCT header.
   The TSI is scoped by the IP address of the sender, and the IP address
   of the sender together with the TSI SHALL uniquely identify the
   session. Transport sessions are a subset of a ROUTE session. For


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   media delivery, a Transport Session would typically carry a media
   component, for example a DASH Representation. Within each transport
   session, one or more objects are carried, typically objects that are
   related, e.g. DASH Segments associated to one Representation.

   ROUTE Session - An ensemble or multiplex of one or more Transport
   Sessions. Each ROUTE Session SHALL be associated with an IP
   address/port combination. ROUTE session typically carries one or more
   media components of streaming media e.g. Representations associated
   with a DASH Media Presentation.

   Source Flows - Transport sessions carrying source data. Source Flow
   is independent of the repair Flow, i.e. the Source Flows MAY be used
   by a ROUTE receiver without the ROUTE Repair Flows.

   Repair Flows - Transport sessions carrying repair data for one or
   more Source Flows.


1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification

   The scope of the ROUTE protocol is robust and real-time transport of
   delivery objects using LCT packets. This architecture is depicted in
   Figure 2.
   The normative aspects of the ROUTE protocol focus on the following
   aspects:
   -  The format of the LCT packets that carry the transport objects.
   -  The robust transport of the delivery object using a repair
   protocol based on FEC.
   -  The definition and possible carriage of object metadata along with
   the delivery objects. Metadata may be conveyed in LCT packets and/or
   separate objects.
   -  The ROUTE session, LCT channel and delivery object description
   provided as service metadata signaling to enable the reception of
   objects.
   -  The normative aspects (formats, semantics) of the delivery objects
   conveyed as a content manifest to be delivered along with the objects
   to optimize the performance for specific applications; e.g., real-
   time delivery. The objects and manifest are made available to the
   application through an application object cache. The interface of
   this cache to the application is not specified in this RFC, however
   it will typically be enabled by the application acting as an HTTP
   Client and the cache as the HTTP server.


                                                application objects
   Application                                  to application


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   Objects from                                          ^
   an application    +--------------------------------------------+
        +            |  ROUTE Receiver                   |        |
        |            |                            +------+------+ |
        |            |                            | Application | |
        |            |                            | Object Cache| |
        |            |                            +------+------+ |
        |    LCT over|    +---------------+              ^        |
        v    UDP/IP  |    | Source object |  +---------+ |        |
   +----+---+        | +->+ recovery      +--+  Repair +-+        |
   | ROUTE  |        | |  +---------------+  +----+----+          |
   | Sender +----------+                          ^               |
   +----+---+        | |                          |               |
        |            | |  +---------------+       |               |
        |            | |  | Repair object |       |               |
        |            | +->+ recovery      +-------+               |
        +----------->+    +---------------+                       |
          ROUTE      |                                            |
          Metadata   +--------------------------------------------+


               Figure 2 Architecture/functional block diagram



2. ROUTE Packet Format

2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields

   The packet format used by ROUTE Source Flows and Repair Flows follows
   the ALC packet format specified in RFC 5775 [RFC5775], with the UDP
   header followed by the default LCT header and the source FEC Payload
   ID followed by the packet payload. The overall ROUTE packet format is
   as depicted in Figure 3 below.

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           UDP Header                          |
   |                                                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                       Default LCT header                      |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         FEC Payload ID                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Payload Data                         |


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   |                               ...                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Figure 3 Overall ROUTE packet format

   The Default LCT header is as defined in the LCT building block in RFC
   5651 [RFC5651].

   The LCT packet header fields SHALL be used as defined by the LCT
   building block in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The semantics and usage of the
   following LCT header fields SHALL be further constrained in ROUTE as
   follows:

   Version number (V) - This 4-bit field indicates the protocol version
   number. The version number for this specification is '0001'. The
   version number field of the LCT header SHALL be interpreted as the
   ROUTE version number field. This version of ROUTE implicitly makes
   use of version 1 of the LCT building block defined in RFC 5651
   [RFC5651].

   Congestion Control flag (C) field - This 2-bit field, as defined in
   RFC 5651 [RFC5651], SHALL be set to '00'.

   Protocol-Specific Indication (PSI) - The first bit of this two bit
   flag indicates whether the current packet is a source packet or an
   FEC repair packet. The first bit of the Protocol Specific Indication
   (PSI bit X), the Source Packet Indicator (SPI), SHALL be set to '1'
   and '0' to indicate a source packet and a repair packet,
   respectively.
   If the payload of this packet is carrying the first part of a CMAF
   Random Access chunk, except for the first CMAF chunk in a segment,
   the least significant bit of the Protocol Specific Information (PSI)
   field MAY be set to 1.

   Transport Session Identifier flag (S) - This 1-bit field SHALL be set
   to '1' to indicate a 32-bit word in the TSI field.

   Transport Object Identifier flag (O) - This 2-bit field SHALL be set
   to '01' to indicate the number of full 32-bit words in the TOI field.

   Half-word flag (H) - This 1-bit field SHALL be set to '0' to indicate
   that no half-word field sizes are used.

   Codepoint (CP) - This 8-bit field is used to indicate the type of the
   payload that is carried by this packet, and for ROUTE, is defined as
   shown below to indicate the type of delivery object carried in the
   payload of the associated ROUTE packet. The remaining, unmapped



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   Codepoint values MAY be used by an application using ROUTE, as show
   in the following table:

   Codepoint value         |   Semantics
   ----------------------------------------------------
   0                       |   Reserved (not used)
   1                       |   NRT - File Mode
   2                       |   NRT - Entity Mode
   3                       |   NRT - Unsigned Package Mode
   4                       |   NRT - Signed Package Mode
   5                       |   New IS, timeline changed
   6                       |   New IS, timeline continued
   7                       |   Redundant IS
   8                       |   Media Segment, File Mode
   9                       |   Media Segment, Entity Mode
   10 - 255                |   Application specific

   Congestion Control Information (CCI) - For packets carrying DASH
   segments, should convey the earliest presentation time contained in
   the ROUTE packet. Otherwise this field MAY be set to 0.

   Transport Session Identifier (TSI) - This 32-bit field SHALL identify
   the Transport Session in ROUTE. The context of the Transport Session
   is provided by signaling metadata. The TSI field is constrained to a
   length of 32 bits because the Transport Session Identifier flag (S)
   must be set to '1' and the Half-word flag (H) must be set to '0'.

   Transport Object Identifier (TOI) - This 32-bit field SHALL identify
   the object within this session to which the payload of the current
   packet belongs. The mapping of the TOI field to the object is
   provided by the Extended FDT. The TOI field is constrained to a
   length of 32 bits because the Transport Object Identifier flag (O)
   must be set to '01' and the Half-word flag (H) must be set to '0'.

2.2. LCT header extensions

   The following LCT header extensions are defined or used by ROUTE:

   EXT_FTI - as specified in RFC 5775.

   EXT_TOL - with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of Transfer Length.
   The frequency of using the EXT_TOL header extension is determined by
   channel conditions that may cause the loss of the packet carrying
   Close Object (B) flag.
   NOTE: The transport object length can also be determined without the
   use of EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object (B)



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   flag. However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information
   can be used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  HET = 194    |             Transfer Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       0                   1                   2                   3
                 Figure 5. 24-bit format of EXT_TOL Header.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  HET = 67     |      HEL      |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      |                       Transfer Length                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                 Figure 6. 48-bit format of EXT_TOL Header.


   EXT_TIME Header - as specified in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The Sender
   Current Time SHALL be signaled using EXT_TIME.

2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows

   The syntax of the FEC Payload ID for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
   used in ROUTE Source Flows SHALL be a 32-bit unsigned integer value
   that expresses the start_offset, as an octet number corresponding to
   the first octet of the fragment of the delivery object carried in
   this packet. Figure 7 shows the 32-bit start_offset field.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         start_offset                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               Figure 7 FEC Payload ID for Source Flows.


2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows

   In accordance with RFC 6330 Section 3.2, the FEC Payload ID for the
   RaptorQ FEC Scheme used for Repair Flows is composed of a Source
   Block Number (SBN) and an Encoding Symbol ID, formatted as shown in
   Figure 8.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     SBN       |               Encoding Symbol ID              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               Figure 8 FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows.

3. Session metadata

   The required session metadata for Source and Repair Flows is
   specified in the following sections. The list specified here is not
   exhaustive; an application MAY signal more metadata to meet its
   needs. The data format is also not specified beyond its cardinality,
   and basic type (e.g. integral or alphanumeric data); the exact format
   of specifying the data is left for the application, e.g. by using XML
   encoding format. It is specified if an attribute is mandatory (m),
   conditional mandatory (cm) or optional (o) to realize a basic ROUTE
   session. The delivery of the session metadata to the ROUTE receiver
   is beyond scope of this RFC.

3.1. Generic metadata

   Generic metadata is applicable to both Source and Repair Flows as
   follows. Before a receiver can join a ROUTE session, the receiver
   needs to obtain this generic metadata that contains at least the
   following information:

   -  Connection ID (m): unique identifier of a Connection, usually
   consisting of source IP address/source port number, destination IP
   address/destination port number.


3.2. Session metadata for Source Flows

   stsi (m) - LCT TSI value corresponding to the transport session for
   the Source Flow.

   rt (o) - A Boolean flag which SHALL indicate whether the content
   component carried by this Source Flow corresponds to real-time
   streaming media, or non-real-time content. When set to "true", it
   SHALL be an indication of real-time content, and when absent or set
   to "false", it SHALL be an indication of non-real-time (NRT) content.

   minBufferSize (o) - A 32-bit unsigned integer which SHALL represent,
   in kilobytes, the minimum required storage size of the receiver
   transport buffer, for the parent LCT channel of this Source Flow.
   This attribute SHALL only be applicable when rt = "true". When rt


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   "true" and this attribute is absent, the minimum receiver transport
   buffer size is unknown.

   EFDT (cm) - when present, SHALL contain a single instance of an FDT-
   Instance element per RFC 6726 FLUTE [RFC6726], which MAY contain FDT
   extensions as defined in Section 4.1. The EFDT element MAY only be
   present for File Mode of delivery. In File Mode, it SHALL be present
   if this Source Flow transports streaming media segments.

   contentType (o) - A string that SHALL represent media type assigned
   by IANA for the media content. contentType SHALL obey the semantics
   of the Content-Type header of HTTP/1.1 protocol RFC 7231 [RFC7231].

   applicationMapping (m) - A set of identifiers that provide an
   application-specific mapping of the received application objects to
   the Source Flows. For example, for DASH, this would provide the
   mapping a Source Flow to a specific DASH representation from an MPD,
   the latter identified by its Representation and corresponding
   Adaptation Set and Period IDs.


3.3. Session metadata for Repair Flows

   maximumDelay (o) - An integer value, when present, SHALL represent
   the maximum delivery delay, in milliseconds, between any source
   packet in the Source Flow and the repair packet, associated with that
   source packet, in the Repair Flow. Default semantics of this
   attribute, when absent, is not defined.

   overhead (o) - An integer whose value SHALL represent the sum of the
   AL-FEC related fields in the ROUTE repair packet relative to the size
   of the repair packet size as a percentage.

   minBuffSize (o) - A 32-bit unsigned integer whose value SHALL
   represent a required size of the receiver transport buffer for AL-FEC
   decoding processing. When present, this attribute SHALL indicate the
   minimum buffer size that is required to handle all associated objects
   that are assigned to a super-object i.e. a delivery object formed by
   the concatenation of multiple FEC transport objects in order to
   bundle these FEC transport objects for AL-FEC protection.

   fecOTI (m) - A parameter consisting of the concatenation of Common
   and Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information (FEC OTI) as
   defined in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of RFC 6330 [RFC6330], and which
   corresponds to the delivery objects carried in the Source Flow to
   which this Repair Flow is associated, with the following
   qualification. The 40-bit Transfer Length (F) field may either


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   represent the actual size of the object, or it is encoded as all
   zeroes. In the latter case, it means that the FEC transport object
   size is either unknown, or cannot be represented by this attribute.
   In other words, for the all-zeroes format, the delivery objects in
   the Source flow correspond to streaming content - either a live
   Service whereby content encoding has not yet occurred at the time
   this session data was generated, or pre-recorded streaming content
   whose delivery object sizes, albeit known at the time of session data
   generation, are variable and cannot be represented as a single value
   by the fecOTI attribute.

   ptsi (m) - TSI value(s) of each Source Flow protected by this Repair
   Flow.

   mappingTOIx (o) - Values of the constant X for use in deriving the
   TOI of the delivery object of each protected Source Flow from the
   TOI of the FEC (super-)object. The default value SHALL be "1".
   Multiple mappingTOIx values MAY be provided for each protected Source
   Flow.

   mappingTOIy (o) - The corresponding constant Y to each mappingTOIx,
   when present, for use in deriving the parent SourceTOI value from the
   above equation. The default value SHALL be "0".

4. Delivery object mode

   ROUTE provides several different delivery object modes, and one of
   these modes may suite the application needs better for a given
   transport session. A delivery object is self-contained for the
   application, typically associated with certain properties, metadata
   and timing-related information that are of relevance for the
   application. The signaling of the delivery object mode is done on an
   object based using Codepoint as specified in Section 2.1.

4.1. File Mode

   File mode uses an out-of-band EDFT signaling for recovery of delivery
   objects with the following extensions and considerations.

4.1.1. Extensions to FDT

   Following extensions are specified to FDT specified in RFC 6726
   [RFC6726]. Here an Extended FDT Instance is an instance of the FLUTE
   [RFC6726] FDT that includes extensions.

   efdtVersion - A value that SHALL represent the version of this
   Extended FDT Instance.


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020



   maxExpiresDelta - A value, which when present, SHALL represent a time
   interval in number of seconds, which when added to the wall clock
   time at the receiver when the receiver acquires the first ROUTE
   packet carrying data of the object described by this Extended FDT
   Instance, SHALL represent the expiration time of the associated
   Extended FDT Instance. When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the
   expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance SHALL be given by the
   sum of a) the value of the ERT field in the EXT_TIME LCT header
   extension in the first ROUTE packet carrying data of that file, and
   b) the current receiver time when parsing the packet header of that
   ROUTE packet. See Sections 5.4 and 6.3.3 on additional rules for
   deriving the Extended FDT Instance expiration time.

   maxTransportSize - An attribute that SHALL represent the maximum
   transport size in bytes of any delivery object described by this
   Extended FDT Instance. This attribute SHALL be present if a) the
   fileTemplate is present in Extended FDT-Instance; or b) one or more
   File elements, if present in this Extended FDT Instance, do not
   include the Transfer-Length attribute. When maxTransportSize is not
   present, the maximum transport size is not signaled.

   fileTemplate - A string value, which when present and in conjunction
   with parameter substitution, SHALL be used in deriving the Content-
   Location attribute, for the delivery object described by this
   Extended FDT Instance. It SHALL include the "$TOI$" identifier. Each
   identifier MAY be suffixed, within the enclosing '$' characters
   following this prototype:
   %0[width]d
   The width parameter is an unsigned integer that provides the minimum
   number of characters to be printed. If the value to be printed is
   shorter than this number, the result SHALL be padded with leading
   zeroes. The value is not truncated even if the result is larger. When
   no format tag is present, a default format tag with width=1 SHALL be
   used.

   Strings other than identifiers SHALL only contain characters that are
   permitted within URIs according to RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

   $$ Is an escape sequence in fileTemplate value, i.e. "$$" is non-
   recursively replaced with a single "$"

   The usage of fileTemplate is described in Sender and Receiver
   operations in Sections 5.4 and 6.3, respectively.





Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT

   The Extended FDT Instance SHALL conform to an FDT Instance according
   to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], with the following constraints: at least one
   File element and the @Expires attribute SHALL be present.

   Content encoding MAY be used for delivery of any file described by an
   FDT-Instance.File element in the Extended FDT Instance. The content
   encoding defined in the present RFC is gzip [RFC1952]. When content
   encoding is used, the File@Content-Encoding and File@Content-Length
   attributes SHALL be present in the Extended FDT Instance.

4.2. Entity Mode

   For Entity Mode, the following applies:

   -  Delivery object metadata SHALL be expressed in the form of entity
     headers as defined in HTTP/1.1, and which correspond to one or
     more of the representation header fields, payload header fields
     and response header fields as defined in Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 7,
     respectively, of RFC 7231. Additionally, a Digest HTTP response
     header [RFC7231] MAY be included to enable a receiver to verify
     the integrity of the multicast transport object.
   -  The entity headers sent along with the delivery object provide all
     information about that multicast transport object.

     Sending a media object (if the object is chunked) in Entity Mode
     may result in one of the following options:

     If the length of the chunked object is known at sender, the ROUTE
     Entity Mode delivery object MAY be sent without using HTTP/1.1
     chunked transfer coding, i.e. the object starts with an HTTP
     header containing the Content Length field, followed by the
     concatenation of CMAF chunks:

     |HTTP Header+Length||---chunk ----||---chunk ----||---chunk ----
     ||---chunk ----|

     If the length of the chunked object is unknown at sender when
     starting to send the object, HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer coding
     format SHALL be used:

     |HTTP Header||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length||-
     --chunk ----||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length||-
     --chunk ----||Separator+Length=0|




Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


     Note, however, that it is not required to send a CMAF chunk in
     exactly one HTTP chunk.

4.3. Unsigned Package Mode

   In this delivery mode, the delivery object consists of a group of
   files that are packaged for delivery only. If applied, the client is
   expected to unpack the package and provide each file as an
   independent object to the application. Packaging is supported by
   Multipart MIME [RFC2557], where objects are packaged into one
   document for transport.

4.4. Signed Package Mode

   In Signed Package Mode delivery, the delivery object consists of a
   group of files that are packaged for delivery, and the package
   includes one or more signatures for validation. Signed packaging is
   supported by RFC 8551 Secure MIME (S/MIME) [RFC8551], where objects
   are packaged into one document for transport and the package includes
   objects necessary for validation of the package.


5. Sender operation

5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow

   The usage of ALC for ROUTE Source Flow is as defined in RFC 5775
   [RFC5775]. There are several special considerations that ROUTE
   introduces to the usage of the LCT building block as outlined in the
   following:

   -  ROUTE limits the usage of the LCT building block to a single
      channel per session. Congestion control is thus sender-driven in
      ROUTE. The functionality of receiver-driven layered multicast may
      still be offered by the application, allowing the receiver
      application to select the appropriate delivery session based on
      the bandwidth requirement of that session.

   Further, following details apply to LCT:

   -  The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in
     RFC 5651 [RFC5651] is used with the following constraints:
        oThe TSI in the LCT header SHALL be set equal to the value of
          the stsi attribute in Section 3.2.
        oThe Codepoint (CP) in the LCT header SHALL be used to signal
          the applied formatting as defined in the signaling metadata.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


        oIn accordance to ALC, a source FEC Payload ID header is used to
          identify, for FEC purposes, the encoding symbols of the
          delivery object, or a portion thereof, carried by the
          associated ROUTE packet. This information may be sent in
          several ways:
             . As a simple new null FEC scheme with the following usage:
                  .  The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL
                    be set to 0, in case the ROUTE packet contains the
                    entire delivery object, or
                  .  The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL
                    be set as a direct address (start offset)
                    corresponding to the starting byte position of the
                    portion of the object carried in this packet using
                    a 32-bit field.
             . In a compatible manner to RFC 6330 [RFC6330] where the
                SBN and ESI defines the start offset together with the
                symbol size T.
             . The signaling metadata provides the appropriate
                parameters to indicate any of the above modes using the
                srcFecPayloadId attribute.
   -  The LCT Header EXT_TIME extension as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]
     MAY be used by the sender in the following manner:
        oThe Sender Current Time (SCT), depending on the application,
          MAY be used to occasionally or frequently signal the sender
          current time.
        oThe Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used to indicate the
          expected remaining time for transmission of the current
          object.
        oThe Sender Last Changed (SLC) flag is typically not utilized,
          but MAY be used to indicate addition/removal of Segments.
   -  Additional extension headers MAY be used to support real-time
     delivery. Such extension headers are defined in Section 2.1.


5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow

   The following description of the ROUTE sender operation on the
   mapping of the application object to the ROUTE packet payloads
   logically represents an extension of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], which in
   turn inherits the context, language, declarations and restrictions of
   the FEC building block in RFC 5052 [RFC5052].

   The data carried in the payload of a given ROUTE packet constitute a
   contiguous portion of the application object. ROUTE source delivery
   can be considered as a special case of the use of the Compact No-Code
   Scheme associated with FEC Encoding ID = 0 according to Sections
   3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], in which the encoding symbol


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   size is exactly one byte. As specified in Section 2.1, for ROUTE
   Source Flows, the FEC Payload ID SHALL deliver the 32-bit
   start_offset. All receivers are expected to support, at minimum,
   operation with this special case of the Compact No-Code FEC.

   Note that in the event the source object size is greater than 2^32
   bytes (approximately 4.3 GB), the applications (in the broadcaster
   server and the receiver) are expected to perform segmentation/re-
   assembly using methods beyond the scope of this transport Standard.

   Finally, in some special cases a ROUTE sender MAY need to produce
   ROUTE packets that do not contain any payload. This may be required,
   for example, to signal the end of a session or to convey congestion
   control information. These data-less packets do not contain FEC
   Payload ID or payload data, but only the LCT header fields. The total
   datagram length, conveyed by outer protocol headers (e.g., the IP or
   UDP header), enables receivers to detect the absence of the LCT
   header, FEC Payload ID and payload data.

5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization

   In the basic operation, it is assumed that the application object is
   fully available at the ROUTE sender.

   1. The amount of data to be sent in a single ROUTE packet is limited
   by the maximum transfer unit of the data packets or the size of the
   remaining data of the application object being sent, whichever is
   smaller. The transfer unit is determined either by knowledge of
   underlying transport block sizes or by other constraints.
   2. The start_offset field in the LCT header of the ROUTE packet
   indicates the byte offset of the carried data in the application
   object being sent.
   3. The Close Object (B) flag is set to 1 if this is the last ROUTE
   packet carrying the data of the application object.

   The order of packet delivery is arbitrary, but in the absence of
   other constraints delivery with increasing start_offset value is
   recommended.

5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content

   Following additional guidelines should be followed for ROUTE
   packetization of CMAF Chunked Content in addition to the guideline of
   Section 5.2.1:

   1. As specified in Section 2.1, if it is the first ROUTE packet
   carrying a CMAF Random Access chunk, except for the first CMAF chunk


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   in the segment, the least significant bit of the Protocol Specific
   Information (PSI) field in the LCT header MAY be set to 1. The
   receiver MAY use this information for optimization of random access.
   2. As soon as the total length of the media object is known,
   potentially with the packaging of the last CMAF chunk of a segment,
   the EXT_TOL extension header MAY be added to the LCT header to signal
   the Transfer Length.

5.3. Timing of Packet Emission

   The sender SHALL use the timing information provided by the
   application to time the emission of packets for a timely reception.
   This information may be contained in the application objects e.g.
   DASH Segments and/or the presentation manifest. Hence such packets of
   streaming media with real time constraints SHALL be sent in such a
   way to enable their timely reception with respect to the presentation
   timeline.

5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending

   For File Mode Sending:

   -  The TOI field in the ROUTE packet header SHALL be set such that
      Content-Location can be derived at the receiver according to File
      Template substitution specified in Section 6.3.1.
   -  After sending the first packet with a given TOI value, none of the
      packets pertaining to this TOI SHALL be sent later than the wall
      clock time as derived from maxExpiresDelta. The EXT_TIME header
      with Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used in order to convey
      more accurate expiry time.

5.5. FEC Framework Considerations

   The FEC framework uses concepts of the FECFRAME work as defined in
   RFC 6363 [RFC6363], as well as the FEC building block, RFC 5052
   [RFC5052], which is adopted in the existing FLUTE/ALC/LCT
   specifications.
   The FEC design adheres to the following principles:
   -  FEC-related information is provided only where needed.
   -  Receivers not capable of this framework can ignore repair packets.
   -  The FEC is symbol-based with fixed symbol size per protected
      Repair Flow. The ALC protocol and existing FEC schemes are reused.
   -  A FEC Repair Flow provides protection of delivery objects from one
      or more Source Flows.
   The FEC-specific components of the FEC framework are:
   -  FEC Repair Flow declaration including all FEC-specific
      information.


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   -  FEC transport object that is the concatenation of a delivery
      object, padding octets and size information in order to form an N-
      symbol-sized chunk of data, where N >= 1.
   -  FEC super-object that is the concatenation of one or more FEC
      transport objects in order to bundle FEC transport objects for FEC
      protection.
   -  FEC protocol and packet structure.
   A receiver needs to be able to recover delivery objects from repair
   packets based on available FEC information.

5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction

   In order to identify a delivery object in the context of the Repair
   protocol, the following information is needed:

   -  TSI and TOI of the delivery object. In this case, the FEC object
      corresponds to the (entire) delivery object.
   -  Octet range of the delivery object, i.e. start offset within the
      delivery object and number of subsequent and contiguous octets of
      delivery object that constitutes the FEC object (i.e., the FEC-
      protected portion of the source object). In this case, the FEC
      object corresponds to a contiguous byte range portion of the
      delivery object.

   Typically, the first mapping is applied; i.e., the delivery object is
   an FEC object.
   Assuming that the FEC object is the delivery object, for each
   delivery object, the associated FEC transport object is comprised of
   the concatenation of the delivery object, padding octets (P) and the
   FEC object size (F) in octets, where F is carried in a 4-octet field.
   The FEC transport object size S, in FEC encoding symbols, SHALL be an
   integer multiple of the symbol size Y.
   S is determined from the session information and/or the repair packet
   headers.
   F is carried in the last 4 octets of the FEC transport object.
   Specifically, let:

   -  F be the size of the delivery object in octets,
   -  F' be the F octets of data of the delivery object,
   -  f' denote the four octets of data carrying the value of F in
      network octet order (high-order octet first),
   -  S be the size of the FEC transport object with S=ceil((F+4)/Y),
      where the ceil() function rounds the result upward to its nearest
      integer,
   -  P' be S*Y-4-F octets of data, i.e. padding placed between the
      delivery object and the 4-byte field conveying the value of F and
      located at the end of the FEC transport object, and


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   -  O' be the concatenation of F', P' and f'.

   O' then constitutes the FEC transport object of size S*Y octets. Note
   that padding octets and the object size F are NOT sent in source
   packets of the delivery object, but are only part of an FEC transport
   object that FEC decoding recovers in order to extract the FEC object
   and thus the delivery object or portion of the delivery object that
   constitutes the FEC object. In the above context, the FEC transport
   object size in symbols is S.

   The general information about an FEC transport object that is
   conveyed to an FEC-enabled receiver is the source TSI, source TOI and
   the associated octet range within the delivery object comprising the
   associated FEC object. However, as the size in octets of the FEC
   object is provided in the appended field within the FEC transport
   object, the remaining information can be conveyed as:
   -  TSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC object
      associated with the FEC transport object is generated
   -  Start octet within delivery object for the associated FEC object
   -  Size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S

5.7. Super-Object Construction

   From the FEC Repair Flow declaration, the construction of an FEC
   super-object as the concatenation of one or more FEC transport
   objects can be determined. The FEC super-object includes the general
   information about the FEC transport objects as described in the
   previous sections, as well as the placement order of FEC transport
   objects within the FEC super-object.

   Let:
   -  N be the total number of FEC transport objects for the FEC super-
     object construction.
   -  For i = 0,..., N-1, let S[i] be the size in symbols of FEC
     transport object i.
   -  B' be the FEC super-object which is the concatenation of the FEC
     transport objects in numerical order, comprised of K =
     .((i=0)to(N-1))S[i] source symbols.

   For each FEC super-object, the remaining general information that
   needs to be conveyed to an FEC-enabled receiver, beyond what is
   already carried in the FEC transport objects that constitute the FEC
   super-object, comprises:

   -  The total number of FEC transport objects N.
   -  For each FEC transport object, the:



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


        oTSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC object
          associated with the FEC transport object is generated,
        oStart octet within delivery object for the associated FEC
          object, and
        oSize in symbols of the FEC transport object.

   The carriage of the FEC repair information is discussed below.

5.8. Repair Packet Considerations

   The repair protocol is based on Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) as
   defined in RFC 5775 [RFC5775] and the Layered Coding Transport (LCT)
   Building Block as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651] with the following
   details:

-  The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in RFC
  5651 [RFC5651] is used as defined in Asynchronous Layered Coding
  (ALC), Section 2.1. In addition, the following constraints apply:
     -  The TSI in the LCT header SHALL identify the Repair Flow to
        which this packet applies, by the matching value of the ptsi
        attribute in the signaling metadata among the LCT channels
        carrying Repair Flows.
-  The FEC building block is used according to RFC 6330 [RFC6330], but
  only repair packets are delivered.
     -  Each repair packet within the scope of the Repair Flow (as
        indicated by the TSI field in the LCT header) SHALL carry the
        repair symbols for a corresponding FEC transport object/super-
        object as identified by its TOI. The repair object/super-object
        TOI SHALL be unique for each FEC super-object that is created
        within the scope of the TSI.

5.9. Summary FEC Information

   For each super-object (identified by a unique TOI within a Repair
   Flow that is in turn identified by the TSI in the LCT header) that is
   generated, the following information needs to be communicated to the
   receiver:

   .  The FEC configuration consisting of:
        oFEC Object Transmission Information (OTI) per RFC 5052
          [RFC5052].
        oAdditional FEC information (see Section 3.3).
   .  The total number of FEC objects included in the FEC super-object,
     N.
   .  For each FEC transport object:
        oTSI and TOI of the delivery object used to generate the FEC
          object associated with the FEC transport object,


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


        oStart octet within the delivery object of the associated FEC
          object, if applicable, and
        oThe size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S.

   The above information is delivered:
     .  Statically in the session metadata as defined in Section 3.3,
        and
     .  Dynamically in an LCT extension header.


6. Receiver operation

   The receiver receives packets and filters those packets according to
   the following. From the ROUTE session and each contained LCT channel,
   the receiver regenerates delivery objects from the ROUTE session and
   each contained LCT channel. The basic receiver information is
   provided below.

6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows

   Upon receipt of each ROUTE packet of a Source Flow, the receiver
   proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.
   1) The ROUTE receiver is expected to parse the LCT and FEC Payload ID
      to verify that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the
      payload is discarded without further processing.
   2) All ROUTE packets used to recover a specific delivery object carry
      the same TOI value in the LCT header.
   3) The ROUTE receiver is expected to assert that the TSI and the
      Codepoint represent valid operation points in the signaling
      metadata, i.e. the signaling contains a matching entry to the TSI
      value provided in the packet header, as well as for this TSI, and
      Codepoint field in the LCT header has a valid Codepoint mapping.
   4) The ROUTE receiver should process the remainder of the payload,
      including the appropriate interpretation of the other payload
      header fields, and using the source FEC Payload ID (to determine
      the start_offset) and the payload data to reconstruct the
      corresponding object as follows:
        a.  For File Mode, upon receipt of the first ROUTE packet
          payload for an object, the ROUTE receiver uses the
          File@Transfer-Length attribute of the associated Extended FDT
          Instance, when present, to determine the length T of the
          object. When the File@Transfer-Length attribute is not
          present in the Extended FDT Instance, the receiver uses the
          maxTransportSize attribute of the associated Extended FDT
          Instance to determine the maximum length T' of the object.
          Alternatively, and specifically for delivery modes other than



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


          File Mode, EXT_TOL header can be used to determine the length
          T of the object.
        b.  The ROUTE receiver allocates buffer space for the T or T'
          bytes that the object will or may occupy.
        c.  The ROUTE receiver computes the length of the payload, Y, by
          subtracting the payload header length from the total length
          of the received payload.
        d.  The ROUTE receiver allocates a Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T-
          1] or RECEIVED[0..T'-1], as appropriate, with all entries
          initialized to false to track received object symbols. The
          ROUTE receiver continuously acquires packet payloads for the
          object as long as all of the following conditions are
          satisfied: i) there is at least one entry in RECEIVED still
          set to false; ii) the object has not yet expired; and iii)
          the application has not given up on reception of this object.
          More details are provided below.
        e.  For each received ROUTE packet payload for the object
          (including the first payload), the steps to be taken to help
          recover the object are as follows:
            i. If the packet includes an EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI header,
               modify the Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T'-1] to become
               RECEIVED[0..T-1].
           ii. Let X be the value of the start_offset field in the ROUTE
               packet header and let Y be the length of the payload, Y,
               computed by subtracting the LCT header size and the FEC
               Payload ID size from the total length of the received
               packet.
          iii. The ROUTE receiver copies the data into the appropriate
               place within the space reserved for the object and sets
               RECEIVED[X ... X+Y-1] = true.
           iv. If all T entries of RECEIVED are true, then the receiver
               has recovered the entire object.

   Upon recovery of both the complete set of packet payloads for the
   delivery object associated with a given TOI value, and the metadata
   for that delivery object, the reception of the delivery object, now a
   fully received application object, is complete.

   The receiver SHALL ensure making availability of application objects
   in a timely fashion to the application, based on the application
   provided timing data e.g. via presentation manifest file. For
   example, HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer may need to be enabled to transfer
   the application objects if MPD@availabilityTimeOffset is signaled in
   the DASH presentation manifest, to allow for timely sending of
   segment data to the application.




Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition

   When the receiver initially starts reception of ROUTE packets, it is
   likely that the reception does not start from the very first packet
   carrying the data of a multicast transport object, and in this case
   such a partially received object is normally discarded. However, the
   channel acquisition or "tune-in" times can be improved if the
   partially received object is usable by the application.
   One example realization for this is as follows:

   -  The receiver checks for the first received packet with the least
     significant bit of the PSI set to 1, indicating the start of a
     CMAF Random Access chunk.
   -  The receiver MAY make the partially received object (a partial
     DASH segment starting from the packet above) available to the
     application.
   -  It MAY recover the earliest presentation time of this CMAF Random
     Access chunk from the ROUTE packet LCT Congestion Control
     Information field as specified in Section 2.1 and add a new Period
     element in the MPD exposed to the application containing just the
     partially received DASH segment with period continuity signaling.

6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance for File Mode

   An Extended FDT Instance conforming to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], is
   produced at the receiver using the service metadata and in band
   signaling as follows:

6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location Derivation

   The Content-Location of an application object is derived as follows:
   "$TOI$" SHALL be substituted with the unique TOI value in the LCT
   header of the ROUTE packets used to recover the given delivery object
   (as specified in Section 6.1).

   After the substitution, the fileTemplate SHALL be a valid URL
   corresponding to the Content-Location attribute of the associated
   application object.

   An example @fileTemplate using a width of 5 is:
   fileTemplate="myVideo$TOI%05d$.mps", resulting in file names with
   exactly five digits in the number portion. The Media Segment file
   name for TOI=33 using this template is myVideo00033.mps.






Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation

   Either the EXT_FTI header (per RFC 5775 [RFC5775]) or the EXT_TOL
   header, when present, SHALL be used to derive the Transport Object
   Length (TOL) of the File. If the File@Transfer-Length parameter in
   the Extended FDT Instance is not present, then the EXT_TOL header or
   the or EXT_FTI header SHALL be present. Note that a header containing
   the transport object length (EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI) need not be present
   in each packet header. If the broadcaster does not know the length of
   the transport object at the beginning of the transfer, an EXT_TOL or
   EXT_FTI header SHALL be included in at least the last packet of the
   file and should be included in the last few packets of the transfer.

6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation

   When present, the maxExpiresDelta attribute SHALL be used to generate
   the value of the FDT-Instance@Expires attribute. The receiver is
   expected to add this value to its wall clock time when acquiring the
   first ROUTE packet carrying the data of a given delivery object to
   obtain the value for @Expires.

   When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the EXT_TIME header with
   Expected Residual Time (ERT) SHALL be used to derive the expiry time
   of the Extended FDT Instance. When both maxExpiresDelta and the ERT
   of EXT_TIME are present, the smaller of the two values should be used
   as the incremental time interval to be added to the receiver's
   current time to generate the effective value for @Expires. When
   neither maxExpiresDelta nor the ERT field of the EXT_TIME header is
   present, then the expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance is
   given by its @Expires attribute.

7. FEC Application

7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines

   It is up to the receiver to decide to use zero, one or more of the
   FEC streams. Hence, each flow is typically assigned an individual
   recovery property, which defines aspects such as the delay and the
   required memory if one or the other is chosen. The receiver MAY
   decide whether or not to utilize Repair Flows based on the following
   considerations:
   -  The desired start-up and end-to-end latency. If a Repair Flow
      requires a significant amount of buffering time to be effective,
      such Repair Flow might only be used in time-shift operations or in
      poor reception conditions, since use of such Repair Flow trades
      off end-to-end latency against DASH Media Presentation quality.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   -  FEC capabilities, i.e. the receiver MAY pick only the FEC
      algorithm that it supports.
   -  Which Source Flows are being protected; for example, if the Repair
      Flow protects Source Flows that are not selected by the receiver,
      then the receiver may not select the Repair Flow.
   -  Other considerations such as available buffer size, reception
      conditions, etc.

   If a receiver decides to acquire a certain Repair Flow then the
   receiver must receive data on all Source Flows that are protected by
   that Repair Flow to collect the relevant packets.

7.2. TOI Mapping

   When mappingTOIx/mappingTOIy are used to signal X and Y values, then
   the TOI value(s) of the one or more source objects (sourceTOI)
   protected by a given FEC transport object or FEC super-object with a
   TOI value rTOI is derived through an equation sourceTOI = X*rTOI + Y.

   When neither mappingTOIx nor mappingTOIy is present there is a 1:1
   relationship between each delivery object carried in the Source Flow
   as identified by ptsi to an FEC object carried in this Repair Flow.
   In this case the TOI of each of those delivery objects SHALL be
   identical to the TOI of the corresponding FEC object.

7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout

   The permitted start and end times for the receiver to perform the
   file repair procedure, in case of unsuccessful broadcast file
   reception, and associated rules and parameters are as follows:

  -  The latest time that the file repair procedure may start is bound
     by the @Expires attribute of the FDT-Instance.
  -  The receiver may choose to start the file repair procedure
     earlier, if it detects the occurrence of any of the following
     events:
       o Presence of the Close Object flag (B) in the LCT header
          [RFC5651] for the file of interest;
       o Presence of the Close Session flag (A) in the LCT header
          [RFC5651] before the nominal expiration of the Extended FDT
          Instance as defined by the @Expires attribute.

7.4. Example FEC Operation

   To be able to recover the delivery objects that are protected by a
   Repair Flow, a receiver needs to obtain the necessary Service
   signaling metadata fragments that describe the corresponding


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


   collection of delivery objects that are covered by this Repair Flow.
   A Repair Flow is characterized by the combination of an LCT channel,
   a unique TSI number, as well as the corresponding protected Source
   Flows.
   If a receiver acquires data of a Repair Flow, the receiver is
   expected to collect all packets of all protected Transport Sessions.
   Upon receipt of each packet, whether it is a source or repair packet,
   the receiver proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.
   1) The receiver is expected to parse the packet header and verify
   that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the packet SHALL
   be discarded without further processing.
   2) The receiver is expected to parse the TSI field of the packet
   header and verify that a matching value exists in the Service
   signaling for the Repair Flow or the associated Protected Source
   Flow. If no match is found, the packet SHALL be discarded without
   further processing.
   3) The receiver processes the remainder of the packet, including
   interpretation of the other header fields, and using the source FEC
   Payload ID (to determine the start_offset byte position within the
   source object), the Repair FEC Payload ID, as well as the payload
   data, reconstructs the decoding blocks corresponding to a FEC super-
   object as follows:
   a) For a source packet, the receiver identifies the delivery object
   to which the received packet is associated, using the session
   information and the TOI carried in the payload header. Similarly, for
   a repair object the receiver identifies the FEC super-object to which
   the received packet is associated, using the session information and
   the TOI carried in the payload header.
   b) For source packets, the receiver collects the data for each FEC
   super-object and recovers FEC super-objects in same way as Source
   Flow in Section 6.1. The received FEC super-object is then mapped to
   a source block and the corresponding encoding symbols are generated.
   c) With the reception of the repair packets, the FEC super-object can
   be recovered.
   d) Once the FEC super-object is recovered, the individual delivery
   objects can be extracted.

8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles

   Applications may define specific ROUTE profiles based on this RFC
   with the following considerations. Applications MAY

     .  Restrict the signaling certain values signaled in the LCT
        header and/or provision unused fields in the LCT header.
     .  Restrict using certain LCT header extensions and/or add new LCT
        header extensions.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


     .  Restrict or limit certain Codepoints, and/or add of application
        specific Codepoints marked as reserved in this RFC.
     .  Restrict usage of certain service signaling attributes and/or
        add own service metadata.

   Applications SHALL NOT redefine the semantics of any of the ROUTE
   attributes in LCT headers and extension, and service signaling
   attributes already specified in this RFC.

   Following these guidelines, profiles MAY be defined that are
   interoperable.

9. ROUTE Concepts

   ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] as well
   as the extensions defined in MBMS [MBMS], but also makes use of some
   principles of FCAST as defined in RFC 6968 [RFC6968]; for example,
   object metadata and the object content may be sent together in a
   compound object.

   In addition to the basic FLUTE protocol, certain optimizations and
   restrictions are added that enable optimized support for real-time
   delivery of media data; hence, the name of the protocol. Among
   others, the source ROUTE protocol enables or enhances the following
   functionalities:

  -  Real-time delivery of object-based media data
  -  Flexible packetization, including enabling media-aware
     packetization as well as transport-aware packetization of delivery
     objects
  -  Independence of application objects and delivery objects, i.e. a
     delivery object may be a part of a file or may be a group of files.

9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery

   Different ROUTE delivery modes specified in Section 4 are optimized
   for delivery of different types of media data. For example, File Mode
   is specifically optimized for delivering DASH content using Segment
   Template with number substitution. Using File Template in EFDT avoids
   the need of repeated sending of metadata as outlined in the following
   section. Same optimizations however cannot be used for time
   substitution and segment timeline where the addressing of each
   segment is time dependent and in general does not follow a fixed or
   repeated pattern. In this case, Entity mode is more optimized which
   carries the file location in band. Also, Entity mode can be used to
   deliver a file or part of the file using HTTP Partial Content
   response headers.


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020



9.2. File Mode Optimizations

   In the file mode, the delivery object represents an application
   object. This mode replicates FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726],
   but with the ability to send static and pre-known file metadata out
   of band.
   In FLUTE, FDT Instances are delivered in-band and need to be
   generated and delivered in real-time if objects are generated in
   real-time at the sender. In contrast to the FDT in RFC 6726
   [RFC6726], Section 3.4.2 and MBMS [MBMS], Section 7.2.10, besides
   separated delivery of file metadata from the delivery object it
   describes, the FDT functionality in ROUTE may be extended by
   additional file metadata and rules that enable the receiver to
   generate the Content-Location attribute of the File element of the
   FDT, on-the-fly, by using information in both the extensions to the
   FDT and the LCT header. The combination of pre-delivery of static
   file metadata and receiver self-generation of dynamic file metadata
   avoids the necessity of continuously sending the FDT Instances for
   real-time objects. Such modified FDT functionality in ROUTE is
   referred to as the Extended FDT.

9.3. In band Signaling of Object Transfer Length

   As an extension to FLUTE, ROUTE allows for using EXT_TOL LCT header
   extension with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of to signal the
   Transfer Length directly within the ROUTE packet.

   The transport object length can also be determined without the use of
   EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object (B) flag.
   However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information can be
   used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.

   Applications using ROUTE for delivery of low-latency streaming
   content may make use of this feature for sender-end latency
   optimizations: the sender does not have to wait for the completion of
   the packaging of a whole application object to find its transfer
   length to be included in the FDT before the sending can start.
   Rather, partially encoded data can already be started to be sent via
   the ROUTE sender. As the time approaches when the encoding of the
   application object is nearing completion, and the length of the
   object becomes known (e.g. time of writing the last CMAF Chunk of a
   DASH segment), only then the sender can signal the object length
   using the EXT TOL LCT header. For example, for a 2 seconds DASH
   segment with 100 millisecond chunks, it may result in saving up to
   1.9 second latency at the sending end.



Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020



9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts

   The ROUTE repair protocol is FEC-based and is enabled as an
   additional layer between the transport layer (e.g., UDP) and the
   object delivery layer protocol. The FEC reuses concepts of FEC
   Framework defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], but in contrast to the FEC
   Framework in RFC 6363 [RFC6363] the ROUTE repair protocol does not
   protect packets, but instead it protects delivery objects as
   delivered in the source protocol. In addition, as an extension to
   FLUTE, it supports the protection of multiple objects in one source
   block which is in alignment with the FEC Framework as defined in RFC
   6363 [RFC6363]. Each FEC source block may consist of parts of a
   delivery object, as a single delivery object (similar to FLUTE) or
   multiple delivery objects that are bundled prior to FEC protection.
   ROUTE FEC makes use of FEC schemes in a similar way as those defined
   in RFC 5052 [RFC5052] and uses the terminology of that document. The
   FEC scheme defines the FEC encoding and decoding, as well as the
   protocol fields and procedures used to identify packet payload data
   in the context of the FEC scheme.
   In ROUTE all packets are LCT packets as defined in RFC 5651
   [RFC5651]. Source and repair packets may be distinguished by:
   -  Different ROUTE sessions; i.e., they are carried on different
      IP/UDP port combinations.
   -  Different LCT channels; i.e., they use different TSI values in the
      LCT header.
   -  The PSI bit in the LCT, if carried in the same LCT channel. This
      mode of operation is mostly suitable for FLUTE-compatible
      deployments.

10. Interoperability Chart

   The following table is an informative comparison of the
   interoperability of ROUTE as specified in this RFC, with the ROUTE
   specification in ATSC A/331 [ATSCA331] and DVB Adaptive media
   streaming over IP multicast [DVBMABR]:

+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Element       | ATSC A/331    | IETF RFC           | DVB ROUTE       |
|               |               |                    | Profile         |
+--------+------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| LCT    | PSI  | Set to 0      | Set to 1 for source flow for CMAF    |
| header | 2nd  | for source    | Random access chunk                  |
| fields | bit  | flow, though  |                                      |
|        |      | not used by   |                                      |
|        |      | receiver.     |                                      |
|        +------+---------------+--------------------------------------+


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


|        | CCI  | May be set    | May be set to EPT for source flow    |
|        |      | to 0          |                                      |
+--------+------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| LCT header    | EXT_ROUTE_    | Not defined,       | Shall not       |
| extensions    | PRESENTATION_ | may be added       | be used         |
|               | TIME Header   | by a profile.      |                 |
|               | used for      |                    |                 |
|               | MDE mode      |                    |                 |
|               +---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
|               | EXT_TIME      | EXT_TIME Header may be used          |
|               | Header        | regardless (for                      |
|               | linked to     | FDT-Instance@Expires                 |
|               | MDE mode      | calculation)                         |
|               | in Annex      |                                      |
|               | A.3.7.2       |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Codepoints    | Full set      | Does not specify   | Restricted      |
|               |               | range 10 - 255     | to 5 - 9        |
|               |               | (leaves to         |                 |
|               |               | profiles)          |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Session       | Full set      | Only defines       | Reuses A/331    |
| metadata      |               | a small subset     | metadata,       |
|               |               | of data necessary  | duplicated      |
|               |               | for setting up     | from its own    |
|               |               | Source and Repair  | service         |
|               |               | Flows.             | signaling.      |
|               |               | Does not define    |                 |
|               |               | format  or         |                 |
|               |               | encoding of data   |                 |
|               |               | except if data is  |                 |
|               |               | integral/          |                 |
|               |               | alphanumerical.    |                 |
|               |               | Leaves rest to     |                 |
|               |               | profiles.          |                 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Extended      | Instance      | Not restricted,    | Instance shall  |
| FDT           | shall not     | may be             | not be sent     |
|               | be sent       | restricted         | with source     |
|               | with source   | by a profile.      | flow            |
|               | flow          |                    |                 |
|               +---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
|               | No            | Only allowed in File Mode            |
|               | restriction   |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Delivery      | File, Entity, Signed/              | Signed/         |
| Object        | unsigned package                   | unsigned        |


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020


| Mode          |                                    | package not     |
|               |                                    | allowed         |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Sender        | Defined for   | Defined for DASH segment and CMAF    |
| operation:    | DASH          | Chunks                               |
| Packet-       | segment       |                                      |
| ization       |               |                                      |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+
| Receiver      | Object        | Object may be handed before          |
| object        | handed        | completion if                        |
| recovery      | to            | MPD@availabilityTimeOffset           |
|               | application   | signaled                             |
|               | upon          |                                      |
|               | complete      |                                      |
|               | reception     |                                      |
|               +---------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | -             | Fast Stream acquisition              |
|               |               | guideline provided                   |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+

11. Security Considerations

   Refer to ALC as defined in RFC 5775 [RFC5775].

12. IANA Considerations

   None.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

   [RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding
   Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, October 2009.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5651

   [RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
   Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775, April 2010.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5775

   [RFC6726] Paila, T., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., Roca, V., Walsh, R.,
   "FLUTE-File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport." 2012.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6726


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020



   [RFC6330] Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., Stockhammer, T., and
   Minder, L. "RaptorQ forward error correction scheme for object
   delivery", 2011.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6330

   [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and Masinter, L., "Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", January 2005.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

   [RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3,"
   Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, May, 1996.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952

   [RFC2557] Palme, J., Hopmann, A. and Shelness, N., "MIME
   Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", Internet
   Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March 1999.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557

   [RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner,
   "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
   Message Specification," Internet Engineering Task Force, Fremont, CA,
   January 2010.
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8551

   [RFC5445] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,"
   Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March, 2009.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5445

   [RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and Vicisano, L., "Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) Building Block," Internet Engineering Task Force,
   Reston, VA, August 2007. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5052

   [RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A. and Roca, V., "Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) Framework," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
   VA, October, 2011. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6363

13.2. Informative References

   [RFC7231] IETF RFC 7231 "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1):
   Semantics and Content", June 2014.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231

   [RFC6968] Roca, V. and Adamson, B., "FCAST: Object Delivery for the
   Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Reliable
   Multicast (NORM) Protocols," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
   VA, July, 2013. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6968


Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                  ROUTE                         June 2020



   [ATSCA331] ATSC A/331:2019: "ATSC Standard: Signaling, Delivery,
   Synchronization, and Error Protection", 20 June 2019.

   [DVBMABR] DVB Document A176 (Second edition), "Adaptive media
   streaming over IP multicast", March 2020.

   [DASH] ISO/IEC 23009-1:2019: "Information technology - Dynamic
   adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media presentation
   description and segment formats", Fourth edition, December 2019.

   [CMAF] ISO/IEC 23000-19:2018: "Information technology - Multimedia
   application format (MPEG-A) - Part 19: Common media application
   format (CMAF) for segmented media", First edition, January 2018.

   [MBMS] ETSI: "Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS);
   LTE; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and
   codecs (3GPP TS 26.346 version 13.3.0 Release 13)," Doc. ETSI TS 126
   346 v13.3.0 (2016-01), European Telecommunications Standards
   Institute, January 2016.

14. Acknowledgments

   As outlined in the introduction and in ROUTE concepts, the concepts
   specified in this draft are the culmination of the collaborative work
   of several experts and organizations over the years. The authors
   would especially like to acknowledge the work and efforts of the
   following people and organizations to help realize the technologies
   described in this draft (in no specific order): Mike Luby, Kent
   Walker, Charles Lo, Giridhar Mandyam, and other colleagues from
   Qualcomm Incorporated, LG Electronics, Nomor Research, Sony, and BBC
   R&D.

Authors' Addresses

   Waqar Zia
   Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
   Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, Germany
   Email: wzia@qti.qualcomm.com

   Thomas Stockhammer
   Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
   Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, Germany
   Email: tsto@qti.qualcomm.com





Zia, et al.           Expires December 29, 2020               [Page 35]


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