Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                 B. Burman
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: January 7, August 18, 2016                                         R. Even
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                               M. Zanaty
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            July 6, 2015
                                                       February 15, 2016

         RTP Header Extension for RTCP Source Description Items
                   draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-02
                   draft-ietf-avtext-sdes-hdr-ext-03

Abstract

   Source Description (SDES) items are normally transported in RTP
   control protocol (RTCP).  In some cases it can be beneficial to speed
   up the delivery of these items.  Mainly when a new source (SSRC)
   joins an RTP session and the receivers needs this source's identity,
   relation to other sources, or its synchronization context, all of
   which may be fully or partially identified using SDES items.  To
   enable this optimization, this document specifies a new RTP header
   extension that can carry SDES items.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, August 18, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   3
   4.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  SDES Item Header Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  One-Byte Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Two-Byte Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6   5
     4.2.  Usage of the SDES Item Header Extension . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  One or Two Byte Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.2.  MTU and Packet Expansion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.3.  Transmission Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.4.  Different Usages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.5.  SDES Items in RTCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.6.  Update Flaps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Reservation of the SDES URN sub-space . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Registration of SDES Items  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12  13
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12  13
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   This specification defines an RTP header extension [RFC3550][RFC5285]
   that can carry RTCP source description (SDES) items.  By including
   selected SDES items in a header extension the determination of
   relationship and synchronization context for new RTP streams (SSRCs)
   in an RTP session can be optimized.  Which relationship and what
   information depends on the SDES items carried.  This becomes a
   complement to using only RTCP for SDES Item delivery.

   It is important to note that not all SDES items are appropriate to
   transmit using RTP header extensions.  Some SDES items performs
   binding or identifies synchronization context with strict timeliness
   requirements, while many other SDES items do not have such
   requirements.  In addition, security and privacy concerns for the
   SDES item information need to be considered.  For example, the Name
   and Location SDES items are highly sensitive from a privacy
   perspective and should not be transported over the network without
   strong security.  No use case has identified where this information
   is required at the same time as the first RTP packets arrive.  A few
   seconds delay before such information is available to the receiver
   appears acceptable.  Therefore only appropriate SDES items will be
   registered for use with this header extension, such as CNAME.

   First, some requirements language and terminology are defined.  The
   following section motivates why this header extension is sometimes
   required or at least provides a significant improvement compared to
   waiting for regular RTCP packet transmissions of the information.
   This is followed by a specification of the header extension and usage
   recommendations.  Next, a sub-space of the header-extension URN is
   defined to be used for existing and future SDES items, and then the
   appropriate existing SDES items are registered.

2.  Definitions

2.1.  Requirements Language

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

2.2.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology defined in "A Taxonomy of Grouping Semantics
   and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources" [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy].
   [RFC7656].  In particular the following definitions:

      Media Source

      RTP Stream

      Media Encoder

      Encoded Stream

      Participant

3.  Motivation

   Source Description (SDES) items are associated with a particular SSRC
   and thus RTP stream.  The source description items provide various
   meta data associated with the SSRC.  How important it is to have this
   data no later than when receiving the first RTP packets depends on
   the item itself.  The CNAME item is one item that is commonly needed
   either at reception of the first RTP packet for this SSRC, or at
   least by the time the first media can be played out.  If it is not
   available, the synchronization context cannot be determined and thus
   any related streams cannot be correctly synchronized.  Thus, this is
   a valuable example for having this information early when a new RTP
   stream is received.

   The main reason for new SSRCs in an RTP session is when media sources
   are added.  This can be either because an end-point is adding a new
   actual media source, or additional participants in a multi-party
   session are added to the session.  Another reason for a new SSRC can
   be an SSRC collision that forces both colliding parties to select new
   SSRCs.

   For the case of rapid media synchronization, one may use the RTP
   header extension for Rapid Synchronization of RTP Flows [RFC6051].
   This header extension carries the clock information present in the
   RTCP sender report (SR) packets.  It however assumes that the CNAME
   binding is known, which can be provided via signaling [RFC5576] in
   some cases, but not all.  Thus an RTP header extension for carrying
   SDES items like CNAME is a powerful combination to enable rapid
   synchronization in all cases.

   The Rapid Synchronization of RTP Flows specification does provide an
   analysis of the initial synchronization delay for different sessions
   depending on number of receivers as well as on session bandwidth
   (Section 2.1 of [RFC6051]).  These results are applicable also for
   other SDES items that have a similar time dependency until the
   information can be sent using RTCP.  These figures can be used to
   determine the benefit of reducing the initial delay before
   information is available for some use cases.

   That document also discusses the case of late joiners, and defines an
   RTCP Feedback format to request synchronization information, which is
   another potential use case for SDES items in RTP header extension.
   It would for example be natural to include CNAME SDES item with the
   header extension containing the NTP formatted reference clock to
   ensure synchronization.

   There is an another SDES item that can benefit from timely delivery,
   and an RTP header extension SDES item was therefore defined for it:

   MID:  This is a media description identifier that matches the value
      of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] a=mid
      attribute, to associate RTP streams multiplexed on the same
      transport with their respective SDP media description as described
      in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].

4.  Specification

   This section first specifies the SDES item RTP header extension
   format, followed by some usage considerations.

4.1.  SDES Item Header Extension

   An RTP header extension scheme allowing for multiple extensions is
   defined in "A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions" [RFC5285].
   That specification defines both short and long item headers.  The
   short headers (One-byte) are restricted to 1 to 16 bytes of data,
   while the long format (Two-byte) supports a data length of 0 to 255
   bytes.  Thus the RTP header extension formats are capable of
   supporting any SDES item from a data length perspective.

   The ID field, independent of short or long format, identifies both
   the type of RTP header extension and, in the case of the SDES item
   header extension, the type of SDES item.  The mapping is done in
   signaling by identifying the header extension and SDES item type
   using a URN, which is defined in the IANA consideration (Section 5)
   for the known SDES items appropriate to use.

4.1.1.  One-Byte Format

   The one-byte header format for an SDES item extension element
   consists of the One-Byte one-byte header (defined in Section 4.2 of
   [RFC5285]), which consists of a 4-bit ID followed by a 4-bit length
   field (len) that identifies the number of data bytes (len value +1)
   following the header.  The data part consists of len+1 bytes of UTF-8
   text.  The type of text and its mapping to the SDES item type is
   determined by the ID field value.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  ID   |  len  | SDES Item text value ...                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 1

4.1.2.  Two-Byte Format

   The two-byte header format for an SDES item extension element
   consists of the two-byte header (defined in Section 4.3 of
   [RFC5285]), which consists of an 8-bit ID followed by an 8-bit length
   field (len) that identifies the number of data bytes following the
   header.  The data part consists of len bytes of UTF-8 text.  The type
   of text and its mapping to the SDES item type is determined by the ID
   field value.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      ID       |      len      |  SDES Item text value ...     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 2

4.2.  Usage of the SDES Item Header Extension

   This section discusses various usage considerations; which form of
   header extension to use, the packet expansion, and when to send SDES
   items in header extension.

4.2.1.  One or Two Byte Headers

   The RTP header extensions for SDES items MAY use either the one-byte
   or two-byte header formats, depending on the text value size for the
   used SDES items and the requirement from any other header extensions
   used.  The one-byte header SHOULD be used when all non SDES item
   header extensions supports the one-byte format and all SDES item text
   values contain at most 16 bytes.  Note that the RTP header extension
   specification does not allow mixing one-byte and two-byte headers for
   the same RTP stream (SSRC), so if the value size of any of the SDES
   items value requires the two-byte header, then all other header
   extensions MUST also use the two-byte header format.

   For example using CNAMEs that are generated according to "Guidelines
   for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)"
   [RFC7022], using short term persistent values, and if 96-bit random
   values prior to base64 encoding are sufficient, then they will fit
   into the One-Byte one-byte header format.

   An RTP middlebox needs to take care choosing between one byte one-byte headers
   to
   and two-byte headers when creating the first packets for an outgoing
   stream (SSRC) with header extensions.  First of all it needs to
   consider all the header extensions that may potentially be used.
   Secondly, it needs to know the size of the SDES items that are going
   to be included, and use two bytes headers if any are longer than 16
   bytes.  An RTP middlebox that forwards a stream, i.e. not mixing it
   or combing it with other streams, may be able to base its choice on
   the header size in incoming streams.  This is assuming that the
   middlebox does not modify the stream or add additional header
   extensions to the stream it sends, in which case it needs to make its
   own decision.

4.2.2.  MTU and Packet Expansion

   The RTP packet size will clearly increase when a header extension is
   included.  How much depends on the type of header extensions and
   their data content.  The SDES items can vary in size.  There are also
   some use-cases that require transmitting multiple SDES items in the
   same packet to ensure that all relevant data reaches the receiver.
   An example of that is when both CNAME, a MID, and the rapid time
   synchronization extension from RFC 6051 are needed.  Such a
   combination is quite likely to result in at least 16+3+8 bytes of
   data plus the headers, which will be another 7 bytes for one-byte
   headers, plus two bytes of header padding to make the complete header
   extension word aligned, thus in total 36 bytes.

   If the packet expansion cannot be taken into account when producing
   the RTP payload payload, it can cause an issue.  An RTP payload that is
   created to meet a particular IP level Maximum Transmission Unit
   (MTU), taking the addition of IP/UDP/RTP headers but not RTP header
   extensions into account, could exceed the MTU when the header
   extensions are present, thus resulting in IP fragmentation.  IP
   fragmentation is known to negatively impact the loss rate due to
   middleboxes unwilling or not capable of dealing with IP fragments, as
   well as increasing the target surface for other types of packet
   losses.

   As this is a real issue, the media encoder and payload packetizer
   should be flexible and be capable of handling dynamically varying
   payload size restrictions to counter the packet expansion caused by
   header extensions.  If that is not possible, some reasonable worst
   case packet expansion should be calculated and used to reduce the RTP
   payload size of all RTP packets the sender transmits.

4.2.3.  Transmission Considerations

   The general recommendation is to only send header extensions when
   needed.  This is especially true for SDES items that can be sent in
   periodic repetitions of RTCP throughout the whole session.  Thus, the
   different usages (Section 4.2.4) have different recommendations.
   First some general considerations for getting the header extensions
   delivered to the receiver:

   1.  The probability for packet loss and burst loss determine how many
       repetitions of the header extensions will be required to reach a
       targeted delivery probability, and if burst loss is likely, what
       distribution would be needed to avoid getting all repetitions of
       the header extensions lost in a single burst.

   2.  If a set of packets are all needed to enable decoding, there is
       commonly no reason for including the header extension in all of
       these packets, as they share fate.  Instead, at most one instance
       of the header extension per independently decodable set of media
       data would be a more efficient use of the bandwidth.

   3.  How early the SDES item information is needed, from the first
       received RTP data or only after some set of packets are received,
       can guide if the header extension(s) should be in all of the
       first N packets or be included only once per set of packets, for
       example once per video frame.

   4.  The use of RTP level robustness mechanisms, such as RTP
       retransmission [RFC4588], or Forward Error Correction, e.g.,
       [RFC5109] may treat packets differently from a robustness
       perspective, and SDES header extensions should be added to
       packets that get a treatment corresponding to the relative
       importance of receiving the information.

   As a summary, the number of header extension transmissions should be
   tailored to a desired probability of delivery taking the receiver
   population size into account.  For the very basic case, N repetitions
   of the header extensions should be sufficient, but may not be
   optimal.  N is selected so that the header extension target delivery
   probability reaches 1-P^N, where P is the probability of packet loss.
   For point to point or small receiver populations, it might also be
   possible to use feedback, such as RTCP, to determine when the
   information in the header extensions has reached all receivers and
   stop further repetitions.  Feedback that can be used includes the
   RTCP XR Loss RLE report block [RFC3611], which will indicate
   succesful
   successful delivery of particular packets.  If the RTP/AVPF Transport
   Layer Feedback Messages for generic NACK [RFC4585] is used, it can
   indicate the failure to deliver an RTP packet with the header
   extension, thus indicating the need for further repetitions.  The
   normal RTCP report blocks can also provide an indicator of succesful successful
   delivery, if no losses are indicated for a reporting interval
   covering the RTP packets with the header extension.  Note that loss
   of an RTCP packet reporting on an interval where RTP header extension
   packets were sent, does not necessarily mean that the RTP header
   extension packets themselves were lost.

4.2.4.  Different Usages

4.2.4.1.  New SSRC

   A new SSRC joins an RTP session.  As this SSRC is completely new for
   everyone, the goal is to ensure, with high probability, that all RTP
   session participants receives the information in the header
   extension.  Thus, header extension transmission strategies that allow
   some margins in the delivery probability should be considered.

4.2.4.2.  Late Joiner

   In a multi-party RTP session where one or a small number of receivers
   join a session where the majority of receivers already have all
   necessary information, the use of header extensions to deliver
   relevant information should be tailored to reach the new receivers.
   The trigger to send header extensions can for example either be RTCP
   from new receiver(s) or an explicit request like the Rapid
   Resynchronization Request defined in [RFC6051].  In centralized
   topologies where an RTP middlebox is present, it can be responsible
   for transmitting the known information, possibly stored, to the new
   session participant only, and not repeat it to all the session
   participants.

4.2.4.3.  Information Change

   If the SDES information is tightly coupled with the RTP data, and the
   SDES information needs to be updated, then the use of the RTP header
   extension is superior to RTCP.  Using the RTP header extension
   ensures that the information is updated on reception of the related
   RTP media, ensuring synchronization between the two.  Continued use
   of the old SDES information can lead to undesired effects in the
   application.  Thus, header extension transmission strategies with
   high probability of delivery should be chosen.

4.2.5.  SDES Items in RTCP

   The RTP header extensions extension information, i.e. SDES Items, items, can and will
   be sent also in RTCP.  Therefore, it is worth making some reflections
   on this interaction.  As an alternative to the header extension, it
   is possible to schedule a non-regular RTCP packet transmission
   containing important SDES items, if one uses an RTP/AVPF based RTP/AVPF-based RTP
   profile.  Depending on which mode one's RTCP feedback transmitter is
   working on, extra RTCP packets may be sent as immediate or early
   packets, enabling more timely SDES information delivery.

   There are however two aspects that differ between using RTP header
   extensions and any non-regular transmission of RTCP packets.  First,
   as the RTCP packet is a separate packet, there is no direct relation
   and also no fate sharing between the relevant media data and the SDES
   information.  The order of arrival for the packets will matter.  With
   a header-extension, the SDES items can be ensured to arrive if the
   media data to play out arrives.  Secondly, it is difficult to
   determine if an RTCP packet is actually delivered.  This, as the RTCP
   packets lack both sequence number or and a mechanism providing feedback
   on the RTCP packets themselves.

4.2.6.  Update Flaps

   The SDES item may arrive both in RTCP and in RTP header extensions,
   potentially causing the value to flap back and forth at the time of
   updating.  There are at least two reasons for these flaps.  The first
   one is packet reordering, where a pre-update RTP or RTCP packet with
   an SDES item is delivered to the receiver after the first RTP/RTCP
   packet with the updated value.  The second reason is the different
   code-paths for RTP and RTCP in implementations.  An update to the
   sender's SDES item parameter can take a different time to propagate
   to the receiver than the corresponding media data.  For example, an
   RTCP packet with the SDES item included that may have been generated
   prior to the update can still reside in a buffer and be sent
   unmodified.  The update of the item's value can at the same time
   cause RTP packets to be sent including the header extension, prior to
   the RTCP packet being sent.

   However, most of these issues can be avoided in the receiver by
   performing some checks before updating the receiver's stored value.
   To handle flaps caused by reordering, only SDES items received in RTP
   packets with a higher extended sequence number than the last change
   shall be applied, i.e. discard items that can be determined to be
   older than the current one.  For compound RTCP packets, which will
   contain an Sender Report (SR) packet (assuming an active RTP sender),
   the receiver can compare use the RTCP Sender Report's SR Timestamp field, field to determine at what
   approximate time it was transmitted.  If the timestamp is earlier
   than the last received RTP packet with a header extension carrying an
   SDES item, and especially if carrying a previously used value, the
   SDES item in the RTCP SDES packet can be ignored.  Note that media
   processing and transmission pacing can easily cause the RTP header
   timestamp field as well as the RTCP SR timestamp field to not match
   with the actual transmission time.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This section makes the following requests to IANA:

   o  Register and reserve for SDES items the URN sub-space
      "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:" in the RTP Compact Header
      Extensions registry.

   o  Register the SDES items appropriate for use with the RTP header
      extension defined in this document.

5.1.  Reservation of the SDES URN sub-space

   The reason to require registering a URN within an SDES sub-space is
   that the name represents an RTCP Source Description item, where a
   specification is strongly recommended.  The formal policy is
   maintained from the main space, as specified by [RFC5285], i.e.
   Expert Review.  However, some the following additional considerations are provided here that needs items need to be
   considered when applying for a registration within this sub-space of
   the RTP Compact Header Extensions registry. registry:

   o  Any registration using an Extension URI that starts with
      "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:" MUST also have a registered
      Source Description item in the "RTP SDES item types" registry.

   o  Secondly, a security and privacy consideration for the SDES item
      must be provided with the registration, preferably in a publicly available reference. registration.

   o  Thirdly, information must be provided on why this SDES item
      requires timely delivery, motivating it to be transported in an a
      header extension rather than as RTCP only.

   IANA is requested to register the below in the RTP Compact Header
   Extensions:

   Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes
   Description:   Reserved as base URN for SDES items that are also
                  defined as RTP Compact header extensions.
   Contact:       Authors of [RFCXXXX]
   Reference:     [RFCXXXX]

   RFC-editor note: Please replace all occurances occurrences of RFCXXXX with the
   RFC number this specification receives when published.

5.2.  Registration of SDES Items

   It is requested that the following SDES item is registered in the RTP
   Compact Header Extensions registry:

   Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:cname
   Description:   Source Description: Canonical End-Point Identifier
                  (SDES CNAME)
   Contact:       Authors of [RFCXXXX]
   Reference:     [RFCXXXX]

   We also note that the MID SDES item is already registered in the
   registry by [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].

6.  Security Considerations

   Source Description items may contain data that are sensitive from a
   security perspective.  There are SDES items that are or may be
   sensitive from a user privacy perspective, like CNAME, NAME, EMAIL,
   PHONE, LOC and H323-CADDR.  Some may contain sensitive information,
   like NOTE and PRIV, while others may be sensitive from profiling
   implementations for vulnerability or other reasons, like TOOL.  The
   CNAME sensitivity can vary depending on how it is generated and what
   persistence it has.  A short term CNAME identifier generated using a
   random number generator [RFC7022] may have minimal security
   implications, while a CNAME of the form user@host has privacy
   concerns, and a CNAME generated from a MAC address has long term
   tracking potentials.

   In RTP sessions where any type of confidentiality protection is
   enabled for RTCP, the SDES item header extensions MUST also be
   protected per default.
   protected.  This implies that to provide confidentiality, users of
   SRTP need to implement and use encrypted header extensions per
   [RFC6904].  Commonly, it is expected that the same  The security level that is applied to RTCP packets
   carrying SDES items, and items SHOULD also be applied to an SDES items carried as
   RTP header
   extension containing SDES items. extensions.  If the security level is different, chosen to be
   different for an SDES item in RTCP and RTP header extension, it is
   important to motivate the exception, and to consider the security
   properties as the worst in each aspect for the different
   configurations.

   As the SDES items are used by the RTP based application to establish
   relationships between RTP streams or between an RTP stream and
   information about the originating Participant, participant, there SHOULD be strong
   requirements on
   integrity protection and source authentication of the header
   extensions.  If not, an attacker can modify the SDES item value to
   create erroneous relationship bindings in the receiving application.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors likes to thanks thank the following individuals for feedback and
   suggestions; Colin Perkins.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

   [RFC6904]  Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April
              2013. 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy]
              Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
              B. Burman, "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for
              Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", draft-ietf-
              avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-07 (work in progress), June
              2015.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
              Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
              negotiation-22
              negotiation-25 (work in progress), June 2015. January 2016.

   [RFC3611]  Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
              "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
              RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November
              2003. 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006. 2006, <http://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. 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.

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

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

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

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

   [RFC7022]  Begen, A., Perkins, C., Wing, D., and E. Rescorla,
              "Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
              Canonical Names (CNAMEs)", RFC 7022, DOI 10.17487/RFC7022,
              September 2013. 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7022>.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Farogatan 6
   SE-164 80 Stockholm
   Sweden

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

   Bo Burman
   Ericsson
   Kistavagen 25
   Stockholm  16480
   Sweden

   Email: bo.burman@ericsson.com
   Roni Even
   Huawei Technologies
   Tel Aviv
   Israel

   Email: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com

   Mo Zanaty
   Cisco Systems
   7100 Kit Creek
   RTP, NC  27709
   USA

   Email: mzanaty@cisco.com