draft-ietf-payload-melpe-03.txt   draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04.txt 
Payload Working Group Victor Demjanenko Payload Working Group Victor Demjanenko
Internet-Draft David Satterlee Internet-Draft David Satterlee
Intended Status: Standards Track VOCAL Technologies, Ltd. Intended Status: Standards Track VOCAL Technologies, Ltd.
Expires: Februrary 20, 2017 August 19, 2016 Expires: June 16, 2017 December 13, 2016
RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec
draft-ietf-payload-melpe-03 draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
supported. Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are supported. Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are
detailed. detailed.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 MELPe Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 MELPe Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1 2400 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1 2400 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2 1200 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2 1200 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 600 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.3 600 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 MELPe Comfort Noise Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2 MELPe Comfort Noise Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Multiple MELPe frames in a RTP packet . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3 Multiple MELPe frames in a RTP packet . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4 Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4 Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2 Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3 Declaritive SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.3 Declaritive SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4 Offer/Answer SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.4 Offer/Answer SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Discontinious Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5 Discontinious Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6 Packet Loss Concealment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6 Packet Loss Concealment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9 RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9 RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
This document describes how compressed MELPe speech as produced by This document describes how compressed MELPe speech as produced by
the MELPe codec may be formatted for use as an RTP payload. Details the MELPe codec may be formatted for use as an RTP payload. Details
are provided to packetize the three different codec bit-rate data are provided to packetize the three different codec bit-rate data
frames (2400, 1200, and 600) into RTP packets. The sender may send frames (2400, 1200, and 600) into RTP packets. The sender may send
one or more codec data frames per packet, depending on the one or more codec data frames per packet, depending on the
application scenario or based on the transport network condition, application scenario or based on the transport network condition,
bandwidth restriction, delay requirements and packet-loss tolerance. bandwidth restriction, delay requirements and packet-loss tolerance.
skipping to change at page 19, line 27 skipping to change at page 20, line 30
ptime, maxptime, bitrate ptime, maxptime, bitrate
Encoding considerations: Encoding considerations:
This media type is framed and binary, see section 4.8 in RFC6838 This media type is framed and binary, see section 4.8 in RFC6838
[RFC6838]. [RFC6838].
Security considerations: Security considerations:
Please see security consideration in RFC6562 [RFC6562]. Please see the security considerations in section 8 of RFCxxxx
(this RFC).
Interoperability considerations: Interoperability considerations:
Early implementations used MELP2400, MELP1200, and MELP600 to Early implementations used MELP2400, MELP1200, and MELP600 to
indicate both coder type and bit rate. These media type names indicate both coder type and bit rate. These media type names
should be preserved with this registration. should be preserved with this registration.
Published specification: Published specification:
N/A N/A
skipping to change at page 24, line 16 skipping to change at page 26, line 16
This memo requests that IANA registers MELP, MELP2400, MELP1200, and This memo requests that IANA registers MELP, MELP2400, MELP1200, and
MELP600 as specified in Section 4.1. The media type is also MELP600 as specified in Section 4.1. The media type is also
requested to be added to the IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format requested to be added to the IANA registry for "RTP Payload Format
MIME types" (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters). MIME types" (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters).
8 Security Considerations 8 Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC3550] , and in any applicable RTP profile such as specification [RFC3550], and in any applicable RTP profile such as
RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4855], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711] or RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4855], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711] or
RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution"
[RFC7202] discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility [RFC7202] discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility
to discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic to discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic
security goals like confidentiality, integrity and source security goals like confidentiality, integrity and source
authenticity for RTP in general. This responsibility lays on anyone authenticity for RTP in general. This responsibility lays on anyone
using RTP in an application. They can find guidance on available using RTP in an application. They can find guidance on available
security mechanisms and important considerations in Options for security mechanisms and important considerations in Options for
Securing RTP Sessions [RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more Securing RTP Sessions [RFC7201]. Applications SHOULD use one or more
appropriate strong security mechanisms. The rest of this security appropriate strong security mechanisms. The rest of this security
consideration section discusses the security impacting properties of consideration section discusses the security impacting properties of
the payload format itself. the payload format itself.
This RTP payload format and the MELPe decoder do not exhibit any This RTP payload format and the MELPe decoder do not exhibit any
significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational significant non-uniformity in the receiver-side computational
complexity for packet processing, and thus are unlikely to pose a complexity for packet processing, and thus are unlikely to pose a
denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological data. denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological data.
Nor does the RTP payload format contain any active content. Nor does the RTP payload format contain any active content.
With respect to VAD and its effect on bit rate, please see security
consideration in RFC6562 [RFC6562].
9 RFC Editor Considerations 9 RFC Editor Considerations
Note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed after carrying out Note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed after carrying out
all the instructions of this section. all the instructions of this section.
10 References 10 References
10.1 Normative References 10.1 Normative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers] Perkins, C. and V. Singh,
"Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP
Sessions", draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16 (work in
progress), June 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V. and Perkins, C., "SDP: Session [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V. and Perkins, C., "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", IETF RFC RFC4566, July 2006. Description Protocol", IETF RFC RFC4566, July 2006.
[RFC2736] Handley, M. and Perkins, C., "Guidelines for Writers of RTP [RFC2736] Handley, M. and Perkins, C., "Guidelines for Writers of RTP
Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, December 1999. Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, December 1999.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and Schulzrinne, H., "An Offer/Answer Model [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and Schulzrinne, H., "An Offer/Answer Model
skipping to change at page 25, line 35 skipping to change at page 27, line 33
[RFC3711] Baugher, et al., "The Secure Real Time Transport Protocol", [RFC3711] Baugher, et al., "The Secure Real Time Transport Protocol",
IETF RFC 3711, March 2004. IETF RFC 3711, March 2004.
[RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload [RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007. Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and Carrara, E., "Extended Secure RTP Profile for [RFC5124] Ott, J. and Carrara, E., "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based
Feedback(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008. Feedback(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
[RFC5405] Westerlund, M. and Johansson, I., "RTP Payload Format for
G.719", RFC 5405, January 2009.
[RFC6562] Perkins, C. and Valin, J. M., "Guidelines for the Use of [RFC6562] Perkins, C. and Valin, J. M., "Guidelines for the Use of
Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", RFC 6563, March 2012. Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", RFC 6562, March 2012.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and Hansen, T., "Media Type [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and Hansen, T., "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838,
January 2013. January 2013.
10.2 Informative References 10.2 Informative References
[MELP] Department of Defense Telecommunications Standard, "Analog-to- [MELP] Department of Defense Telecommunications Standard, "Analog-to-
Digital Conversion of Voice by 2,400 Bit/Second Mixed Excitation Digital Conversion of Voice by 2,400 Bit/Second Mixed Excitation
Linear Prediction (MELP)", MIL-STD-3005, December 1999. Linear Prediction (MELP)", MIL-STD-3005, December 1999.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
27 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/