AVTCORE WG                                                 M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 3550, 3551 (if approved)                             C. Perkins
Intended status: Standards Track                   University of Glasgow
Expires: April 25, August 29, 2013                                       J. Lennox
                                                                   Vidyo
                                                        October 22, 2012
                                                       February 25, 2013

                 Multiple Media Types in an RTP Session
             draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-01
             draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-02

Abstract

   This document specifies how an RTP session can contain media streams
   with media from multiple media types such as audio, video, and text.
   This has been restricted by the RTP Specification, and thus this
   document updates RFC 3550 and RFC 3551 to enable this behavior behaviour for
   applications that satisfy the applicability for using multiple media
   types in a single RTP session.

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 April 25, August 29, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  NAT and Firewalls  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  No Transport Level QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Architectural Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Overview of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.1.  Usage of the RTP session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.2.  Signalled Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.3.  Homogeneous Multi-party  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.4.  Reduced number of Payload Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.5.  Stream Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.6.  Non-compatible Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  RTP Session Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  RTP Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9 10
     6.2.  Sender Source Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
     6.3.  Payload Type Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.4.  RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13
       6.4.1.  Timing out SSRCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.4.2.  Tuning RTCP transmissions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Extension Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17
     7.1.  RTP Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17
     7.2.  Generic FEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 18
   8.  Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 18
     8.1.  SDP-Based Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 19
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 19
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 19
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 19
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 20
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 20
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22

1.  Introduction

   When the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] was designed,
   close to 20 years ago, IP networks were very different compared to
   the ones in 2012 2013 when this is written.  The almost ubiquitous
   deployment of Network Address Translators (NAT) and Firewalls has
   increased the cost and likely-hood of communication failure when
   using many different transport flows.  Thus there exists a pressure
   to reduce the number of concurrent transport flows.

   RTP [RFC3550] recommends against sending several different types of
   media, for example audio and video, in a single RTP session.  The RTP
   profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/
   AVP) [RFC3551] mandates a similar restriction.  The motivation for
   these limitations is partly to allow lower layer Quality of Service
   (QoS) mechanisms to be used, and partly due to limitations of the
   RTCP timing rules that require assumes all media in a session to have similar
   bandwidth.  The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566], as one
   of the dominant signalling method for establishing RTP session, has
   enforced this rule, simply by not allowing multiple media types for a
   given receiver destination or set of ICE candidates, which is the
   most common method to determine which RTP session the packets are
   intended for.

   The fact that these limitations have been in place for so long a
   time, in addition to RFC 3550 being written without fully considering
   multiple media types in an RTP session, does result in a number of
   considerations being needed when allowing this behavior. behaviour.  This
   document provides such considerations regarding applicability as well
   as functionality, including normative specification of behavior. behaviour.

   First, some basic definitions are provided.  This is followed by a
   background that discusses the motivation in more detail.  A overview
   of the solution of how to provide multiple media types in one RTP
   session is then presented.  Next is the formal applicability this
   specification have followed by the normative specification.  This is
   followed by a discussion how some RTP/RTCP Extensions should is expected to
   function in the case of multiple media types in one RTP session.  A
   specification of the requirements on signalling from this
   specification and a look how this is realized in SDP using Bundle
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].  The document ends with the
   security considerations.

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 [RFC2119].

2.2.  Terminology

   The following terms are used with supplied definitions:

   Endpoint:  A single entity sending or receiving RTP packets.  It may can
      be decomposed into several functional blocks, but as long as it
      behaves as a single RTP stack entity it is classified as a single
      endpoint.

   Media Stream:  A sequence of RTP packets using a single SSRC that
      together carries part or all of the content of a specific Media
      Type from a specific sender source within a given RTP session.

   Media Type:  Audio, video, text or application whose form and meaning
      are defined by a specific real-time application.

   QoS:  Quality of Service, i.e. network mechanisms that intended to
      ensure that the packets within a flow or with a specific marking
      are transported with certain properties.

   RTP Session:  As defined by [RFC3550], the endpoints belonging to the
      same RTP Session are those that share a single SSRC space.  That
      is, those endpoints can see an SSRC identifier transmitted by any
      one of the other endpoints.  An endpoint can receive an SSRC
      either as SSRC or as CSRC in RTP and RTCP packets.  Thus, the RTP
      Session scope is decided by the endpoints' network interconnection
      topology, in combination with RTP and RTCP forwarding strategies
      deployed by endpoints and any interconnecting middle nodes.

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

3.  Motivation

   This section discusses in more detail the main motivations why
   allowing multiple media types in the same RTP session is suitable.

3.1.  NAT and Firewalls

   The existence of NATs and Firewalls at almost all Internet access has
   had implications on protocols like RTP that were designed to use
   multiple transport flows.  First of all, the NAT/FW traversal
   solution one uses needs to ensure that all these transport flows are
   established.  This has three different impacts: consequences:

   1.  Increased delay to perform the transport flow establishment

   2.  The more transport flows, the more state and the more resource
       consumption in the NAT and Firewalls.  When the resource
       consumption in NAT/FWs reaches their limits, unexpected behaviors
       behaviours usually occur.

   3.  More transport flows means a higher risk that some transport flow
       fails to be established, thus preventing the application to
       communicate.

   Using fewer transport flows reduces the risk of communication
   failure, improved establishment behavior behaviour and less load on NAT and
   Firewalls.

3.2.  No Transport Level QoS

   Many RTP-using applications don't utilize any network level Quality
   of Service functions.  Nor do they expect or desire any separation in
   network treatment of its media packets, independent of whether they
   are audio, video or text.  When an application has no such desire, it
   doesn't need to provide a transport flow structure that simplifies
   flow based QoS.

3.3.  Architectural Equality

   For applications that don't require different lower-layer QoS for
   different media types, and that have no special requirements for RTP
   extensions or RTCP reporting, the requirement to separate different
   media into different RTP sessions may might seem unnecessary.  Provided
   the application accepts that all media flows have will get similar bandwidth requirements, so that the RTCP
   timing rules work,
   reporting, using the same RTP session for several types of media at
   once appears a reasonable choice.  The architecture should ought to be
   agnostic about the type of media being carried in an RTP session to
   the extent possible given the constraints of the protocol.

4.  Overview of Solution

   The goal of the solution is to enable having one or more RTP
   sessions, where each RTP session may to contain two or
   more than just one media types. type.  This includes having multiple RTP
   sessions containing a given media type, for example having three
   sessions containing both video and audio.

   The solution is quite straightforward.  The first step is to override
   the SHOULD and SHOULD NOT language of the RTP specification
   [RFC3550].  Similar change is needed to a sentence in Section 6 of
   [RFC3551] that states that "different media types SHALL NOT be
   interleaved or multiplexed within a single RTP Session".  This is
   resolved by appropriate exception clauses given that this
   specification and its applicability is followed.

   Within an RTP session where multiple media types have been configured
   for use, an SSRC may send can only send one type of media during its lifetime
   (i.e., it can switch between different audio codecs, since those are
   both the same type of media, but cannot switch between audio and
   video).  Different SSRCs must MUST be used for the different media
   sources, the same way multiple media sources of the same media type
   already have to do.  The payload type will inform a receiver which
   media type the SSRC is being used for.  Thus the payload type must MUST be
   unique across all of the payload configurations independent of media
   type that may be is used in the RTP session.

   Some few extra considerations within the RTP sessions also needs to
   be considered.  RTCP bandwidth and regular reporting suppression
   (AVPF
   (RTP/AVPF and SAVPF) should RTP/SAVPF) SHOULD be considered configured to be configured.  Certain
   payload types like FEC also need additional rules.

   The final important reduce the impact
   for bit-rate variations between streams and media types.  It is also
   clarified how timeout calculations are to be done to avoid any
   issues.  Certain payload types like FEC also need additional rules.

   The final important part of the solution to this is to use signalling
   and ensure that agreement on using multiple media types in an RTP
   session exists, and how that then is configured.  Thus document
   documents  This memo describes
   some existing requirements, while an external reference defines how
   this is accomplished in SDP.

5.  Applicability

   This specification has limited applicability applicability, and any one anyone intending to
   use it must needs to ensure that their application and usage meets the
   below criteria.

5.1.  Usage of the RTP session

   Before choosing to use this specification, an application implementer
   needs to ensure that they don't have a need for different RTP
   sessions between the media types for some reason.  The main rule is
   that if one expects to have equal treatment of all media packets,
   then this specification might be suitable.  The equal treatment
   include anything from network level up to RTCP reporting and
   feedback.  The document Guidelines for using the Multiplexing
   Features of RTP [I-D.westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture] gives
   more detailed guidance on aspects to consider when choosing how to
   use RTP and specifically sessions.  RTP-using applications that need
   or would prefer multiple RTP sessions, but do not require the
   functionalities or behaviors behaviours that multiple transport flows give, can
   consider using Multiple RTP Sessions on a Single Lower-Layer
   Transport [I-D.westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing].  It needs
   to be noted that some difference in treatment is still possible to
   achieve, for example marking based QoS, or RTCP feedback traffic for
   only some media streams.

   The second important consideration is that all the resulting behaviour when
   media flows to be sent within a single RTP session need to does not have
   similar bandwidth.  This is
   due to  There are limitations of in the RTCP timing rules,
   and the need for this implies a common RTCP reporting interval across all
   participants in a session
   to avoid problems with premature SSRC timeouts. session.  If an RTP session contains flows with
   very different bandwidths, for example low-rate audio coupled with
   high-quality video, this will can result in either excessive or
   insufficient RTCP for some flows, depending how the RTCP session
   bandwidth, and hence reporting interval, is configured.  This is
   discussed further in Section 6.4.

5.2.  Signalled Support

   Usage of this specification is not compatible with anyone following
   RFC 3550 and intending to have different RTP sessions for each media
   type.  Therefore there must needs to be mutual agreement to use multiple
   media types in one RTP session by all participants within an that RTP
   session.  This agreement must in most cases has to be determined using signalling. signalling in
   most cases.

   This requirement can be a problem for signalling solutions that can't
   negotiate with all participants.  For declarative signalling
   solutions, mandating that the session is using multiple media types
   in one RTP session can be a way of attempting to ensure that all
   participants in the RTP session follow the requirement.  However, for
   signalling solutions that lack methods for enforcing that a receiver
   supports a specific feature, this can still cause issues.

5.3.  Homogeneous Multi-party

   In multiparty communication scenarios it is important to separate two
   different cases.  One case is where the RTP session contains multiple
   participants in a common RTP session.  This occurs for example in Any
   Source Multicast (ASM) and Transport Translator topologies as defined
   in RTP Topologies [RFC5117].  It may can also occur in some
   implementations of RTP mixers that share the same SSRC/CSRC space
   across all participants.  The second case is when the RTP session is
   terminated in a middlebox and the other participants sources are
   projected or switched into each RTP session and rewritten on RTP
   header level including SSRC mappings.

   For the first case, with a common RTP session or at least shared
   SSRC/CSRC values, all participants in multiparty communication are
   required
   REQUIRED to support multiple media types in an RTP session.  An
   participant using two or more RTP sessions towards a multiparty
   session can't be collapsed into a single session with multiple media
   types.  The reason is that in case of multiple RTP sessions, the same
   SSRC value can be use in both RTP sessions without any issues, but
   when collapsed to a single session there is an SSRC collision.  In
   addition some collisions can't be represented in the multiple
   separate RTP sessions.  For example, in a session with audio and
   video, an SSRC value used for video will not show up in the Audio RTP
   session at the participant using multiple RTP sessions, and thus not
   trigger any collision handling.  Thus any application using this type
   of RTP session structure must MUST have a homogeneous support for multiple
   media types in one RTP session, or be forced to insert a translator
   node between that participant and the rest of the RTP session.

   For the second case of separate RTP sessions for each multiparty
   participant and a central node it is possible to have a mix of single
   RTP session users and multiple RTP session users as long as one is
   willing to remap the SSRCs used by a participant with multiple RTP
   sessions into non-used values in the single RTP session SSRC space
   for each of the participants using a single RTP session with multiple
   media types.  It can be noted that this type of implementation is
   required has to
   understand any type all types of RTP/RTCP extension being used in the RTP
   sessions to correctly be able to translate them between the RTP
   sessions.  It can also negatively impact the possibility for loop
   detection, as SSRC/CSRC can't be used to detect the loops, instead
   some other media stream identity name space that is common across all
   interconnect parts are needed.

5.4.  Reduced number of Payload Types

   An RTP session with multiple media types in it have only a single
   7-bit Payload Type range for all its payload types.  Within the 128
   available values, only 96 or less if "Multiplexing RTP Data and
   Control Packets on a Single Port" [RFC5761] is used, all the
   different RTP payload configurations for all the media types must
   fit. need to
   fit in the available space.  For most applications this will not be a
   real problem, but the limitation exists and could be encountered.

5.5.  Stream Differentiation

   If network level differentiation of the media streams of different
   media types are desired using this specification can cause severe
   limitations.  All media streams in an RTP session, independent of the
   media type, will be sent over the same underlying transport flow.
   Any flow-based Quality of Service (QoS) mechanism will be unable to
   provide differentiated treatment between different media types, e.g.
   to prioritize audio over video.  If that differentiated treatment is desired,
   desired using flow-based QoS, separate RTP sessions over different
   underlying transport flows needs to be used.

   Any marking-based QoS scheme like DiffServ is not affected unless a
   network ingress marks based on flows. flows, in which case the same
   considerations as for flow based QoS applies.

5.6.  Non-compatible Extensions

   There exist some RTP and RTCP extensions that rely on the existence
   of multiple RTP sessions.  If the goal of using an RTP session with
   multiple media types is to have only a single RTP session, then these
   extensions can't be used.  If one has no need to have different RTP
   sessions for the media types but is willing to have multiple RTP
   sessions, one for the main media transmission and one for the
   extension, they can be used.  It should is to be noted that this assumes
   that it is possible to get the extension working when the related RTP
   session contains multiple media types.

   Identified RTP/RTCP extensions that require multiple RTP Sessions
   are:

   RTP Retransmission:  RTP Retransmission [RFC4588] has a session
      multiplexed mode.  It also has a SSRC multiplexed mode that can be
      used instead.  So use the mode that is suitable for the RTP
      application.

   XOR-Based FEC:  The RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
      Correction [RFC5109] and its predecessor [RFC2733] requires a
      separate RTP session unless the FEC data is carried in RTP Payload
      for Redundant Audio Data [RFC2198] which [RFC2198].  However, using the Generic
      FEC with the Redundancy payload has another set of
      restrictions. restrictions,
      see Section 7.2.

      Note that the Source-Specific Media Attributes [RFC5576]
      specification defines an SDP syntax (the "FEC" semantic of the
      "ssrc-group" attribute) to signal FEC relationships between
      multiple media streams within a single RTP session.  However, this
      can't be used as the FEC repair packets are required need to have the same SSRC
      value as the source packets being protected.  [RFC5576] does not
      normatively update and resolve that restriction.  There is ongoing
      work on an ULP extension to allow it be use FEC streams within the
      same RTP Session as the source stream
      [I-D.lennox-payload-ulp-ssrc-mux].

6.  RTP Session Specification

   This section defines what needs to be done or avoided to make an RTP
   session with multiple media types function without issues.

6.1.  RTP Session

   Section 5.2 of "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"
   [RFC3550] states:

      For example, in a teleconference composed of audio and video media
      encoded separately, each medium SHOULD be carried in a separate
      RTP session with its own destination transport address.

      Separate audio and video streams SHOULD NOT be carried in a single
      RTP session and demultiplexed based on the payload type or SSRC
      fields.

   This specification changes both of these sentences.  The first
   sentence is changed to:

      For example, in a teleconference composed of audio and video media
      encoded separately, each medium SHOULD be carried in a separate
      RTP session with its own destination transport address, unless
      specification [RFCXXXX] is followed and the application meets the
      applicability constraints.

   The second sentence is changed to:

      Separate audio and video streams SHOULD NOT be carried in a single
      RTP session and demultiplexed based on the payload type or SSRC
      fields, unless multiplexed based on both SSRC and payload type and
      usage meets what Multiple Media Types in an RTP Session [RFCXXXX]
      specifies.

   Second paragraph of Section 6 in RTP Profile for Audio and Video
   Conferences with Minimal Control [RFC3551] says:

      The payload types currently defined in this profile are assigned
      to exactly one of three categories or media types: audio only,
      video only and those combining audio and video.  The media types
      are marked in Tables 4 and 5 as "A", "V" and "AV", respectively.
      Payload types of different media types SHALL NOT be interleaved or
      multiplexed within a single RTP session, but multiple RTP sessions
      MAY be used in parallel to send multiple media types.  An RTP
      source MAY change payload types within the same media type during
      a session.  See the section "Multiplexing RTP Sessions" of RFC
      3550 for additional explanation.

   This specifications purpose is to violate that existing SHALL NOT
   under certain conditions.  Thus also this sentence must has to be changed
   to allow for multiple media type's payload types in the same session.
   The above sentence is changed to:

      Payload types of different media types SHALL NOT be interleaved or
      multiplexed within a single RTP session unless as specifified specified and
      under the restriction in Multiple Media Types in an RTP Session
      [RFCXXXX].  Multiple RTP sessions MAY be used in parallel to send
      multiple media types.

   RFC-Editor Note: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
   specification when assigned.

   We can now go on and discuss the five bullets that are motivating the
   previous in Section 5.2 of the RTP Specification [RFC3550].  They are
   repeated here for the reader's convenience:

   1.  If, say, two audio streams shared the same RTP session and the
       same SSRC value, and one were to change encodings and thus
       acquire a different RTP payload type, there would be no general
       way of identifying which stream had changed encodings.

   2.  An SSRC is defined to identify a single timing and sequence
       number space.  Interleaving multiple payload types would require
       different timing spaces if the media clock rates differ and would
       require different sequence number spaces to tell which payload
       type suffered packet loss.

   3.  The RTCP sender and receiver reports (see Section 6.4 of RFC
       3550) can only describe one timing and sequence number space per
       SSRC and do not carry a payload type field.

   4.  An RTP mixer would not be able to combine interleaved streams of
       incompatible media into one stream.

   5.  Carrying multiple media in one RTP session precludes: the use of
       different network paths or network resource allocations if
       appropriate; reception of a subset of the media if desired, for
       example just audio if video would exceed the available bandwidth;
       and receiver implementations that use separate processes for the
       different media, whereas using separate RTP sessions permits
       either single- or multiple-process implementations.

   Bullets 1 to 3 are all related to that each media source must has to use
   one or more unique SSRCs to avoid these issues as mandated below
   (Section 6.2).  Bullet 4 can be served by two arguments, first of all
   each SSRC will commonly be associated with a native specific media type, communicated
   through the RTP payload type, allowing a middlebox to do media type
   specific operations.  The second argument is that in many contexts
   blind combining without additional contexts are anyway not suitable.
   Regarding bullet 5 this is a understood and explicitly stated
   applicability limitations for the method described in this document.

6.2.  Sender Source Restrictions

   A SSRC in the RTP session MUST only send one media type (audio,
   video, text etc.) during the SSRC's lifetime.  The main motivation is
   that a given SSRC has its own RTP timestamp and sequence number
   spaces.  The same way that you can't send two streams of encoded
   audio on the same SSRC, you can't send one audio and one video
   encoding on the same SSRC.  Each media encoding when made into an RTP
   stream needs to have the sole control over the sequence number and
   timestamp space.  If not, one would not be able to detect packet loss
   for that particular stream.  Nor can one easily determine which clock
   rate a particular SSRCs timestamp shall will increase with.  For additional
   arguments why RTP payload type based multiplexing of multiple media
   streams doesn't work see Appendix A in
   [I-D.westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture].

6.3.  Payload Type Applicability

   Most Payload Types have a native media type, like an audio codec is
   natural belonging to the audio media type.  However, there exist a
   number of RTP payload types that don't have a native media type.  For
   example, transport robustification robustness mechanisms like RTP Retransmission
   [RFC4588] and Generic FEC [RFC5109] inherit their media type from
   what they protect.  RTP Retransmission is explicitly bound to the
   payload type it is protecting, and thus will inherit it.  However
   Generic FEC is a excellent example of an RTP payload type that has no
   natural media type.  The media type for what it protects is not
   relevant as it is the recovered RTP packets that have a particular
   media type, and thus Generic FEC is best categorized as an
   application media type.

   The above discussion is relevant to what limitations exist for RTP
   payload type usage within an RTP session that has multiple media
   types.  In fact this document (Section 7.2) suggest that for usage of
   Generic FEC (XOR-based) as defined in RFC 5109 can actually use a
   single media type when used with independent RTP sessions for source
   and repair data.

      Note a particular SSRC carrying Generic FEC will clearly only
      protect a specific SSRC and thus that instance is bound to the
      SSRC's media type.  For this specific case, it is possible to have
      one be applicable to both.  However, in cases when the signalling
      is setup to enable fallback fall back to using separate RTP sessions, then
      using a different media type, e.g. application, than the media
      being protected can create issues.

6.4.  RTCP

   An RTP session has a single set of parameters that configure the
   session bandwidth, the RTCP sender and receiver fractions (e.g., via
   the SDP "b=RR:" and "b=RS: lines), and the parameters of the RTP/AVPF
   profile [RFC4585] (e.g., trr-int) if that profile (or its secure
   extension, RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]) is used.  As a consequence, the RTCP
   reporting interval will be the same for every SSRC in an RTP session.
   This uniform RTCP reporting interval can result in RTCP reports being
   sent more often than is considered desirable for a particular media
   type.  For example, if an audio flow is multiplexed with a high
   quality video flow where the session bandwidth is configured to match
   the video bandwidth, this can result in the RTCP packets having a
   greater bandwidth allocation than the audio data rate.  If the
   reduced minimum RTCP interval described in Section 6.2 of [RFC3550]
   is used in the session, which might be appropriate for video where
   rapid feedback is wanted, the audio sources could be required expected to send
   RTCP packets more often than they send audio data packets.  This is
   clearly
   most likely undesirable, and while the mismatch can be reduced
   through careful tuning of the RTCP parameters, particularly trr_int
   in RTP/
   AVPF RTP/AVPF sessions, it is inherent in the design of the RTCP timing
   rules, and affects all RTP sessions containing flows with mismatched
   bandwidth.

      (tbd: A future version of this draft needs to provide details of
      the extent of this problem, recommendations for how to tune the
      RTCP bandwidth fraction and trr_int, and when the mismatch is so
      great that it's better to use separate RTP sessions.  The
      recommendations will likely be different for RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF
      sessions, since trr_int offers a potential solution that is not
      suitable in legacy session.)

   Having multiple media types in one RTP session also results in more
   SSRCs being present in this RTP session.  This increasing the amount
   of cross reporting between the SSRCs.  From an RTCP perspective, two
   RTP sessions with half the number of SSRCs in each will be slightly
   more efficient.  If someone needs either the higher efficiency due to
   the lesser number of SSRCs or the fact that one can't tailor RTCP
   usage per media type, they need to use independent RTP sessions.

   When it comes to handling multiple SSRCs in an RTP session there is a
   clarification under discussion in Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   Considerations for Multi-Stream Endpoints
   [I-D.lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream].  When it comes to configuring
   RTCP the need for regular periodic reporting needs to be weighted
   against any feedback or control messages being sent.  The
   applications using AVPF RTP/AVPF or SAVPF RTP/SAVPF are RECOMMENDED to consider
   setting trr-int parameter to a value suitable for the applications
   needs, thus potentially reducing the need for regular reporting and
   thus releasing more bandwidth for use for feedback or control.

   Another aspect of an RTP session with multiple media types is that that
   the used RTCP packets, RTCP Feedback Messages, or RTCP XR metrics
   used might not be applicable to all media types.  Instead all RTP/
   RTCP endpoints need to correlate the media type of the SSRC being
   referenced in an messages/packet and only use those that apply to
   that particular SSRC and its media type.  Signalling solutions might
   have shortcomings when it comes to indicate that a particular set of
   RTCP reports or feedback messages only apply to a particular media
   type within an RTP session.

6.4.1.  Timing out SSRCs

   All used SSRCs in the RTP session MUST use the same timeout behaviour
   to avoid premature timeouts.  This will depend on the RTP profile and
   its configuration.  The RTP specification provides several options
   that can influence the values used when calculating the time-
   interval, to avoid such issues when using this specification we make
   clarification on the calculations.

   For RTP/AVP, RTP/SAVP, RTP/AVPF, and RTP/SAVPF with T_rr_interval = 0
   the timeout interval SHALL be calculated using a multiplier of 5,
   i.e. the timeout interval becomes 5*Td.  The Td calculation SHALL be
   done using a Tmin value of 5 seconds, not the reduced minimal
   interval even if used to calculate RTCP packet transmission
   intervals.  If using either the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profiles with
   T_rr_interval != 0 then the calculation as specified in Section 3.5.4
   of RFC 4585 SHALL be used with a multiplier of 5, i.e.  Tmin in the
   Td calculation is the T_rr_interval.

   Note: If endpoints implementing the RTP/AVP and RTP/AVPF profiles (or
   their secure variants) are combined in a single RTP session, and the
   RTP/AVPF endpoints use a non-zero T_rr_interval that is significantly
   lower than 5 seconds, then there is a risk that the RTP/AVP endpoints
   will prematurely timeout the RTP/AVPF endpoints due to their
   different RTCP timeout intervals.  Since an RTP session can only use
   a single RTP profile, this issue ought never occur.  If such mixed
   RTP profiles are used, however, the RTP/AVPF session MUST NOT use a
   non-zero T_rr_interval that is smaller than 5 seconds.

   (tbd: it has been suggested that a minimum non-zero T_rr_interval of
   4 seconds is more appropriate, due to the nature of the timing
   rules).

6.4.2.  Tuning RTCP transmissions

   This sub-section discusses what tuning can be done to reduce
   downsides of the shared RTCP packet intervals.

   When using the RTP/AVP or RTP/SAVP profile the tuning one can do is
   very limited.  The controls one has are very limited to the RTCP
   bandwidth values and if one scales the minimum RTCP interval
   according to the bandwidth.  As the scheduling algorithm includes
   both random factors and reconsideration, one can't simply calculate
   the expected average transmission interval using formula for Td.  But
   it does indicate the important factors affecting the transmission
   interval, namely the RTCP bandwidth available for the role (Active
   Sender or Participant), the average RTCP packet size and the number
   of SSRCs classified in the relevant role.  Note, that if the ratio of
   senders to total number of session participants are larger than the
   ratio of RTCP bandwidth for senders in relation to the total RTCP
   bandwidth, then senders and receivers are treated together.

   Lets start with some basic observations:

   a.  Unless scaled minimum RTCP interval is used, then Td prior to
       randomization and reconsideration can never be less than 5
       seconds (assuming default Tmin of 5 seconds).

   b.  If scaled minimum RTCP interval is used Td can become as low as
       360 divided by RTP Session bandwidth in kilobits.  In SDP the RTP
       session bandwidth is signalled using b=AS.  A RTP Session
       bandwidth of 72 kbps results in Tmin being 5 seconds.  A RTP
       session bandwidth of 360 kbps of course gives a Tmin of 1 second,
       and to achieve a Tmin equal to once every frame for a 25 Hz video
       stream requires an RTP session bandwidth of 9 Mbps!  (The use of
       the RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF profile allows smaller Tmin, and hence
       more frequent RTCP report, as discussed below).

   c.  Lets calculate the number (n) of SSRCs in the RTP session that 5%
       of the session bandwidth can support to yield a Td value equal to
       Tmin with minimal scaling.  For this calculation we have to make
       two assumptions.  The first is that we will consider most or all
       SSRC being senders resulting in everyone sharing the available
       bandwidth.  Secondly we will select an average RTCP packet size.
       This packet will consist of an SR, containing (n-1) report blocks
       up to 31 report blocks, a SDES item with at least a CNAME (17
       bytes value) in it.  Such a basic packet will be 800 bytes for
       n>=32.  With these parameters, and as the bandwidth goes up the
       time interval is proportionally decreased (due to minimal
       scaling), thus all the example bandwidths 72 kbps, 360 kbps and 9
       Mbps all support 9 SSRCs.

   d.  The actual transmission interval for a Td value is [0.5*Td/
       1.21828,1.5*Td/1.21828], which means that for Td = 5 seconds, the
       interval is actually [2.052,6.156] and the distribution is not
       uniform, it is an exponential increasing one.  The probability
       for sending at time X, given it is within the interval, is
       probability of picking X in the interval times the probability to
       randomly picking a number that is <=X within the interval with an
       uniform probability distribution.  This results in that the
       majority of the probability mass is above the Td value.

   To conclude, with RTP/AVP and RTP/SAVP the key limitation for small
   unicast sessions are going to be the Tmin value.  Thus the RTP
   session bandwidth configured in RTCP has to be sufficient high to
   reach the reporting goals the application has following the rules for
   scaled minimal RTCP interval.

   When using RTP/AVPF or RTP/SAVPF we get a quite powerful additional
   tool, the setting of the T_rr_interval which has several effects on
   the RTCP reporting.  First of all as Tmin is set to 0 after the
   initial transmission and regular reporting interval is instead
   affected of the regular bandwidth based calculation and the
   T_rr_interval.  This has the affect that we are no longer restricted
   by the minimal interval or even the scaling rule for the minimal
   rule.  Instead the RTCP bandwidth and the T_rr_interval is the
   governing factors.  Now it also becomes important to separate between
   the applications need for regular reports and RTCP feedback packet
   types.  In both regular RTCP mode, as in Early RTCP Mode, the usage
   of the T_rr_Interval prevents regular RTCP packets, i.e. packets
   without any Feedback packets to be sent more often than
   T_rr_interval.  This value is a hard as no regular RTCP packet can be
   sent less than T_rr_interval after the previous regular packet
   packet.

   So for applications that has a use for feedback packets for some
   media streams, for example video packets but don't want to frequent
   regular reporting for audio could configure the T_rr_interval to a
   value so that the regular reporting for both audio and video is at a
   level that is considered acceptable for the audio.  Then use feedback
   packets, which will include RTCP SR/RR packets, unless reduced-size
   RTCP feedback packets [RFC5506] are used, and can include other
   report information in addition to the feedback packet that needs to
   be sent.  That way the available RTCP bandwidth can be focused for
   use, which provides the most utility for the application.

   Using T_rr_interval still requires one to determine suitable values
   for the RTCP bandwidth value, in fact it might make it even more
   important, as one is more likely to affect the RTCP behaviour and
   performance, than when using RTP/AVP, as their is fewer limitations
   affecting the used RTCP packets, RTCP Feedback Messages, or RTCP XR metrics
   used may not transmission.

   When using T_rr_interval, i.e. having it be applicable to all media types.  Instead all RTP/RTCP
   endpoints need non zero, there are
   configurations that have to correlate be avoided.  If the media type of resulting Td value is
   smaller but close to T_rr_interval then the SSRC being
   referenced interval in an messages/packet and only use those that apply which the
   actual regular RTCP packet transmission falls into becomes very
   large, from 0.5 times T_rr_interval up to 2.73 times the
   T_rr_interval.  Therefore for configuration where one intends to
   that particular SSRC and its media type.  Signalling solutions may have shortcomings when it comes
   Td smaller than T_rr_interval, then Td is RECOMMENDED to indicate be targeted
   at values less than 1/4th of T_rr_interval which results in that a particular set the
   range becomes [0.5*T_rr_interval, 1.81*T_rr_interval].

   With RTP/AVPF using T_rr_interval of
   RTCP reports 0 or feedback messages only apply with another low value,
   which will be significantly lower than Td still has its utility and
   different behaviour compared to RTP/AVP.  This avoids the Tmin
   limitations of RTP/AVP, thus allowing more frequent regular RTCP
   reporting.  In fact this will result that the RTCP traffic becomes as
   high as the configured values.

   (tbd: a particular future version of this memo will include examples of how to
   choose RTCP parameters for common scenarios)

   There exist no method within the specification for using different
   regular RTCP reporting interval depending on media type within an RTP session. or individual
   media stream.

7.  Extension Considerations

   This section discusses the impact on some RTP/RTCP extensions due to
   usage of multiple media types in on RTP session.  Only extensions
   where something worth noting has been included.

7.1.  RTP Retransmission

   SSRC-multiplexed RTP retransmission [RFC4588] is actually very
   straightforward.  Each retransmission RTP payload type is explicitly
   connected to an associated payload type.  If retransmission is only
   to be used with a subset of all payload types, this is not a problem,
   as it will be evident from the retransmission payload types which
   payload types that have retransmission enabled for them.

   Session-multiplexed RTP retransmission is also possible to use where
   an retransmission session contains the retransmissions of the
   associated payload types in the source RTP session.  The only
   difference to previously is that the source RTP session is one which
   contains multiple media types.  Thus it is even more likely that only
   a subset of the source RTP session's payload types and SSRCs are
   actually retransmitted.

   Open Issue: When using SDP to signal retransmission for one RTP
   session with multiple media types and one RTP session for the
   retransmission data will cause a situation where one will have
   multiple m= lines grouped using FID and the ones belonging to
   respective RTP session being grouped using BUNDLE.  This usage may might
   contradict both the FID semantics [RFC5888] and an assumption in the
   RTP retransmission specification [RFC4588].

7.2.  Generic FEC

   The RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction
   [RFC5109], and also its predecessor [RFC2733], requires some
   considerations, and they are different depending on what type of
   configuration of usage one has.

   Independent RTP Sessions, i.e. where source and repair data are sent
   in different RTP sessions.  As this mode of configuration requires
   different RTP session, there must has to be at least one RTP session for
   source data, this session can be one using multiple media types.  The
   repair session only needs one RTP Payload type indicating repair
   data, i.e. x/ulpfec or x/parityfec depending if RFC 5109 or RFC 2733
   is used.  The media type in this session is not relevant and can in
   theory be any of the defined ones.  It is recommended RECOMMENDED that one uses
   "Application".

   In stream, using RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data [RFC2198]
   combining repair and source data in the same packets.  This is
   possible to use within a single RTP session.  However, the usage and
   configuration of the payload types can create an issue.  First of all
   it might be required necessary to have one payload type per media type for the
   FEC repair data payload format, i.e. one for audio/ulpfec and one for
   text/ulpfec if audio and text are combined in an RTP session.
   Secondly each combination of source payload and its FEC repair data
   must
   has to be an explicit configured payload type.  This has potential
   for making the limitation of RTP payload types available into a real
   issue.

8.  Signalling

   The Signalling requirements

   Establishing an RTP session with multiple media types requires
   signalling.  This signalling needs to fulfill fulfil the following
   requirements:

   1.  Ensure that any participant in the RTP session is aware that this
       is an RTP session with multiple media types.

   2.  Ensure that the payload types in use in the RTP session are using
       unique values, with no overlap between the media types.

   3.  Configure the RTP session level parameters, such as RTCP RR and
       RS bandwidth, AVPF trr-int, underlying transport, the RTCP
       extensions in use, and security parameters, commonly for the RTP
       session.

   4.  RTP and RTCP functions that can be bound to a particular media
       type should SHOULD be reused when possible also for other media types,
       instead of having to be configured for multiple code-points.
       Note: In some cases one will not have a choice but to use
       multiple configurations.

8.1.  SDP-Based Signalling

   The signalling of multiple media types in one RTP session in SDP is
   specified in "Multiplexing Negotiation Using Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) Port Numbers"
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation].

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may is to be removed on publication as
   an RFC.

10.  Security Considerations

   Having an RTP session with multiple media types doesn't change the
   methods for securing a particular RTP session.  One possible
   difference is that the different media have often had different
   security requirements.  When combining multiple media types in one
   session, their security requirements must also have to be combined by
   selecting the most demanding for each property.  Thus having multiple
   media types may can result in increased overhead for security for some
   media types to ensure that all requirements are meet.

   Otherwise, the recommendations for how to configure and RTP session
   do not add any additional requirements compared to normal RTP, except
   for the need to be able to ensure that the participants are aware
   that it is a multiple media type session.  If not that is ensured it
   can cause issues in the RTP session for both the unaware and the
   aware one.  Similar issues can also be produced in an normal RTP
   session by creating configurations for different end-points that
   doesn't match each other.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg Holmberg, Gunnar Hellstroem,
   and Charles Eckel for the feedback on the document.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
              Holmberg, C. and H. C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Multiplexing Negotiation Using Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Port Numbers",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-01
              draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-03 (work in
              progress), August 2012. February 2013.

   [I-D.lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream]
              Lennox, J. and M. Westerlund, "Real-Time Transport
              Protocol (RTP) Considerations for Endpoints Sending
              Multiple Media Streams",
              draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-00
              draft-lennox-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-01 (work in
              progress), July October 2012.

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

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.lennox-payload-ulp-ssrc-mux]
              Lennox, J., "Supporting Source-Multiplexing of the Real-
              Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Generic Forward
              Error Correction", draft-lennox-payload-ulp-ssrc-mux-00
              (work in progress), February 2013.

   [I-D.westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture]
              Westerlund, M., Burman, B., Perkins, C., and H.
              Alvestrand, "Guidelines for using the Multiplexing
              Features of RTP",
              draft-westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture-02 (work
              in progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing]
              Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Multiple RTP Sessions on a
              Single Lower-Layer Transport",
              draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing-03
              draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing-04 (work
              in progress), July October 2012.

   [RFC2198]  Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
              Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
              Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2733]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format
              for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733,
              December 1999.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [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,
              July 2006.

   [RFC4588]  Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
              Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
              July 2006.

   [RFC5109]  Li, A., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
              Correction", RFC 5109, December 2007.

   [RFC5117]  Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 5117,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5124]  Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
              Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
              (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.

   [RFC5506]  Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
              Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
              and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.

   [RFC5576]  Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
              Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
              (SDP)", RFC 5576, June 2009.

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, April 2010.

   [RFC5888]  Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888, June 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Farogatan 6
   SE-164 80 Kista
   Sweden

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

   Colin Perkins
   University of Glasgow
   School of Computing Science
   Glasgow  G12 8QQ
   United Kingdom

   Email: csp@csperkins.org

   Jonathan Lennox
   Vidyo, Inc.
   433 Hackensack Avenue
   Seventh Floor
   Hackensack, NJ  07601
   US

   Email: jonathan@vidyo.com