|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8627
Last modified on Friday, July 19th, 2019
 Permanent link to RFC 8627
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8627
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8627
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Zanaty
Request for Comments: 8627 Cisco
Category: Standards Track V. Singh
ISSN: 2070-1721 callstats.io
A. Begen
Networked Media
G. Mandyam
Qualcomm Inc.
July 2019
RTP Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction (FEC)
 Abstract
This document defines new RTP payload formats for the Forward Error
Correction (FEC) packets that are generated by the non-interleaved
and interleaved parity codes from source media encapsulated in RTP.
These parity codes are systematic codes (Flexible FEC, or "FLEX
FEC"), where a number of FEC repair packets are generated from a set
of source packets from one or more source RTP streams. These FEC
repair packets are sent in a redundancy RTP stream separate from the
source RTP stream(s) that carries the source packets. RTP source
packets that were lost in transmission can be reconstructed using the
source and repair packets that were received. The non-interleaved
and interleaved parity codes that are defined in this specification
offer a good protection against random and bursty packet losses,
respectively, at a cost of complexity. The RTP payload formats that
are defined in this document address scalability issues experienced
with the earlier specifications and offer several improvements. Due
to these changes, the new payload formats are not backward compatible
with earlier specifications; however, endpoints that do not implement
this specification can still work by simply ignoring the FEC repair
packets.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8627.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Parity Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. One-Dimensional (1-D) Non-interleaved (Row) FEC
Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.2. 1-D Interleaved (Column) FEC Protection . . . . . . . 6
1.1.3. Use Cases for 1-D FEC Protection . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.4. Two-Dimensional (2-D) (Row and Column) FEC Protection 8
1.1.5. FEC Protection with Flexible Mask . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1.6. FEC Overhead Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1.7. FEC Protection with Retransmission . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1.8. Repair Window Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Definitions and Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Source Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. FEC Repair Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. RTP Header of FEC Repair Packets . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. FEC Header of FEC Repair Packets . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Media Type Registration -- Parity Codes . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.1. Registration of audio/flexfec . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.2. Registration of video/flexfec . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.3. Registration of text/flexfec . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.4. Registration of application/flexfec . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.1. Offer/Answer Model Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.2. Declarative Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
6. Protection and Recovery Procedures -- Parity Codes . . . . . 26
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. Repair Packet Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3. Source Packet Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.1. Associating the Source and Repair Packets . . . . . . 28
6.3.2. Recovering the RTP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.3. Recovering the RTP Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3.4. Iterative Decoding Algorithm for the 2-D Parity FEC
Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Signaling Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1. SDP Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1.1. Example SDP for Flexible FEC Protection with In-Band
SSRC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1.2. Example SDP for Flexible FEC Protection with Explicit
Signaling in the SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2. On the Use of the RTP Stream Identifier Source
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Introduction
This document defines new RTP payload formats for the Forward Error
Correction (FEC) that is generated by the non-interleaved and
interleaved parity codes from a source media encapsulated in RTP
[RFC 3550]. The type of the source media protected by these parity
codes can be audio, video, text, or application. The FEC data are
generated according to the media type parameters, which are
communicated out of band (e.g., in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)). Furthermore, the associations or relationships between the
source and repair RTP streams may be communicated in or out of band.
The in-band mechanism is advantageous when the endpoint is adapting
the FEC parameters. The out-of-band mechanism may be preferable when
the FEC parameters are fixed. While this document fully defines the
use of FEC to protect RTP streams, it also leverages several
definitions along with the basic source/repair header description
from [RFC 6363] in their application to the parity codes defined here.
The Redundancy RTP Stream [RFC 7656] repair packets proposed in this
document protect the Source RTP Stream packets that belong to the
same RTP session.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
The RTP payload formats that are defined in this document address the
scalability issues experienced with the formats defined in earlier
specifications including [RFC 2733], [RFC 5109], and [SMPTE2022-1].
1.1. Parity Codes
Both the non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes use the
eXclusive OR (XOR) operation to generate the repair packets. The
following steps take place:
1. The sender determines a set of source packets to be protected by
FEC based on the media type parameters.
2. The sender applies the XOR operation on the source packets to
generate the required number of repair packets.
3. The sender sends the repair packet(s) along with the source
packets, in different RTP streams, to the receiver(s). The
repair packets may be sent proactively or on demand based on RTCP
feedback messages such as NACK [RFC 4585].
At the receiver side, if all of the source packets are successfully
received, there is no need for FEC recovery and the repair packets
are discarded. However, if there are missing source packets, the
repair packets can be used to recover the missing information.
Figures 1 and 2 describe example block diagrams for the systematic
parity FEC encoder and decoder, respectively.
+------------+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Encoder |
| (Sender) | --> +==+ +==+
+------------+ +==+ +==+
Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+
+--+ +==+
Figure 1: Block Diagram for Systematic Parity FEC Encoder
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+------------+
+--+ X X +--+ --> | Systematic | --> +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
+--+ +--+ | Parity FEC | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Decoder |
+==+ +==+ --> | (Receiver) |
+==+ +==+ +------------+
Source Packet: +--+ Repair Packet: +==+ Lost Packet: X
+--+ +==+
Figure 2: Block Diagram for Systematic Parity FEC Decoder
In Figure 2, it is clear that the FEC repair packets have to be
received by the endpoint within a certain amount of time for the FEC
recovery process to be useful. The repair window is defined as the
time that spans a FEC block, which consists of the source packets and
the corresponding repair packets. At the receiver side, the FEC
decoder SHOULD buffer source and repair packets at least for the
duration of the repair window to allow all the repair packets to
arrive. The FEC decoder can start decoding the already-received
packets sooner; however, it should not register a FEC decoding
failure until it waits at least for the duration of the repair
window.
1.1.1. One-Dimensional (1-D) Non-interleaved (Row) FEC Protection
Consider a group of D x L source packets that have Sequence Numbers
starting from 1 running to D x L (where D and L are as defined in
Section 3.2) and a repair packet is generated by applying the XOR
operation to every L consecutive packets as sketched in Figure 3.
This process is referred to as "1-D non-interleaved FEC protection".
As a result of this process, D repair packets are generated, which
are referred to as non-interleaved (or row) FEC repair packets. In
general, D and L represent values that describe how packets are
grouped together from a depth and length perspective (respectively)
when interleaving all D x L source packets.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_1 S_2 S3 ... S_L | + |XOR| = |R_1|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_L+1 S_L+2 S_L+3 ... S_2xL | + |XOR| = |R_2|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
| S_(D-1)xL+1 S_(D-1)xL+2 S_(D-1)xL+3 ... S_DxL | + |XOR| = |R_D|
+--------------------------------------------------+ --- +===+
Figure 3: Generating Non-interleaved (Row) FEC Repair Packets
1.1.2. 1-D Interleaved (Column) FEC Protection
Consider the case where the XOR operation is applied to the group of
the source packets whose Sequence Numbers are L apart from each
other, as sketched in Figure 4. In this case, the endpoint generates
L repair packets. This process is referred to as "1-D interleaved
FEC protection", and the resulting L repair packets are referred to
as "interleaved (or column) FEC repair packets".
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------+
| S_1 | | S_2 | | S3 | ... | S_L |
| S_L+1 | | S_L+2 | | S_L+3 | ... | S_2xL |
| . | | . | | | | |
| . | | . | | | | |
| . | | . | | | | |
| S_(D-1)xL+1 | | S_(D-1)xL+2 | | S_(D-1)xL+3 | ... | S_DxL |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------+
+ + + +
------------- ------------- ------------- -------
| XOR | | XOR | | XOR | ... | XOR |
------------- ------------- ------------- -------
= = = =
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| ... |C_L|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 4: Generating Interleaved (Column) FEC Repair Packets
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
1.1.3. Use Cases for 1-D FEC Protection
A sender may generate one non-interleaved repair packet out of L
consecutive source packets or one interleaved repair packet out of D
nonconsecutive source packets. Regardless of whether the repair
packet is a non-interleaved or an interleaved one, it can provide a
full recovery of the missing information if there is only one packet
missing among the corresponding source packets. This implies that
1-D non-interleaved FEC protection performs better when the source
packets are randomly lost. However, if the packet losses occur in
bursts, 1-D interleaved FEC protection performs better provided that
L is chosen to be large enough, i.e., L-packet duration is not
shorter than the observed burst duration. If the sender generates
non-interleaved FEC repair packets and a burst loss hits the source
packets, the repair operation fails. This is illustrated in
Figure 5.
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X X | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
Figure 5: Example Scenario:
1-D Non-interleaved FEC Protection Fails Error Recovery (Burst Loss)
The sender may generate interleaved FEC repair packets to combat the
bursty packet losses. However, two or more random packet losses may
hit the source and repair packets in the same column. In that case,
the repair operation fails as well. This is illustrated in Figure 6.
Note that it is possible that two burst losses occur back-to-back, in
which case, interleaved FEC repair packets may still fail to recover
the lost data.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 1 | X | 3 | | 4 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 5 | X | 7 | | 8 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 6: Example Scenario:
1-D Interleaved FEC Protection Fails Error Recovery (Periodic Loss)
1.1.4. Two-Dimensional (2-D) (Row and Column) FEC Protection
In networks where the source packets are lost both randomly and in
bursts, the sender ought to generate both non-interleaved and
interleaved FEC repair packets. This type of FEC protection is known
as "2-D parity FEC protection". At the expense of generating more
FEC repair packets, thus increasing the FEC overhead, 2-D FEC
provides superior protection against mixed loss patterns. However,
it is still possible for 2-D parity FEC protection to fail to recover
all of the lost source packets if a particular loss pattern occurs.
An example scenario is illustrated in Figure 7.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X X | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X X | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 7: Example Scenario #1:
2-D Parity FEC Protection Fails Error Recovery
2-D parity FEC protection also fails when at least two rows are
missing a source and the FEC packet and the missing source packets
(in at least two rows) are aligned in the same column. An example
loss pattern is sketched in Figure 8. Similarly, 2-D parity FEC
protection cannot repair all missing source packets when at least two
columns are missing a source and the FEC packet and the missing
source packets (in at least two columns) are aligned in the same row.
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 1 | | 2 | X | 4 | X
+---+ +---+ +---+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+
| 9 | | 10| X | 12| X
+---+ +---+ +---+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 8: Example Scenario #2:
2-D Parity FEC Protection Fails Error Recovery
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
1.1.5. FEC Protection with Flexible Mask
It is possible to define FEC protection for selected packets in the
source stream. This would enable differential protection, i.e.,
application of FEC selectively to packets that require a higher level
of reliability than the other packets in the source stream. The
sender will be required to send a bitmap indicating the packets to be
protected, i.e., a "mask", to the receiver. Since the mask can be
modified during an RTP session ("flexible mask"), this kind of FEC
protection can also be used to implement FEC dynamically (e.g., for
adaptation to different types of traffic during the RTP session).
1.1.6. FEC Overhead Considerations
The overhead is defined as the ratio of the number of bytes belonging
to the repair packets to the number of bytes belonging to the
protected source packets.
Generally, repair packets are larger in size than the source packets.
Also, not all the source packets are necessarily equal in size.
However, assuming that each repair packet carries an equal number of
bytes as carried by a source packet, the overhead for different FEC
protection methods can be computed as follows:
1-D Non-interleaved FEC Protection: Overhead = 1/L
1-D Interleaved FEC Protection: Overhead = 1/D
2-D Parity FEC Protection: Overhead = 1/L + 1/D
where L and D are the number of columns and rows in the source block,
respectively.
1.1.7. FEC Protection with Retransmission
This specification supports both forward error correction, i.e.,
before any loss is reported, as well as retransmission of source
packets after the loss is reported. The retransmission includes the
RTP header of the source packet in addition to the payload. If a
peer supporting both FLEX FEC and other RTP retransmission methods
(see [RFC 4588]) receives an Offer including both FLEX FEC and another
RTP retransmission method, it MUST respond with an Answer containing
only FLEX FEC.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
1.1.8. Repair Window Considerations
The value for the repair window duration is related to the maximum L
and D values that are expected during a FLEX FEC session; therefore,
it cannot be chosen arbitrarily. Repair packets that include L and D
values larger than the repair window MUST NOT be sent. The rate of
the source streams should also be considered, as the repair window
duration should ideally span several packetization intervals in order
to leverage the error correction capabilities of the parity code.
Because the FEC configuration can change with each repair packet (see
Section 4.2.2), for any given repair packet, the FLEX FEC receiver
MUST support all possible L and D combinations (both 1-D and 2-D
interleaved over all source flows) and all flexible mask
configurations (over all source flows) within the repair window to
which it has agreed (e.g., through SDP or out-of-band signaling) for
a FLEX FEC RTP session. In addition, the FLEX FEC receiver MUST
support receipt of a retransmission of any source flow packet within
the repair window to which it has agreed.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Definitions and Notations
3.1. Definitions
This document uses a number of definitions from [RFC 6363].
Additionally, it defines the following and/or updates their
definitions from [RFC 6363].
1-D Non-interleaved Row FEC: A protection scheme that operates on
consecutive source packets in the source block, able to recover a
single lost source packet per row of the source block.
1-D Interleaved Column FEC: A protection scheme that operates on
interleaved source packets in the source block, able to recover a
single lost source packet per column of the source block.
2-D FEC: A protection scheme that combines row and column FEC.
Source Block: A set of source packets that are protected by a set of
1-D or 2-D FEC repair packets.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
FEC Block: A source block and its corresponding FEC repair packets.
Repair Window: The time that spans a FEC block, which consists of
the source packets and the corresponding FEC repair packets.
XOR Parity Codes: A FEC code that uses the eXclusive OR (XOR) parity
operation to encode a set of source packets to form a FEC repair
packet.
3.2. Notations
L: Number of columns of the source block (length of each row).
D: Number of rows of the source block (depth of each column).
bitmask: A 15-bit, 46-bit, or 110-bit mask indicating which source
packets are protected by a FEC repair packet. If the bit i in the
mask is set to 1, the source packet number N + i is protected by
this FEC repair packet, where N is the Sequence Number base
indicated in the FEC repair packet. The most significant bit of
the mask corresponds to i=0. The least significant bit of the
mask corresponds to i=14 in the 15-bit mask, i=45 in the 46-bit
mask, or i=109 in the 110-bit mask.
4. Packet Formats
This section describes the formats of the source packets and defines
the formats of the FEC repair packets.
4.1. Source Packets
The source packets contain the information that identifies the source
block and the position within the source block occupied by the
packet. Since the source packets that are carried within an RTP
stream already contain unique Sequence Numbers in their RTP headers
[RFC 3550], the source packets can be identified in a straightforward
manner and there is no need to append any additional fields. The
primary advantage of not modifying the source packets in any way is
that it provides backward compatibility for the receivers that do not
support FEC at all. In multicast scenarios, this backward
compatibility becomes quite useful as it allows the non-FEC-capable
and FEC-capable receivers to receive and interpret the same source
packets sent in the same multicast session.
The source packets are transmitted as usual without altering them.
They are used along with the FEC repair packets to recover any
missing source packets, making this scheme a systematic code.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
The source packets are full RTP packets with optional contributing
source (CSRC) list, RTP header extension, and padding. If any of
these optional elements are present in the source RTP packet, and
that source packet is lost, they are recovered by the FEC repair
operation, which recovers the full source RTP packet including these
optional elements.
4.2. FEC Repair Packets
The FEC repair packets will contain information that identifies the
source block they pertain to and the relationship between the
contained repair packets and the original source block. For this
purpose, the RTP header of the repair packets is used, as well as
another header within the RTP payload, called the "FEC header", as
shown in Figure 9.
Note that all the source stream packets that are protected by a
particular FEC packet need to be in the same RTP session.
+------------------------------+
| IP Header |
+------------------------------+
| Transport Header |
+------------------------------+
| RTP Header |
+------------------------------+ ---+
| FEC Header | |
+------------------------------+ | RTP Payload
| Repair Payload | |
+------------------------------+ ---+
Figure 9: Format of FEC Repair Packets
The Repair Payload, which follows the FEC header, includes repair of
everything following the fixed 12-byte RTP header of each source
packet, including any CSRC identifier list and header extensions if
present.
4.2.1. RTP Header of FEC Repair Packets
The RTP header is formatted according to [RFC 3550] with some further
clarifications listed below:
Version (V) 2 bits: This MUST be set to 2 (binary 10), as this
specification requires all source RTP packets and all FEC repair
packets to use RTP version 2.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
Padding (P) bit: Source packets can have optional RTP padding, which
can be recovered. FEC repair packets can have optional RTP
padding, which is independent of the RTP padding of the source
packets.
Extension (X) bit: Source packets can have optional RTP header
extensions, which can be recovered. FEC repair packets can have
optional RTP header extensions, which are independent of the RTP
header extensions of the source packets.
CSRC Count (CC) 4 bits, and CSRC List (CSRC_i) 32 bits each: Source
packets can have an optional CSRC list and count, which can be
recovered. FEC repair packets MUST use the CSRC list and count to
specify the synchronization sources (SSRCs) of the source RTP
stream(s) protected by this FEC repair packet.
Marker (M) bit: This bit is not used for this payload type, SHALL be
set to 0 by senders, and SHALL be ignored by receivers.
Payload Type: The (dynamic) payload type for the FEC repair packets
is determined through out-of-band means (e.g., SDP). Note that
this document registers new payload formats for the repair packets
(refer to Section 5 for details). According to [RFC 3550], an RTP
receiver that cannot recognize a payload type must discard it.
This provides backward compatibility. If a non-FEC-capable
receiver receives a repair packet, it will not recognize the
payload type; hence, it will discard the repair packet.
Sequence Number (SN): The Sequence Number follows the standard
definition provided in [RFC 3550]. Therefore, it must be one
higher than the Sequence Number in the previously transmitted
repair packet, and the initial value of the Sequence Number should
be random (i.e., unpredictable).
Timestamp (TS): The timestamp SHALL be set to a time corresponding
to the repair packet's transmission time. Note that the timestamp
value has no use in the actual FEC protection process and is
usually useful for jitter calculations.
Synchronization Source (SSRC): The SSRC value for each repair stream
SHALL be randomly assigned as per the guidelines provided in
Section 8 of [RFC 3550]. This allows the sender to multiplex the
source and repair RTP streams in the same RTP session, or
multiplex multiple repair streams in an RTP session. The repair
stream's SSRC's CNAME SHOULD be identical to the CNAME of the
source RTP stream(s) that this repair stream protects. A FEC
stream that protects multiple source RTP streams with different
CNAME's uses the CNAME associated with the entity generating the
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
FEC stream or the CNAME of the entity on whose behalf it performs
the protection operation. In cases when the repair stream covers
packets from multiple source RTP streams with different CNAME
values and none of these CNAME values can be associated with the
entity generating the FEC stream, any of these CNAME values MAY be
used.
In some networks, the RTP Source, which produces the source
packets, and the FEC Source, which generates the repair packets
from the source packets, may not be the same host. In such
scenarios, using the same CNAME for the source and repair RTP
streams means that the RTP Source and the FEC Source will share
the same CNAME (for this specific source-repair stream
association). A common CNAME may be produced based on an
algorithm that is known both to the RTP and FEC Source [RFC 7022].
This usage is compliant with [RFC 3550].
Note that due to the randomness of the SSRC assignments, there is
a possibility of SSRC collision. In such cases, the collisions
must be resolved as described in [RFC 3550].
4.2.2. FEC Header of FEC Repair Packets
The format of the FEC header has three variants, depending on the
values in the first two bits (R and F bits) as shown in Figure 10.
Note that R and F stand for "retransmit" and "fixed block",
respectively. Two of these variants are meant to describe different
methods for deriving the source data from a source packet for a
repair packet. This allows for customizing the FEC method to allow
for robustness against different levels of burst errors and random
packet losses. The third variant is for a straight retransmission of
the source packet.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|F|P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | ...varies depending on R/F... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| ...varies depending on R/F... |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Repair Payload follows FEC header :
: :
Figure 10: FEC header
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
The Repair Payload, which follows the FEC header, includes repair of
everything following the fixed 12-byte RTP header of each source
packet, including any CSRC identifier list and header extensions if
present. An overview on how the Repair Payload can be used to
recover source packets is provided in Section 6.
+---+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
| R | F | FEC header variant |
+---+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | 0 | Flexible FEC Mask fields indicate source packets |
| 0 | 1 | Fixed FEC L/D (cols/rows) indicate source packets |
| 1 | 0 | Retransmission of a single source packet |
| 1 | 1 | Reserved for future use, MUST NOT send, MUST ignore |
+---+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
Figure 11: R and F Bit Values for FEC Header Variants
The first variant, when R=0 and F=0, has a mask to signal protected
source packets, as shown in Figure 12.
The second variant, when R=0 and F=1, has a number of columns (L) and
rows (D) to signal protected source packets, as shown in Figure 13.
The final variant, when R=1 and F=0, is a retransmission format as
shown in Figure 15.
No variant presently uses R=1 and F=1, which is reserved for future
use. Current FLEX FEC implementations MUST NOT send packets with
this variant, and receivers MUST ignore these packets. Future FLEX
FEC implementations may use this by updating the media type
registration.
The FEC header for all variants consists of the following common
fields:
o The R bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate a retransmission packet,
and MUST be set to 0 for FEC repair packets.
o The F bit indicates the type of FEC repair packets, as shown in
Figure 11, when the R bit is 0. The F bit MUST be set to 0 when
the R bit is 1 for retransmission packets.
o The P, X, CC, M, and PT recovery fields are used to determine the
corresponding fields of the recovered packets (see also
Section 6.3.2).
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
4.2.2.1. FEC Header with Flexible Mask
When R=0 and F=0, the FEC header includes flexible Mask fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | length recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SN base_i |k| Mask [0-14] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|k| Mask [15-45] (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mask [46-109] (optional) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... next SN base and Mask for CSRC_i in CSRC list ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Repair Payload follows FEC header :
: :
Figure 12: FEC Header for F=0
o The Length recovery (16 bits) field is used to determine the
length of the recovered packets. This length includes all octets
following the fixed 12-byte RTP header of source packets,
including CSRC list and optional header extension(s) if present.
It excludes the fixed 12-byte RTP header of source packets.
o The TS recovery (32 bits) field is used to determine the timestamp
of the recovered packets.
o The CSRC_i (32 bits) field in the RTP header (not FEC header)
describes the SSRC of the source packets protected by this
particular FEC packet. If a FEC packet protects multiple SSRCs
(indicated by the CSRC Count > 1 in the RTP header), there will be
multiple blocks of data containing the SN base and Mask fields.
o The SN base_i (16 bits) field indicates the lowest sequence
number, taking wrap around into account, of the source packets for
a particular SSRC (indicated in CSRC_i) protected by this repair
packet.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
o The Mask fields indicate a bitmask of which source packets are
protected by this FEC repair packet, where bit j of the mask set
to 1 indicates that the source packet with Sequence Number (SN
base_i + j) is protected by this FEC repair packet, where j=0 is
the most significant bit in the mask.
o The k-bit in the bitmasks indicates if the mask is 15, 46, or 110
bits. k=1 denotes that another mask follows, and k=0 denotes that
it is the last block of mask.
o The Repair Payload, which follows the FEC header, includes repair
of everything following the fixed 12-byte RTP header of each
source packet, including any CSRC identifier list and header
extensions if present.
4.2.2.2. FEC Header with Fixed L Columns and D Rows
When R=0 and F=1, the FEC header includes L and D fields for fixed
columns and rows. The other fields are the same as the prior
section. As in the previous section, the CSRC_i (32 bits) field in
the RTP header (not FEC Header) describes the SSRC of the source
packets protected by this particular FEC packet. If there are
multiple SSRC's protected by the FEC packet, then there will be
multiple blocks of data containing an SN base along with L and D
fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1|P|X| CC |M| PT recovery | length recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS recovery |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SN base_i | L (columns) | D (rows) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... next SN base and L/D for CSRC_i in CSRC list ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Repair Payload follows FEC header :
: :
Figure 13: FEC Header for F=1
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
Consequently, the following conditions occur for L and D values:
If L=0, D=0, reserved for future use,
MUST NOT send, MUST ignore if received.
If L>0, D=0, indicates row FEC, and no column FEC will follow (1D).
Source packets for each row: SN, SN+1, ..., SN+(L-1)
If L>0, D=1, indicates row FEC, and column FEC will follow (2D).
Source packets for each row: SN, SN+1, ..., SN+(L-1)
Source packets for each col: SN, SN+L, ..., SN+(D-1)*L
After all row FEC packets have been sent,
the column FEC packets will be sent.
If L>0, D>1, indicates column FEC of every L packet, D times.
Source packets for each col: SN, SN+L, ..., SN+(D-1)*L
Figure 14: Interpreting the L and D Field Values
Given the 8-bit limit on L and D (as depicted in Figure 13), the
maximum value of either parameter is 255. If L=0 and D=0 are in a
packet, then the repair packet MUST be ignored by the receiver. In
addition, when L=1 and D=0, the repair packet becomes a
retransmission of a corresponding source packet.
The values of L and D for a given block of recovery data will
correspond to the type of recovery in use for that block of data. In
particular, for 2-D repair, the (L,D) values may not be constant
across all packets for a given SSRC being repaired. Similarly, the L
and D values can differ across different blocks of repair data
(repairing different SSRCs) in a single packet. If the values of L
and D result in a repair packet that exceed the repair window of the
FLEX FEC session, then the repair packet MUST be ignored.
It should be noted that the flexible mask-based approach may be
inefficient for protecting a large number of source packets, or
impossible to signal if larger than the largest mask size. In such
cases, the fixed columns and rows variant may be more useful.
4.2.2.3. FEC Header for Retransmissions
When R=1 and F=0, the FEC packet is a retransmission of a single
source packet. Note that the layout of this retransmission packet is
different from other FEC repair packets. The Sequence Number (SN
base_i) replaces the length recovery in the FEC header, since the
length is already known for a single packet. There are no L, D, or
Mask fields, since only a single packet is retransmitted, identified
by the Sequence Number in the FEC header. The source packet SSRC is
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
included in the FEC header for retransmissions, not in the RTP header
CSRC list as in the FEC header variants with R=0. When performing
retransmissions, a single repair packet stream (SSRC) MAY be used for
retransmitting packets from multiple source packet streams (SSRCs),
as well as transmitting FEC repair packets that protect multiple
source packet streams (SSRCs).
This FEC header layout is identical to the source RTP (version 2)
packet, starting with its RTP header, where the retransmission
"payload" is everything following the fixed 12-byte RTP header of the
source packet, including the CSRC list and extensions if present.
Therefore, the only operation needed for sending retransmissions is
to prepend a new RTP header to the source packet.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0|P|X| CC |M| Payload Type| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Retransmission Payload follows FEC header :
: :
Figure 15: FEC Header for Retransmission
5. Payload Format Parameters
This section provides the media subtype registration for the non-
interleaved and interleaved parity FEC. The parameters that are
required to configure the FEC encoding and decoding operations are
also defined in this section. If no specific FEC code is specified
in the subtype, then the FEC code defaults to the parity code defined
in this specification.
5.1. Media Type Registration -- Parity Codes
This registration is done using the template defined in [RFC 6838] and
following the guidance provided in [RFC 4855] along with [RFC 4856].
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
5.1.1. Registration of audio/flexfec
Type name: audio
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger
than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations.
However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the
rate of the protected source RTP stream.
o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the
corresponding repair packets. The size of the repair window is
specified in microseconds.
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (see Section 4.8
in the template document [RFC 6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFC 8627].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFC 8627].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that
want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant
data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working
Group (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing; hence,
it is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC 3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group
delegated from the IESG (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
5.1.2. Registration of video/flexfec
Type name: video
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger
than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations.
However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the
rate of the protected source RTP stream.
o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the
corresponding repair packets. The size of the repair window is
specified in microseconds.
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (see Section 4.8
in the template document [RFC 6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFC 8627].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFC 8627].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that
want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant
data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working
Group (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing; hence,
it is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC 3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group
delegated from the IESG (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
5.1.3. Registration of text/flexfec
Type name: text
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger
than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations.
However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the
rate of the protected source RTP stream.
o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the
corresponding repair packets. The size of the repair window is
specified in microseconds.
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (see Section 4.8
in the template document [RFC 6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFC 8627].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFC 8627].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that
want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant
data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working
Group (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing; hence,
it is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC 3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group
delegated from the IESG (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
5.1.4. Registration of application/flexfec
Type name: application
Subtype name: flexfec
Required parameters:
o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger
than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations.
However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the
rate of the protected source RTP stream.
o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the
corresponding repair packets. The size of the repair window is
specified in microseconds.
Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (see Section 4.8
in the template document [RFC 6838]) and contains binary data.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFC 8627].
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: [RFC 8627].
Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that
want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant
data in addition to the source media.
Fragment identifier considerations: None.
Additional information: None.
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working
Group (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Intended usage: COMMON.
Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing; hence,
it is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC 3550].
Author: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>.
Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Payloads Working Group
delegated from the IESG (or its successor as delegated by the IESG).
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
5.2. Mapping to SDP Parameters
Applications that use the RTP transport commonly use the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC 4566] to describe their RTP sessions.
The information that is used to specify the media types in an RTP
session has specific mappings to the fields in an SDP description.
This section provides these mappings for the media subtypes
registered by this document. Note that if an application does not
use SDP to describe the RTP sessions, an appropriate mapping must be
defined and used to specify the media types and their parameters for
the control/description protocol employed by the application.
The mapping of the media type specification for "flexfec" and its
associated parameters in SDP is as follows:
o The media type (e.g., "application") goes into the "m=" line as
the media name.
o The media subtype goes into the "a=rtpmap" line as the encoding
name. The RTP clock rate parameter ("rate") also goes into the
"a=rtpmap" line as the clock rate.
o The remaining required payload-format-specific parameters go into
the "a=fmtp" line by copying them directly from the media type
string as a semicolon-separated list of parameter=value pairs.
SDP examples are provided in Section 7.1.
5.2.1. Offer/Answer Model Considerations
When offering parity FEC over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model
[RFC 3264], the following considerations apply:
o A sender application will indicate a repair window consistent with
the desired amount of protection. Since the sender can change the
FEC configuration on a packet-by-packet basis, note that the
receiver must support any valid FLEX FEC configuration within the
repair window associated with the offer (see Section 4.2.2). If
the receiver cannot support the offered repair window it MUST
reject the offer.
o The size of the repair-window is related to the maximum delay
between the transmission of a source packet and the associated
repair packet. This directly impacts the buffering requirement on
the receiver side and the receiver must consider this when
choosing an offer.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
o Any unknown option in the offer must be ignored and deleted from
the answer (see Section 6 of [RFC 3264]). If FEC is not desired by
the receiver, it can be deleted from the answer.
5.2.2. Declarative Considerations
In declarative usage, like SDP in the Real-time Streaming Protocol
(RTSP, for RTSP 1.0 see [RFC 2326] and for RTSP 2.0 see [RFC 7826]) or
the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) [RFC 2974], the following
considerations apply:
o The payload format configuration parameters are all declarative
and a participant MUST use the configuration that is provided for
the session.
o More than one configuration may be provided (if desired) by
declaring multiple RTP payload types. In that case, the receivers
should choose the repair stream that is best for them.
6. Protection and Recovery Procedures -- Parity Codes
This section provides a complete specification of the 1-D and 2-D
parity codes and their RTP payload formats. It does not apply to the
single packet retransmission format (R=1 in the FEC header).
6.1. Overview
The following sections specify the steps involved in generating the
repair packets and reconstructing the missing source packets from the
repair packets.
6.2. Repair Packet Construction
The RTP header of a repair packet is formed based on the guidelines
given in Section 4.2.
The FEC header and Repair Payload of repair packets are formed by
applying the XOR operation on the bit strings that are generated from
the individual source packets protected by this particular repair
packet. The set of the source packets that are associated with a
given repair packet can be computed by the formula given in
Section 6.3.1.
The bit string is formed for each source packet by concatenating the
following fields together in the order specified:
o The first 16 bits of the RTP header (16 bits), though the first
two (version) bits will be ignored by the recovery procedure.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
o Unsigned network-ordered 16-bit representation of the source
packet length in bytes minus 12 (for the fixed RTP header), i.e.,
the sum of the lengths of all the following if present: the CSRC
list, extension header, RTP payload, and RTP padding (16 bits).
o The timestamp of the RTP header (32 bits).
o All octets after the fixed 12-byte RTP header. (Note the SSRC
field is skipped.)
The FEC bit string is generated by applying the parity operation on
the bit strings produced from the source packets. The FEC header is
generated from the FEC bit string as follows:
o The first (most significant) 2 bits in the FEC bit string, which
contain the RTP version field, are skipped. The R and F bits in
the FEC header are set to the appropriate value, i.e., it depends
on the chosen format variant. As a consequence of overwriting the
RTP version field with the R and F bits, this payload format only
supports RTP version 2.
o The next bit in the FEC bit string is written into the P recovery
bit in the FEC header.
o The next bit in the FEC bit string is written into the X recovery
bit in the FEC header.
o The next 4 bits of the FEC bit string are written into the CC
recovery field in the FEC header.
o The next bit is written into the M recovery bit in the FEC header.
o The next 7 bits of the FEC bit string are written into the PT
recovery field in the FEC header.
o The next 16 bits are written into the length recovery field in the
FEC header.
o The next 32 bits of the FEC bit string are written into the TS
recovery field in the FEC header.
o The lowest Sequence Number of the source packets protected by this
repair packet is written into the Sequence Number Base field in
the FEC header. This needs to be repeated for each SSRC that has
packets included in the source block.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
o Depending on the chosen FEC header variant, the mask(s) is set
when F=0 or the L and D values are set when F=1. This needs to be
repeated for each SSRC that has packets included in the source
block.
o The rest of the FEC bit string, which contains everything after
the fixed 12-byte RTP header of the source packet, is written into
the Repair Payload following the FEC header, where "Payload"
refers to everything after the fixed 12-byte RTP header, including
extensions, CSRC list, true payloads, and padding.
If the lengths of the source packets are not equal, each shorter
packet MUST be padded to the length of the longest packet by adding
octet zeros at the end.
Due to this possible padding and mandatory FEC header, a repair
packet has a larger size than the source packets it protects. This
may cause problems if the resulting repair packet size exceeds the
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size of the path over which the
repair stream is sent.
6.3. Source Packet Reconstruction
This section describes the recovery procedures that are required to
reconstruct the missing source packets. The recovery process has two
steps. In the first step, the FEC decoder determines which source
and repair packets should be used in order to recover a missing
packet. In the second step, the decoder recovers the missing packet,
which consists of an RTP header and RTP payload.
The following describes the RECOMMENDED algorithms for the first and
second steps. Based on the implementation, different algorithms MAY
be adopted. However, the end result MUST be identical to the one
produced by the algorithms described below.
Note that the same algorithms are used by the 1-D parity codes,
regardless of whether the FEC protection is applied over a column or
a row. The 2-D parity codes, on the other hand, usually require
multiple iterations of the procedures described here. This iterative
decoding algorithm is further explained in Section 6.3.4.
6.3.1. Associating the Source and Repair Packets
Before associating source and repair packets, the receiver must know
in which RTP sessions the source and repair, respectively, are being
sent. After this is established by the receiver, the first step is
associating the source and repair packets. This association can be
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
via flexible bitmasks or fixed L and D offsets, which can be in the
FEC header or signaled in SDP in optional payload format parameters
when L=D=0 in the FEC header.
6.3.1.1. Using Bitmasks
To use flexible bitmasks, the first two FEC header bits MUST have R=0
and F=0. A 15-bit, 46-bit, or 110-bit mask indicates which source
packets are protected by a FEC repair packet. If the bit i in the
mask is set to 1, the source packet number N + i is protected by this
FEC repair packet, where N is the Sequence Number base indicated in
the FEC header. The most significant bit of the mask corresponds to
i=0. The least significant bit of the mask corresponds to i=14 in
the 15-bit mask, i=45 in the 46-bit mask, or i=109 in the 110-bit
mask.
The bitmasks are able to represent arbitrary protection patterns, for
example, 1-D interleaved, 1-D non-interleaved, 2-D.
6.3.1.2. Using L and D Offsets
Denote the set of the source packets associated with repair packet p*
by set T(p*). Note that in a source block whose size is L columns by
D rows, set T includes D source packets plus one repair packet for
the FEC protection applied over a column, and it includes L source
packets plus one repair packet for the FEC protection applied over a
row. Recall that 1-D interleaved and non-interleaved FEC protection
can fully recover the missing information if there is only one source
packet missing per column or row in set T. If more than one source
packet is missing per column or row in set T, 1-D FEC protection may
fail to recover all the missing information.
When the value of L is non-zero, the 8-bit fields indicate the offset
of packets protected by an interleaved (D>0) or non-interleaved (D=0)
FEC packet. Using a combination of interleaved and non-interleaved
FEC repair packets can form 2-D protection patterns.
Mathematically, for any received repair packet, p*, the sequence
numbers of the source packets that are protected by this repair
packet are determined as follows, where SN is the Sequence Number
base in the FEC header:
For each SSRC (in CSRC list):
When D <= 1: Source packets for each row: SN, SN+1, ..., SN+(L-1)
When D > 1: Source packets for each col: SN, SN+L, ..., SN+(D-1)*L
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
6.3.2. Recovering the RTP Header
For a given set T, the procedure for the recovery of the RTP header
of the missing packet, whose Sequence Number is denoted by SEQNUM, is
as follows:
1. For each of the source packets that are successfully received in
T, compute the 80-bit string by concatenating the first 64 bits
of their RTP header and the unsigned network-ordered 16-bit
representation of their length in bytes minus 12.
2. For the repair packet in T, extract the FEC bit string as the
first 80 bits of the FEC header.
3. Calculate the recovered bit string as the XOR of the bit strings
generated from all source packets in T and the FEC bit string
generated from the repair packet in T.
4. Create a new packet with the standard 12-byte RTP header and no
payload.
5. Set the version of the new packet to 2. Skip the first 2 bits
in the recovered bit string.
6. Set the Padding bit in the new packet to the next bit in the
recovered bit string.
7. Set the Extension bit in the new packet to the next bit in the
recovered bit string.
8. Set the CC field to the next 4 bits in the recovered bit string.
9. Set the Marker bit in the new packet to the next bit in the
recovered bit string.
10. Set the Payload type in the new packet to the next 7 bits in the
recovered bit string.
11. Set the SN field in the new packet to SEQNUM.
12. Take the next 16 bits of the recovered bit string and set the
new variable Y to whatever unsigned integer this represents
(assuming network order). Convert Y to host order. Y
represents the length of the new packet in bytes minus 12 (for
the fixed RTP header), i.e., the sum of the lengths of all the
following if present: the CSRC list, header extension, RTP
payload, and RTP padding.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 30
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
13. Set the TS field in the new packet to the next 32 bits in the
recovered bit string.
14. Set the SSRC of the new packet to the SSRC of the missing source
RTP stream.
This procedure recovers the header of an RTP packet up to (and
including) the SSRC field.
6.3.3. Recovering the RTP Payload
Following the recovery of the RTP header, the procedure for the
recovery of the RTP "payload" is as follows, where "payload" refers
to everything following the fixed 12-byte RTP header, including
extensions, CSRC list, true payload, and padding.
1. Allocate Y additional bytes for the new packet generated in
Section 6.3.2.
2. For each of the source packets that are successfully received in
T, compute the bit string from the Y octets of data starting with
the 13th octet of the packet. If any of the bit strings
generated from the source packets has a length shorter than Y,
pad them to that length. The zero-padding octets MUST be added
at the end of the bit string. Note that the information of the
first 8 octets are protected by the FEC header.
3. For the repair packet in T, compute the FEC bit string from the
repair packet payload, i.e., the Y octets of data following the
FEC header. Note that the FEC header may be different sizes
depending on the variant and bitmask size.
4. Calculate the recovered bit string as the XOR of the bit strings
generated from all source packets in T and the FEC bit string
generated from the repair packet in T.
5. Set the last Y octets in the new packet to the recovered bit
string.
6.3.4. Iterative Decoding Algorithm for the 2-D Parity FEC Protection
In 2-D parity FEC protection, the sender generates both non-
interleaved and interleaved FEC repair packets to combat with the
mixed loss patterns (random and bursty). At the receiver side, these
FEC packets are used iteratively to overcome the shortcomings of the
1-D non-interleaved/interleaved FEC protection and improve the
chances of full error recovery.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 31
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
The iterative decoding algorithm runs as follows:
1. Set num_recovered_until_this_iteration to zero
2. Set num_recovered_so_far to zero
3. Recover as many source packets as possible by using the non-
interleaved FEC repair packets as outlined in Sections 6.3.2 and
6.3.3 and increase the value of num_recovered_so_far by the
number of recovered source packets.
4. Recover as many source packets as possible by using the
interleaved FEC repair packets as outlined in Sections 6.3.2 and
6.3.3 and increase the value of num_recovered_so_far by the
number of recovered source packets.
5. If num_recovered_so_far > num_recovered_until_this_iteration
---num_recovered_until_this_iteration = num_recovered_so_far
---Go to step 3
Else
---Terminate
The algorithm terminates either when all missing source packets are
fully recovered or when there are still remaining missing source
packets but the FEC repair packets are not able to recover any more
source packets. For the example scenarios when the 2-D parity FEC
protection fails full recovery, refer to Section 1.1.4. Upon
termination, variable num_recovered_so_far has a value equal to the
total number of recovered source packets.
Example:
Suppose that the receiver experienced the loss pattern sketched in
Figure 16.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 32
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+---+ +---+ +===+
X X | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X X | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 16: Example: Loss Pattern for the Iterative Decoding Algorithm
The receiver executes the iterative decoding algorithm and recovers
source packets #1 and #11 in the first iteration. The resulting
pattern is sketched in Figure 17.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | X | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | X | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 17: The Resulting Pattern after the First Iteration
Since the if condition holds true, the receiver runs a new iteration.
In the second iteration, source packets #2 and #10 are recovered,
resulting in a full recovery as sketched in Figure 18.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 33
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | |R_1|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 5 | | 6 | | 7 | | 8 | |R_2|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
| 9 | | 10| | 11| | 12| |R_3|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +===+
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
|C_1| |C_2| |C_3| |C_4|
+===+ +===+ +===+ +===+
Figure 18: The Resulting Pattern after the Second Iteration
7. Signaling Requirements
Out-of-band signaling should be designed to enable the receiver to
identify the RTP streams associated with source packets and repair
packets, respectively. At a minimum, the signaling must be designed
to allow the receiver to:
o Determine whether one or more source RTP streams will be sent.
o Determine whether one or more repair RTP streams will be sent.
o Associate the appropriate SSRC's to both source and repair
streams.
o Clearly identify which SSRC's are associated with each source
block.
o Clearly identify which repair packets correspond to which source
blocks.
o Make use of repair packets to recover source data associated with
specific SSRC's.
This section provides several Session Description Protocol (SDP)
examples to demonstrate how these requirements can be met.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 34
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
7.1. SDP Examples
This section provides two SDP [RFC 4566] examples. The examples use
the FEC grouping semantics defined in [RFC 5956].
7.1.1. Example SDP for Flexible FEC Protection with In-Band SSRC
Mapping
In this example, we have one source video stream and one FEC repair
stream. The source and repair streams are multiplexed on different
SSRCs. The repair window is set to 200 ms.
v=0
o=mo 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=FlexFEC minimal SDP signaling Example
t=0 0
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 96 98
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.1/127
a=rtpmap:96 VP8/90000
a=rtpmap:98 flexfec/90000
a=fmtp:98; repair-window=200000
7.1.2. Example SDP for Flexible FEC Protection with Explicit Signaling
in the SDP
This example shows one source video stream (ssrc:1234) and one FEC
repair streams (ssrc:2345). One FEC group is formed with the
"a=ssrc-group:FEC-FR 1234 2345" line. The source and repair streams
are multiplexed on different SSRCs. The repair window is set to 200
ms.
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
s=2-D Parity FEC with no in band signaling Example
t=0 0
m=video 30000 RTP/AVP 100 110
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.0/24
a=rtpmap:100 MP2T/90000
a=rtpmap:110 flexfec/90000
a=fmtp:110; repair-window:200000
a=ssrc:1234
a=ssrc:2345
a=ssrc-group:FEC-FR 1234 2345
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 35
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
7.2. On the Use of the RTP Stream Identifier Source Description
The RTP Stream Identifier Source Description [RTP-SDES] is a format
that can be used to identify a single RTP source stream along with an
associated repair stream. However, this specification already
defines a method of source and repair stream identification that can
enable protection of multiple source streams with a single repair
stream. Therefore, the RTP Stream Identifier Source Description
SHOULD NOT be used for the Flexible FEC payload format.
8. Congestion Control Considerations
FEC is an effective approach to provide applications resiliency
against packet losses. However, in networks where the congestion is
a major contributor to the packet loss, the potential impacts of
using FEC should be considered carefully before injecting the repair
streams into the network. In particular, in bandwidth-limited
networks, FEC repair streams may consume a significant part of the
available bandwidth and, consequently, may congest the network. In
such cases, the applications MUST NOT arbitrarily increase the amount
of FEC protection since doing so may lead to a congestion collapse.
If desired, stronger FEC protection MAY be applied only after the
source rate has been reduced.
In a network-friendly implementation, an application should avoid
sending/receiving FEC repair streams if it knows that sending/
receiving those FEC repair streams would not help at all in
recovering the missing packets. Examples of where FEC would not be
beneficial are (1) if the successful recovery rate as determined by
RTCP feedback is low (see [RFC 5725] and [RFC 7509] and (2) the
application has a smaller latency requirement than the repair window
adopted by the FEC configuration based on the expected burst loss
duration and the target FEC overhead. It is RECOMMENDED that the
amount and type (row, column, or both) of FEC protection is adjusted
dynamically based on the packet loss rate and burst loss length
observed by the applications.
In multicast scenarios, it may be difficult to optimize the FEC
protection per receiver. If there is a large variation among the
levels of FEC protection needed by different receivers, it is
RECOMMENDED that the sender offer multiple repair streams with
different levels of FEC protection and the receivers join the
corresponding multicast sessions to receive the repair stream(s) that
is best for them.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 36
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
9. Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC 3550] and in any applicable RTP profile. The main
security considerations for the RTP packet carrying the RTP payload
format defined within this memo are confidentiality, integrity, and
source authenticity. Confidentiality can be provided by encrypting
the RTP payload. Integrity of the RTP packets is achieved through a
suitable cryptographic integrity protection mechanism. Such a
cryptographic system may also allow the authentication of the source
of the payload. A suitable security mechanism for this RTP payload
format should provide confidentiality, integrity protection, and at
least source authentication capable of determining if an RTP packet
is from a member of the RTP session.
Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and
payloads following this memo may vary. It is dependent on the
application, transport, and signaling protocol employed. Therefore,
a single mechanism is not sufficient; although, if suitable, using
the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC 3711] is
recommended. Other mechanisms that may be used are IPsec [RFC 4301],
and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS, see [RFC 6347]) when used
along with RTP-over-UDP; other alternatives may exist.
Given that FLEX FEC enables the protection of multiple source
streams, there exists the possibility that multiple source buffers
may be created that may not be used. An attacker could leverage
unused source buffers as a means of occupying memory in a FLEX FEC
endpoint. In addition, an attack against the FEC parameters
themselves (e.g., repair window or D or L values) can result in a
receiver having to allocate source buffer space that may also lead to
excessive consumption of resources. Similarly, a network attacker
could modify the recovery fields corresponding to packet lengths
(assuming there are no message integrity mechanisms), which, in turn,
could force unnecessarily large memory allocations at the receiver.
Moreover, the application source data may not be perfectly matched
with FLEX FEC Source partitioning. If this is the case, there is a
possibility for unprotected source data if, for instance, the FLEX
FEC implementation discards data that does not fit perfectly into its
source processing requirements.
10. IANA Considerations
New media subtypes are subject to IANA registration. For the
registration of the payload formats and their parameters introduced
in this document, refer to Section 5.1.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 37
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3264>.
[RFC 3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3550>.
[RFC 4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4566>.
[RFC 4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
Formats", RFC 4855, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4855, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4855>.
[RFC 4856] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of Payload Formats in
the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences",
RFC 4856, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4856, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4856>.
[RFC 5956] Begen, A., "Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in
the Session Description Protocol", RFC 5956,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5956, September 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5956>.
[RFC 6363] Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6363, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6363>.
[RFC 6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6838>.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 38
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
[RFC 7022] Begen, A., Perkins, C., Wing, D., and E. Rescorla,
"Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Canonical Names (CNAMEs)", RFC 7022, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7022,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7022>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC 2326] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time
Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2326, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2326>.
[RFC 2733] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format
for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2733, December 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2733>.
[RFC 2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2974,
October 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2974>.
[RFC 3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3711>.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4301>.
[RFC 4585] 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/RFC 4585, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4585>.
[RFC 4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4588, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4588>.
[RFC 5109] Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5109, December
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5109>.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 39
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
[RFC 5725] Begen, A., Hsu, D., and M. Lague, "Post-Repair Loss RLE
Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", RFC 5725, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5725, February
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5725>.
[RFC 6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6347>.
[RFC 7509] Huang, R. and V. Singh, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Extended Report (XR) for Post-Repair Loss Count Metrics",
RFC 7509, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7509, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7509>.
[RFC 7656] 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/RFC 7656, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7656>.
[RFC 7826] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M.,
and M. Stiemerling, Ed., "Real-Time Streaming Protocol
Version 2.0", RFC 7826, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7826, December
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7826>.
[RTP-SDES]
Roach, A., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream
Identifier Source Description (SDES)", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09, October 2016.
[SMPTE2022-1]
SMPTE, "Forward Error Correction for Real-Time Video/Audio
Transport over IP Networks", ST 2022-1:2007, SMPTE
Standard, DOI 10.5594/SMPTE.ST2022-1.2007, May 2007.
Acknowledgments
Some parts of this document are borrowed from [RFC 5109]. Thus, the
author would like to thank the editor of [RFC 5109] and those who
contributed to [RFC 5109].
Thanks to Stephen Botzko, Bernard Aboba, Rasmus Brandt, Brian
Baldino, Roni Even, Stefan Holmer, Jonathan Lennox, and Magnus
Westerlund for providing valuable feedback on earlier draft versions
of this document.
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 40
RFC 8627 RTP Payload Format for Parity FEC July 2019
Authors' Addresses
Mo Zanaty
Cisco
Raleigh, NC
United States of America
Email: mzanaty@cisco.com
Varun Singh
CALLSTATS I/O Oy
Annankatu 31-33 C 42
Helsinki 00101
Finland
Email: varun.singh@iki.fi
URI: http://www.callstats.io/
Ali Begen
Networked Media
Konya
Turkey
Email: ali.begen@networked.media
Giridhar Mandyam
Qualcomm Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
United States of America
Phone: +1 858 651 7200
Email: mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com
Zanaty, et al. Standards Track PAGE 41
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 92366 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, July 19th, 2019
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
