RFC 8851: RTP Payload Format Restrictions
- A.B. Roach, Ed.
Abstract
In this specification, we define a framework for specifying restrictions on RTP streams in the Session Description Protocol (SDP). This framework defines a new "rid" ("restriction identifier") SDP attribute to unambiguously identify the RTP streams within an RTP session and restrict the streams' payload format parameters in a codec-agnostic way beyond what is provided with the regular payload types.¶
This specification updates RFC 4855 to give additional guidance on choice of Format Parameter (fmtp) names and their relation to the restrictions defined by this document.¶
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://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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://
1. Terminology
The terms "source RTP stream", "endpoint", "RTP session", and "RTP stream" are used as defined in [RFC7656].¶
[RFC4566] and [RFC3264] terminology is also used where appropriate.¶
2. Introduction
The payload type (PT) field in RTP provides a mapping between the RTP payload format and the associated SDP media description. For a given PT, the SDP rtpmap and/or fmtp attributes are used to describe the properties of the media that is carried in the RTP payload.¶
Recent advances in standards have given rise to rich multimedia applications requiring support for either multiple RTP streams within an RTP session [RFC8843] [RFC8853] or a large number of codecs. These demands have unearthed challenges inherent with:¶
To expand on these points: [RFC3550] assigns 7 bits for the PT in the RTP header. However, the assignment of static mapping of RTP payload type numbers to payload formats and multiplexing of RTP with other protocols (such as the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)) could result in a limited number of payload type numbers available for application usage. In scenarios where the number of possible RTP payload configurations exceeds the available PT space within an RTP session, there is a need for a way to represent the additional restrictions on payload configurations and effectively map an RTP stream to its corresponding restrictions. This issue is exacerbated by the increase in techniques -- such as simulcast and layered codecs -- that introduce additional streams into RTP sessions.¶
This specification defines a new SDP framework for restricting source RTP streams (Section 2.1.10 of [RFC7656]), along with the SDP attributes to restrict payload formats in a codec-agnostic way. This framework can be thought of as a complementary extension to the way the media format parameters are specified in SDP today, via the "a=fmtp" attribute.¶
The additional restrictions on individual streams are indicated with a new "a=rid" ("restriction identifier") SDP attribute. Note that the restrictions communicated via this attribute only serve to further restrict the parameters that are established on a PT format. They do not relax any restrictions imposed by other mechanisms.¶
This specification makes use of the RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES) RTCP item defined in [RFC8852] to provide correlation between the RTP packets and their format specification in the SDP.¶
As described in Section 6.2.1, this mechanism achieves backwards compatibility via the normal SDP processing rules, which require unknown "a=" lines to be ignored. This means that implementations need to be prepared to handle successful offers and answers from other implementations that neither indicate nor honor the restrictions requested by this mechanism.¶
Further, as described in Section 6 and its subsections, this mechanism achieves extensibility by: (a) having offerers include all supported restrictions in their offer, and (b) having answerers ignore "a=rid" lines that specify unknown restrictions.¶
3. Key Words for Requirements
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
4. SDP "a=rid" Media Level Attribute
This section defines new SDP media-level attribute [RFC4566], "a=rid", used to communicate a set of restrictions to be applied to an identified RTP stream. Roughly speaking, this attribute takes the following form (see Section 10 for a formal definition):¶
An "a=rid" SDP media attribute specifies restrictions defining a unique RTP payload configuration identified via the "rid-id" field. This value binds the restriction to the RTP stream identified by its RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES) item [RFC8852]. Implementations that use the "a=rid" parameter in SDP MUST support the RtpStreamId SDES item described in [RFC8852]. Such implementations MUST send that SDES item for all streams in an SDP media description ("m=") that have "a=rid" lines remaining after applying the rules in Section 6 and its subsections.¶
Implementations that use the "a=rid" parameter in SDP and make use of
redundancy RTP streams [RFC7656] -- e.g., RTP RTX
[RFC4588] or Forward Error Correction (FEC) [RFC5109] -- for any of the
source RTP streams that have "a=rid" lines remaining
after applying the rules in Section 6 and its subsections MUST
support the Repaired
Repaired
It is important to note that this indirection may result in the temporary
inability to correctly associate source and redundancy data when the SSRC
associated with the RtpStreamId or Repaired
The "direction" field identifies the direction of the RTP stream packets to which the indicated restrictions are applied. It may be either "send" or "recv". Note that these restriction directions are expressed independently of any "inactive", "sendonly", "recvonly", or "sendrecv" attributes associated with the media section. It is, for example, valid to indicate "recv" restrictions on a "sendonly" stream; those restrictions would apply if, at a future point in time, the stream were changed to "sendrecv" or "recvonly".¶
The optional "pt=<fmt-list>" lists one or more PT values that can be used in the associated RTP stream. If the "a=rid" attribute contains no "pt", then any of the PT values specified in the corresponding "m=" line may be used.¶
The list of zero or more codec-agnostic restrictions (Section 5) describes the restrictions that the corresponding RTP stream will conform to.¶
This framework MAY be used in combination with the "a=fmtp" SDP attribute for describing the media format parameters for a given RTP payload type. In such scenarios, the "a=rid" restrictions (Section 5) further restrict the equivalent "a=fmtp" attributes.¶
A given SDP media description MAY have zero or more "a=rid" lines describing various possible RTP payload configurations. A given "rid-id" MUST NOT be repeated in a given media description ("m=" section).¶
The "a=rid" media attribute MAY be used for any RTP-based media transport. It is not defined for other transports, although other documents may extend its semantics for such transports.¶
Though the restrictions specified by the "rid" restrictions follow a syntax similar to session-level and media-level parameters, they are defined independently. All "rid" restrictions MUST be registered with IANA, using the registry defined in Section 12.¶
Section 10 gives a formal Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] grammar for the "rid" attribute. The "a=rid" media attribute is not dependent on charset.¶
5. "a=rid" Restrictions
This section defines the "a=rid" restrictions that can be used to restrict the RTP payload encoding format in a codec-agnostic way. Please also see the preceding section for a description of how the "pt" parameter is used.¶
The following restrictions are intended to apply to video codecs in a
codec
All the restrictions are optional and subject to negotiation based on the SDP offer/answer rules described in Section 6.¶
This list is intended to be an initial set of restrictions. Future documents may define additional restrictions; see Section 12.2. While this document does not define restrictions for audio codecs or any media types other than video, there is no reason such restrictions should be precluded from definition and registration by other documents.¶
Section 10 provides formal Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] grammar for each of the "a=rid" restrictions defined in this section.¶
6. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
This section describes the SDP offer/answer procedures [RFC3264] when using this framework.¶
Note that "rid-id" values are only required to be unique within a media section ("m=" line); they do not necessarily need to be unique within an entire RTP session. In traditional usage, each media section is sent on its own unique 5-tuple (that is: combination of sending address, sending port, receiving address, receiving port, and transport protocol), which provides an unambiguous scope. Similarly, when using BUNDLE [RFC8843], Media Identification (MID) values associate RTP streams uniquely to a single media description. When restriction identifier (RID) is used with the BUNDLE mechanism, streams will be associated with both MID and RID SDES items.¶
6.1. Generating the Initial SDP Offer
For each RTP media description in the offer, the offerer MAY choose to include one or more "a=rid" lines to specify a configuration profile for the given set of RTP payload types.¶
In order to construct a given "a=rid" line, the offerer must follow these steps:¶
Note: If an "a=fmtp" attribute is also used to provide media
If a given codec would require an "a=fmtp" line when used without "a=rid", then the offer MUST include a valid corresponding "a=fmtp" line even when using "a=rid".¶
6.2. Answerer Processing the SDP Offer
6.2.1. "a=rid"-Unaware Answerer
If the receiver doesn't support the framework defined in this specification, the entire "a=rid" line is ignored following the standard offer/answer rules [RFC3264].¶
Section 6.1 requires the offer to include a valid "a=fmtp" line for any media formats that otherwise require it (in other words, the "a=rid" line cannot be used to replace "a=fmtp" configuration). As a result, ignoring the "a=rid" line is always guaranteed to result in a valid session description.¶
6.2.2. "a=rid"-Aware Answerer
If the answerer supports the "a=rid" attribute, the following verification steps are executed, in order, for each "a=rid" line in a received offer:¶
Note that the answerer does not need to understand every restriction present
in a "send" line: if a stream sender restricts the stream in a way that the
receiver does not understand, this causes no issues with interoperabilit
6.3. Generating the SDP Answer
Having performed verification of the SDP offer as described in Section 6.2.2, the answerer shall perform the following steps to generate the SDP answer.¶
For each "a=rid" line that has not been discarded by previous processing:¶
Note: In the case that the answerer uses different PT values to represent a codec than the offerer did, the "a=rid" values in the answer use the PT values that are present in its answer.¶
6.4. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
The offerer SHALL follow these steps when processing the answer:¶
Any "a=rid" line present in the offer that was not matched by step 1 above has been discarded by the answerer and does not form part of the negotiated restrictions on an RTP stream. The offerer MAY still apply any restrictions it indicated in an "a=rid" line with a direction field of "send", but it is not required to do so.¶
It is important to note that there are several ways in which an offer can contain a media section with "a=rid" lines, although the corresponding media section in the response does not. This includes situations in which the answerer does not support "a=rid" at all or does not support the indicated restrictions. Under such circumstances, the offerer MUST be prepared to receive a media stream to which no restrictions have been applied.¶
6.5. Modifying the Session
Offers and answers inside an existing session follow the rules for initial session negotiation. Such an offer MAY propose a change in the number of RIDs in use. To avoid race conditions with media, any RIDs with proposed changes SHOULD use a new ID rather than reusing one from the previous offer/answer exchange. RIDs without proposed changes SHOULD reuse the ID from the previous exchange.¶
7. Use with Declarative SDP
This document does not define the use of a RID in declarative SDP. If concrete use cases for RID in declarative SDP use are identified in the future, we expect that additional specifications will address such use.¶
8. Interaction with Other Techniques
Historically, a number of other approaches have been defined that allow restricting media streams via SDP. These include:¶
When the mechanism described in this document is used in conjunction with these other restricting mechanisms, it is intended to impose additional restrictions beyond those communicated in other techniques.¶
In an offer, this means that "a=rid" lines, when combined with other restrictions on the media stream, are expected to result in a non-empty intersection. For example, if image attributes are used to indicate that a PT has a minimum width of 640, then specification of "max-width=320" in an "a=rid" line that is then applied to that PT is nonsensical. According to the rules of Section 6.2.2, this will result in the corresponding "a=rid" line being ignored by the recipient.¶
In an answer, the "a=rid" lines, when combined with the other restrictions on the media stream, are also expected to result in a non-empty intersection. If the implementation generating an answer wishes to restrict a property of the stream below that which would be allowed by other parameters (e.g., those specified in "a=fmtp" or "a=imageattr"), its only recourse is to discard the "a=rid" line altogether, as described in Section 6.3. If it instead attempts to restrict the stream beyond what is allowed by other mechanisms, then the offerer will ignore the corresponding "a=rid" line, as described in Section 6.4.¶
The following subsections demonstrate these interactions using commonly used video codecs. These descriptions are illustrative of the interaction principles outlined above and are not normative.¶
8.1. Interaction with VP8 Format Parameters
[RFC7741] defines two format parameters for the VP8 codec. Both correspond to restrictions on receiver capabilities and never indicate sending restrictions.¶
8.1.1. max-fr - Maximum Frame Rate
The VP8 "max-fr" format parameter corresponds to the "max-fps" restriction defined in this specification. If an RTP sender is generating a stream using a format defined with this format parameter, and the sending restrictions defined via "a=rid" include a "max-fps" parameter, then the sent stream will conform to the smaller of the two values.¶
8.1.2. max-fs - Maximum Frame Size, in VP8 Macroblocks
The VP8 "max-fs" format parameter corresponds to the "max-fs" restriction defined in this document, by way of a conversion factor of the number of pixels per macroblock (typically 256). If an RTP sender is generating a stream using a format defined with this format parameter, and the sending restrictions defined via "a=rid" include a "max-fs" parameter, then the sent stream will conform to the smaller of the two values; that is, the number of pixels per frame will not exceed:¶
This fmtp parameter also has bearing on the
max-height and max-width parameters.
Section 6.1 of [RFC7741] requires that the width and height of the frame in
macroblocks be less than int
Similarly, the stream's height will be limited to:¶
8.2. Interaction with H.264 Format Parameters
[RFC6184] defines format parameters for the H.264 video codec. The majority
of these parameters do not correspond to codec
Note that the max-cpb and max-dpb format parameters for H.264 correspond to
restrictions on the stream, but they are specific to the way the H.264 codec
operates, and do not have codec
The [RFC6184] codec format parameters covered in the following sections correspond to restrictions on receiver capabilities and never indicate sending restrictions.¶
8.2.1. profile-level-id and max-recv-level - Negotiated Subprofile
These parameters include a "level" indicator, which acts as an index into Table A-1 of [H264]. This table contains a number of parameters, several of which correspond to the restrictions defined in this document. [RFC6184] also defines format parameters for the H.264 codec that may increase the maximum values indicated by the negotiated level. The following sections describe the interaction between these parameters and the restrictions defined by this document. In all cases, the H.264 parameters being discussed are the maximum of those indicated by [H264] Table A-1 and those indicated in the corresponding "a=fmtp" line.¶
8.2.2. max-br / MaxBR - Maximum Video Bitrate
The H.264 "MaxBR" parameter (and its equivalent "max-br" format parameter) corresponds to the "max-bps" restriction defined in this specification, by way of a conversion factor of 1000 or 1200; see [RFC6184] for details regarding which factor gets used under differing circumstances.¶
If an RTP sender is generating a stream using a format defined with this format parameter, and the sending restrictions defined via "a=rid" include a "max-fps" parameter, then the sent stream will conform to the smaller of the two values -- that is:¶
8.2.3. max-fs / MaxFS - Maximum Frame Size, in H.264 Macroblocks
The H.264 "MaxFs" parameter (and its equivalent "max-fs" format parameter) corresponds roughly to the "max-fs" restriction defined in this document, by way of a conversion factor of 256 (the number of pixels per macroblock).¶
If an RTP sender is generating a stream using a format defined with this format parameter, and the sending restrictions defined via "a=rid" include a "max-fs" parameter, then the sent stream will conform to the smaller of the two values -- that is:¶
8.2.4. max-mbps / MaxMBPS - Maximum Macroblock Processing Rate
The H.264 "MaxMBPS" parameter (and its equivalent "max-mbps" format parameter) corresponds roughly to the "max-pps" restriction defined in this document, by way of a conversion factor of 256 (the number of pixels per macroblock).¶
If an RTP sender is generating a stream using a format defined with this format parameter, and the sending restrictions defined via "a=rid" include a "max-pps" parameter, then the sent stream will conform to the smaller of the two values -- that is:¶
8.2.5. max-smbps - Maximum Decoded Picture Buffer
The H.264 "max-smbps" format parameter operates the same way as the "max-mbps" format parameter, under the hypothetical assumption that all macroblocks are static macroblocks. It is handled by applying the conversion factor described in Section 8.1 of [RFC6184], and the result of this conversion is applied as described in Section 8.2.4.¶
8.3. Redundancy Formats and Payload Type Restrictions
Section 4 specifies that redundancy formats using redundancy RTP streams bind
the redundancy RTP stream to the source RTP stream with either the
Repaired
Example (SDP excerpt):¶
The RID with ID=6 restricts the payload types for this RID to 100 (the redundancy format), 97 (G.711), 101 (Comfort Noise), and 102 (dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tones). This means that RID 6 can either contain the Redundant Audio Data (RED) format, encapsulating encodings of the source media stream using payload type 97 and 98, 97 without RED encapsulation, Comfort noise, or DTMF tones. Payload type 98 is not included in the RID, and can thus not be sent except as redundancy information in RED encapsulation. If 97 were to be excluded from the pt parameter, it would instead mean that payload types 97 and 98 are only allowed via RED encapsulation.¶
9. Format Parameters for Future Payloads
Registrations of future RTP payload format specifications that define media types that have parameters matching the RID restrictions specified in this memo SHOULD name those parameters in a manner that matches the names of those RID restrictions and SHOULD explicitly state what media-type parameters are restricted by what RID restrictions.¶
10. Formal Grammar
This section gives a formal Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] grammar, with the case-sensitive extensions described in [RFC7405], for each of the new media and "a=rid" attributes defined in this document.¶
11. SDP Examples
Note: See [RFC8853] for examples of RID used in simulcast scenarios.¶
11.1. Many Bundled Streams Using Many Codecs
In this scenario, the offerer supports the Opus, G.722, G.711, and DTMF audio codecs and VP8, VP9, H.264 (CBP/CHP, mode 0/1), H.264-SVC (SCBP/SCHP), and H.265 (MP/M10P) for video. An 8-way video call (to a mixer) is supported (send 1 and receive 7 video streams) by offering 7 video media sections (1 sendrecv at max resolution and 6 recvonly at smaller resolutions), all bundled on the same port, using 3 different resolutions. The resolutions include:¶
NOTE: The SDP given below skips a few lines to keep the example short and focused, as indicated by either the "..." or the comments inserted.¶
The offer for this scenario is shown below.¶
11.2. Scalable Layers
Adding scalable layers to a session within a multiparty conference gives a selective forwarding unit (SFU) further flexibility to selectively forward packets from a source that best match the bandwidth and capabilities of diverse receivers. Scalable encodings have dependencies between layers, unlike independent simulcast streams. RIDs can be used to express these dependencies using the "depend" restriction. In the example below, the highest resolution is offered to be sent as 2 scalable temporal layers (using Multiple RTP Streams on a Single Media Transport (MRST)). See [RFC8853] for additional detail about simulcast usage.¶
12. IANA Considerations
This specification updates [RFC4855] to give additional guidance on choice of Format Parameter (fmtp) names and their relation to RID restrictions.¶
12.1. New SDP Media-Level Attribute
This document defines "rid" as an SDP media-level attribute. This attribute has been registered by IANA under "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" under "att-field (media level only)".¶
The "rid" attribute is used to identify the properties of an RTP stream within an RTP session. Its format is defined in Section 10.¶
The formal registration information for this attribute follows.¶
- Contact name, email address, and telephone number
- IETF MMUSIC Working Group
mmusic@ietf.org
+1 510 492 4080¶ - Attribute name (as it will appear in SDP)
- rid¶
- Long-form attribute name in English
- Restriction Identifier¶
- Type of attribute (session level, media level, or both)
- Media Level¶
- Whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute
- The attribute is not dependent on charset.¶
- A one-paragraph explanation of the purpose of the attribute
- The "rid" SDP attribute is used to unambiguously identify the RTP streams within an RTP session and restrict the streams' payload format parameters in a codec-agnostic way beyond what is provided with the regular payload types.¶
- A specification of appropriate attribute values for this attribute
- Valid values are defined by the ABNF in RFC 8851¶
- Multiplexing (Mux) Category
- SPECIAL¶
12.2. Registry for RID-Level Parameters
This specification creates a new IANA registry named "RID Attribute Parameters" within the SDP parameters registry. The "a=rid" restrictions MUST be registered with IANA and documented under the same rules as for SDP session-level and media-level attributes as specified in [RFC4566].¶
Parameters for "a=rid" lines that modify the nature of encoded media MUST be of the form that the result of applying the modification to the stream results in a stream that still complies with the other parameters that affect the media. In other words, restrictions always have to restrict the definition to be a subset of what is otherwise allowable, and never expand it.¶
New restriction registrations are accepted according to the "Specification Required" policy of [RFC8126]. The registration MUST contain the RID parameter name and a reference to the corresponding specification. The specification itself must contain the following information (not all of which appears in the registry):¶
The initial set of "a=rid" restriction names, with definitions in Section 5 of this document, is given below:¶
It is conceivable that a future document will want to define RID-level
restrictions that contain string values. These extensions need to take care to
conform to the ABNF defined for rid
13. Security Considerations
As with most SDP parameters, a failure to provide integrity protection over the "a=rid" attributes gives attackers a way to modify the session in potentially unwanted ways. This could result in an implementation sending greater amounts of data than a recipient wishes to receive. In general, however, since the "a=rid" attribute can only restrict a stream to be a subset of what is otherwise allowable, modification of the value cannot result in a stream that is of higher bandwidth than would be sent to an implementation that does not support this mechanism.¶
The actual identifiers used for RIDs are expected to be opaque. As such, they are not expected to contain information that would be sensitive, were it observed by third parties.¶
14. References
14.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC3264]
-
Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3264 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3264 - [RFC3550]
-
Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3550 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3550 - [RFC4566]
-
Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4566 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4566 - [RFC4855]
-
Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 4855, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4855 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4855 - [RFC5234]
-
Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5234 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5234 - [RFC7405]
-
Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF", RFC 7405, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7405 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7405 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8852]
-
Roach, A.B., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES)", RFC 8852, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8852 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8852
14.2. Informative References
- [H264]
-
International Telecommunicati
on Union , "Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services", ITU-T Recommendation H.264, , <https://www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -H .264 - [RFC2198]
-
Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V., Handley, M., Bolot, J.C., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2198 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2198 - [RFC4588]
-
Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R. Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4588 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4588 - [RFC5109]
-
Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5109 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5109 - [RFC6184]
-
Wang, Y.-K., Even, R., Kristensen, T., and R. Jesup, "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 6184, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6184 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6184 - [RFC6236]
-
Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 6236, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6236 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6236 - [RFC7656]
-
Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7656 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7656 - [RFC7741]
-
Westin, P., Lundin, H., Glover, M., Uberti, J., and F. Galligan, "RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video", RFC 7741, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7741 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7741 - [RFC8126]
-
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8126 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8126 - [RFC8285]
-
Singer, D., Desineni, H., and R. Even, Ed., "A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions", RFC 8285, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8285 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8285 - [RFC8627]
-
Zanaty, M., Singh, V., Begen, A., and G. Mandyam, "RTP Payload Format for Flexible Forward Error Correction (FEC)", RFC 8627, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8627 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8627 - [RFC8843]
-
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8843, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8843 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8843 - [RFC8853]
-
Burman, B., Westerlund, M., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty, "Using Simulcast in Session Description Protocol (SDP) and RTP Sessions", RFC 8853, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8853 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8853
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Cullen Jennings, Magnus Westerlund, and Paul Kyzivat for reviewing. Thanks to Colin Perkins for input on future payload type handling.¶
Contributors
The following individuals have contributed significant text to this document.¶