RFC 9223: Real-Time Transport Object Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (ROUTE)
- W. Zia,
- T. Stockhammer,
- L. Chaponniere,
- G. Mandyam,
- M. Luby
Abstract
The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport (ROUTE) protocol is specified for robust delivery of Application Objects, including Application Objects with real-time delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport. Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers; for example, it can be a file, a Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) or HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) segment, a WAV audio clip, etc. The ROUTE protocol also supports low-latency streaming applications.¶
The ROUTE protocol is suitable for unicast, broadcast, and multicast transport. Therefore, it can be run over UDP/IP, including multicast IP. The ROUTE protocol can leverage the features of the underlying protocol layer, e.g., to provide security, it can leverage IP security protocols such as IPsec.¶
This document specifies the ROUTE protocol such that it could be used by a variety of services for delivery of Application Objects by specifying their own profiles of this protocol (e.g., by adding or constraining some features).¶
This is not an IETF specification and does not have IETF consensus.¶
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.¶
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see 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) 2022 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. Introduction
1.1. Overview
The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
(ROUTE) protocol can be used for robust delivery of
Application Objects, including Application Objects with real-time
delivery constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
Unidirectional transport in this document has identical meaning to that in
RFC 6726 [RFC6726], i.e., transport in the direction of receiver(s)
from a sender. The robustness is enabled by a built-in mechanism, e.g.,
signaling for loss detection, enabling loss recovery, and optionally
integrating application
Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g., an Application Object can be a file, an MPEG Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) [DASH] video segment, a WAV audio clip, an MPEG Common Media Application Format (CMAF) [CMAF] addressable resource, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.¶
The ROUTE protocol is designed to enable delivery of sequences of related Application Objects in a timely manner to receivers, e.g., a sequence of DASH video segments associated to a Representation or a sequence of CMAF addressable resources associated to a CMAF Track. The applications of this protocol target services enabled on media consumption devices such as smartphones, tablets, television sets, and so on. Most of these applications are real-time in the sense that they are sensitive to and rely upon such timely reception of data. The ROUTE protocol also supports chunked delivery of real-time Application Objects to enable low-latency streaming applications (similar in its properties to chunked delivery using HTTP). The protocol also enables low-latency delivery of DASH and Apple HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) content with CMAF Chunks.¶
Content not intended for rendering in real time as it is received (e.g., a downloaded application), a file comprising continuous or discrete media and belonging to an app-based feature, or a file containing (opaque) data to be consumed by a Digital Rights Management (DRM) system client can also be delivered by ROUTE.¶
The ROUTE protocol supports a caching model where Application
Objects are recovered into a cache at the receiver and may be made
available to applications via standard HTTP requests from the cache.
Many current day applications rely on using HTTP to access content;
hence, this approach enables such applications in
broadcast
ROUTE is aligned with File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (FLUTE)
as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] as well as
the extensions defined in Multimedia Broadcast
The alignment to FLUTE is enabled since in addition to reusing
several of the basic FLUTE protocol features, as referred to by this
document, certain optimizations and restrictions are added that
enable optimized support for real-time delivery of media data; hence,
the name of the protocol. Among others, the source ROUTE protocol
enables or enhances the following functionalities
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) 3.0 specifies the ROUTE protocol integrated with an ATSC 3.0 services layer. That specification will be referred to as ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] for the remainder of this document. Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) has specified a profile of ATSC-ROUTE in DVB Adaptive Media Streaming over IP Multicast (DVB-MABR) [DVBMABR]. This document specifies the Application Object delivery aspects (delivery protocol) for such services, as the corresponding delivery protocol could be used as a reference by a variety of services by specifying profiles of ROUTE in their respective fora, e.g., by adding new optional features atop or by restricting various optional features specified in this document in a specific service standard. Hence, in the context of this document, the aforementioned ATSC-ROUTE and DVB-MABR are the services using ROUTE. The definition of profiles by the services also have to give due consideration to compatibility issues, and some related guidelines are also provided in this document.¶
This document is not an IETF specification and does not have IETF
consensus. It is provided here to aid the production of interoperable
implementations
1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE
ROUTE delivers Application Objects such as MPEG DASH or HLS segments
and optionally the associated repair data, operating over UDP/IP
networks, as depicted in Table 1. The session metadata signaling to
realize a ROUTE session as specified in this document MAY be delivered
out of band or in band as well. Since ROUTE delivers objects in an
application cache at the receiver from where the application can
access them using HTTP, an application like DASH may use its
standardized unicast streaming mechanisms in conjunction with ROUTE
over broadcast
1.3. Data Model
The ROUTE data model is constituted by the following key concepts.¶
- Application Object:
- data that has meaning to the application that uses the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g., an Application Object can be a file, a DASH video segment, a WAV audio clip, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.¶
- Delivery Object:
- an object on course of delivery to the application from the ROUTE sender to ROUTE receiver.¶
- Transport Object:
- an object identified by the Transport Object Identifier (TOI) in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. It MAY be either a source or a repair object, depending on if it is carried by a Source Flow or a Repair Flow, respectively.¶
- Transport Session:
- a Layered Coding Transport (LCT) channel, as defined by RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. A Transport Session SHALL be uniquely identified by a unique Transport Session Identifier (TSI) value in the LCT header. The TSI is scoped by the IP address of the sender, and the IP address of the sender together with the TSI uniquely identify the session. Transport Sessions are a subset of a ROUTE session. For media delivery, a Transport Session would typically carry a media component, for example, a DASH Representation. Within each Transport Session, one or more objects are carried, typically objects that are related, e.g., DASH segments associated to one Representation.¶
- ROUTE Session:
- an ensemble or multiplex of one or more Transport Sessions. Each ROUTE session is associated with an IP address/port combination. A ROUTE session typically carries one or more media components of streaming media e.g., Representations associated with a DASH Media Presentation.¶
- Source Flow:
- a Transport Session carrying source data. Source Flow is independent of the Repair Flow, i.e., the Source Flow MAY be used by a ROUTE receiver without the ROUTE Repair Flows.¶
- Repair Flow:
- a Transport Session carrying repair data for one or more Source Flows.¶
1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification
The scope of the ROUTE protocol is to enable robust and real-time transport of delivery objects using LCT packets. This architecture is depicted in Figure 1.¶
The normative aspects of the ROUTE protocol focus on the following aspects:¶
1.5. Conventions Used in This Document
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.¶
2. ROUTE Packet Format
2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields
The packet format used by ROUTE Source Flows and Repair Flows follows the ALC packet format specified in RFC 5775 [RFC5775] with the UDP header followed by the default LCT header and the source FEC Payload ID followed by the packet payload. The overall ROUTE packet format is as depicted in Figure 2.¶
The Default LCT header is as defined in the LCT building block in RFC 5651 [RFC5651].¶
The LCT packet header fields SHALL be used as defined by the LCT building block in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The semantics and usage of the following LCT header fields SHALL be further constrained in ROUTE as follows:¶
- Version number (V):
- This 4-bit field indicates the protocol version number. The version number SHALL be set to '0001', as specified in RFC 5651 [RFC5651].¶
- Congestion Control flag (C) field:
- This 2-bit field, as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651], SHALL be set to '00'.¶
- Protocol
-Specific Indication (PSI): - The most significant bit of this 2-bit flag is called the Source Packet Indicator (SPI) and indicates whether the current packet is a source packet or a FEC repair packet. The SPI SHALL be set to '1' to indicate a source packet and SHALL bet set to '0' to indicate a repair packet.¶
- Transport Session Identifier flag (S):
- This 1-bit field SHALL be set to '1' to indicate a 32-bit word in the TSI field.¶
- Transport Object Identifier flag (O):
- This 2-bit field SHALL be set to '01' to indicate the number of full 32-bit words in the TOI field.¶
- Half-word flag (H):
- This 1-bit field SHALL be set to '0' to indicate that no half-word field sizes are used.¶
- Codepoint (CP):
- This 8-bit field is used to indicate the type of the payload
that is carried by this packet; for ROUTE, it is defined as shown
below to indicate the type of delivery object carried in the payload
of the associated ROUTE packet. The remaining unmapped Codepoint
values can be used by a service using ROUTE. In this case, the
Codepoint values SHALL follow the semantics specified
in the following table. "IS" stands for Initialization Segment of
the media content such as the DASH Initialization Segment
[DASH]. The various modes of operation in the table
(File /Entity /Package Mode) are specified in Section 4. The table also lists a Codepoint value range that is reserved for future service -specific uses.¶
- Congestion Control Information (CCI):
- For packets carrying DASH segments, CCI MAY convey the 32-bit earliest presentation time [DASH] of the DASH segment contained in the ROUTE packet. In this case, this information can be used by a ROUTE receiver for fast stream acquisition (details in Section 6.2). Otherwise, this field SHALL be set to 0.¶
- Transport Session Identifier (TSI):
- This 32-bit field
identifies the Transport Session in ROUTE. The context of the Transport
Session is provided by signaling metadata. The value TSI = 0 SHALL only be
used for service
-specific signaling.¶ - Transport Object Identifier (TOI):
- This 32-bit field SHALL identify the object within this session to which the payload of the current packet belongs. The mapping of the TOI field to the object is provided by the Extended File Delivery Table (FDT).¶
2.2. LCT Header Extensions
The following LCT header extensions are defined or used by ROUTE:¶
- EXT_FTI:
- as specified in RFC 5775.¶
- EXT_TOL:
- the length in bytes of the multicast transport object shall be signaled using EXT_TOL as specified by ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of Transfer Length. The frequency of using the EXT_TOL header extension is determined by channel conditions that may cause the loss of the packet carrying the Close Object flag (B) [RFC5651].¶
- NOTE: The transport object length can also be determined without the use of EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object flag (B). However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information can be used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.¶
- EXT_TIME Header:
- as specified in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The Sender Current Time SHALL be signaled using EXT_TIME.¶
2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows
The syntax of the FEC Payload ID for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme used in ROUTE Source Flows is a 32-bit unsigned integer value that SHALL express the start_offset as an octet number corresponding to the first octet of the fragment of the delivery object carried in this packet. The start_offset value for the first fragment of any delivery object SHALL be set to 0. Figure 3 shows the 32-bit start_offset field.¶
2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows
FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows is specified in RFC 6330 [RFC6330].¶
3. Session Metadata
The required session metadata for Source and Repair Flows is specified in the following sections. The list specified here is not exhaustive; a service MAY signal more metadata to meet its needs. The data format is also not specified beyond its cardinality; the exact format of specifying the data is left for the service, e.g., by using XML encoding format, as has been done by [DVBMABR] and [ATSCA331]. It is specified in the following if an attribute is mandatory (m), conditional mandatory (cm) or optional (o) to realize a basic ROUTE session. A mandatory field SHALL always be present in the session metadata, and a conditional mandatory field SHALL be present if the specified condition is true. The delivery of the session metadata to the ROUTE receiver is beyond the scope of this document.¶
3.1. Generic Metadata
Generic metadata is applicable to both Source and Repair Flows as follows. Before a receiver can join a ROUTE session, the receiver needs to obtain this generic metadata that contains at least the following information:¶
- ROUTE version number (m):
- the version number of ROUTE used in this session. The version number conforming to this document SHALL be 1.¶
- Connection ID (m):
- the unique identifier of a Connection,
usually consisting of the following 4-tuple: source IP address/source port number,
destination IP address
/destination port number. The IP addresses can be IPv4 or IPv6 addresses depending upon which IP version is used by the deployment.¶
3.2. Session Metadata for Source Flows
stsi (m): The LCT TSI value corresponding to the Transport Session for the Source Flow.¶
- rt (o):
- A Boolean flag that SHALL indicate whether the content component carried by this Source Flow corresponds to real-time streaming media or non-real-time content. When set to "true", it SHALL be an indication of real-time content, and when absent or set to "false", it SHALL be an indication of non-real-time (NRT) content.¶
- minBufferSize (o):
- A 32-bit unsigned integer that SHALL represent, in kilobytes, the minimum required storage size of the receiver transport buffer for the parent LCT channel of this Source Flow. The buffer holds the data belonging to a source object until its complete reception. This attribute is only applicable when rt = "true".¶
- A service that chooses not to signal this attribute relies on the receiver implementation, which must discard the received data beyond its buffering capability. Such discarding of data will impact the service quality.¶
- EFDT (cm):
- When present, SHALL contain a single instance of an FDT-Instance element per RFC 6726 FLUTE [RFC6726], which MAY contain the optional FDT extensions as defined in Section 4.1. The optional EFDT element MAY only be present for File Mode of delivery. In File Mode, it SHALL be present if this Source Flow transports streaming media segments.¶
- contentType (o):
- A string that SHALL represent the media type for the media content. It SHALL obey the semantics of the Content-Type header as specified by the HTTP/1.1 protocol in RFC 7231 [RFC7231]. This document does not define any new contentType strings. In its absence, the signaling of media type for the media content is beyond the scope of this document.¶
- application
Mapping (m): - A set of identifiers that provide an application
-specific mapping of the received Application Objects to the Source Flows. For example, for DASH, this would provide the mapping of a Source Flow to a specific DASH Representation from a Media Presentation Description (MPD), the latter identified by its Representation and corresponding Adaptation Set and Period IDs.¶
3.3. Session Metadata for Repair Flows
- minBuffSize (o):
-
A 32-bit unsigned integer whose value SHALL represent a required size of the receiver transport buffer for AL‑FEC decoding processing. When present, this attribute SHALL indicate the minimum buffer size that is required to handle all associated objects that are assigned to a super-object, i.e., a delivery object formed by the concatenation of multiple FEC transport objects in order to bundle these FEC transport objects for AL-FEC protection.¶
A service that chooses not to signal this attribute relies on the receiver implementation, which must discard the received repair data beyond its buffering capability. Such discarding of data will impact the service quality.¶
- fecOTI (m):
- A parameter consisting of the concatenation of Common and Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information (FEC OTI) as defined in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of [RFC6330] and that corresponds to the delivery objects carried in the Source Flow to which this Repair Flow is associated, with the following qualification: the 40-bit Transfer Length (F) field may either represent the actual size of the object, or it is encoded as all zeroes. In the latter case, the FEC transport object size either is unknown or cannot be represented by this attribute. In other words, for the all-zeroes format, the delivery objects in the Source Flow correspond to streaming content, either a live Service whereby content encoding has not yet occurred at the time this session data was generated or pre-recorded streaming content whose delivery object sizes, albeit known at the time of session data generation, are variable and cannot be represented as a single value by the fecOTI attribute.¶
- ptsi (m):
- TSI value(s) of each Source Flow protected by this Repair Flow.¶
- mappingTOIx (o):
- Values of the constant X for use in deriving the TOI of the delivery object of each protected Source Flow from the TOI of the FEC (super-)object. The default value is "1". Multiple mappingTOIx values MAY be provided for each protected Source Flow depending upon the usage of FEC (super-)object.¶
- mappingTOIy (o):
- The corresponding constant Y to each mappingTOIx, when present, for use in deriving the parent SourceTOI value from the above equation. The default value is "0".¶
4. Delivery Object Mode
ROUTE provides several different delivery object modes, and one of these modes may suit the application needs better for a given Transport Session. A delivery object is self contained for the application, typically associated with certain properties, metadata, and timing-related information relevant to the application. The signaling of the delivery object mode is done on an object basis using Codepoint as specified in Section 2.1.¶
4.1. File Mode
File Mode uses an out-of-band Extended FDT (EFDT) signaling for recovery of delivery objects with the following extensions and considerations.¶
4.1.1. Extensions to FDT
The following extensions are specified to FDT, as specified in RFC 6726 [RFC6726]. An Extended FDT-Instance is an instance of FLUTE FDT, as specified in [RFC6726], plus optionally one or more of the following extensions:¶
- efdtVersion:
- A value that SHALL represent the version of this Extended FDT-Instance.¶
- maxExpiresDelta:
- Let "tp" represent the wall clock time at
the receiver when the receiver acquires the first ROUTE packet carrying
data of the object described by this Extended FDT-Instance.
max
Expires Delta, when present, SHALL represent a time interval that when added to "tp" SHALL represent the expiration time of the associated Extended FDT-Instance "te". The time interval is expressed in number of seconds. When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the expiration time of the Extended FDT-Instance SHALL be given by the sum of a) the value of the ERT field in the EXT_TIME LCT header extension in the first ROUTE packet carrying data of that file, and b) the current receiver time when parsing the packet header of that ROUTE packet. See Sections 5.4 and 6.3.3 on additional rules for deriving the Extended FDT-Instance expiration time. Hence, te = tp + maxExpiresDelta¶ - max
Transport Size : - An attribute that SHALL represent the
maximum transport size in bytes of any delivery object described by this
Extended FDT-Instance. This attribute SHALL be present if a) the
fileTemplate is present in Extended FDT-Instance, or b) one or more File
elements, if present in this Extended FDT-Instance, do not include the
Transfer-Length attribute. When max
Transport Size is not present, the maximum transport size is not signaled, while other signaling such as the Transfer-Length attribute signal the exact Transfer Length of the object.¶ - fileTemplate:
- A string value, which when present and in
conjunction with parameter substitution, is used in deriving the
Content
-Location attribute for the delivery object described by this Extended FDT-Instance. It SHALL include the "$TOI$" identifier. Each identifier MAY be suffixed as needed by specific file names within the enclosing '$' characters following this prototype: %0[width]d¶
The width parameter is an unsigned integer that provides the minimum number of characters to be printed. If the value to be printed is shorter than this number, the result SHALL be padded with leading zeroes. The value is not truncated even if the result is larger. When no format tag is present, a default format tag with width=1 SHALL be used.¶
Strings other than identifiers SHALL only contain characters that are permitted within URIs according to RFC 3986 [RFC3986].¶
$$ is an escape sequence in fileTemplate value, i.e., "$$" is
non-recursively replaced with a single "$".¶
The usage of fileTemplate is described in Sender and Receiver operations in Sections 5.4 and 6.3, respectively.¶
4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT
The Extended FDT-Instance SHALL conform to an FDT-Instance according to RFC 6726 [RFC6726] with the following constraints: at least one File element and the @Expires attribute SHALL be present.¶
Content encoding MAY be used for delivery of any file described by an
FDT
4.2. Entity Mode
For Entity Mode, the following applies:¶
4.3. Unsigned Package Mode
In this delivery mode, the delivery object consists of a group of
files that are packaged for delivery only. If applied, the client is
expected to unpack the package and provide each file as an
independent object to the application. Packaging is supported by
Multipart Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2557],
where objects are packaged into one document for transport, with
Content-Type set to multipart
4.4. Signed Package Mode
In Signed Package Mode delivery, the delivery object consists of a group of files that are packaged for delivery, and the package includes one or more signatures for validation. Signed packaging is supported by RFC 8551 Secure MIME (S/MIME) [RFC8551], where objects are packaged into one document for transport and the package includes objects necessary for validation of the package.¶
5. Sender Operation
5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow
ROUTE Source Flow carries the source data as specified in RFC 5775 [RFC5775]. There are several special considerations that ROUTE introduces to the usage of the LCT building block as outlined in the following:¶
Further, the following details apply to LCT:¶
Additional extension headers MAY be used to support real-time delivery. Such extension headers are defined in Section 2.1.¶
5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow
The following description of the ROUTE sender operation on the mapping of the Application Object to the ROUTE packet payloads logically represents an extension of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], which in turn inherits the context, language, declarations, and restrictions of the FEC building block in RFC 5052 [RFC5052].¶
The data carried in the payload of a given ROUTE packet constitutes a contiguous portion of the Application Object. ROUTE source delivery can be considered as a special case of the use of the Compact No-Code Scheme associated with FEC Encoding ID = 0 according to Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of [RFC5445], in which the encoding symbol size is exactly one byte. As specified in Section 2.1, for ROUTE Source Flows, the FEC Payload ID SHALL deliver the 32-bit start_offset. All receivers are expected to support, at minimum, operation with this special case of the Compact No-Code FEC.¶
Note that in the event the source object size is greater than 232 bytes
(approximately 4.3 GB), the applications (in the broadcaster server and the
receiver) are expected to perform segmentation
Finally, in some special cases, a ROUTE sender MAY need to produce ROUTE packets that do not contain any payload. This may be required, for example, to signal the end of a session. These dataless packets do not contain FEC Payload ID or payload data, but only the LCT header fields. The total datagram length, conveyed by outer protocol headers (e.g., the IP or UDP header), enables receivers to detect the absence of the LCT header, FEC Payload ID, and payload data.¶
5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization
In the basic operation, it is assumed that the Application Object is fully available at the ROUTE sender.¶
The order of packet delivery is arbitrary, but in the absence of other constraints, delivery with increasing start_offset value is recommended.¶
5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content
The following additional guidelines should be followed for ROUTE packetization of CMAF Chunked Content in addition to the guidelines of Section 5.2.1:¶
5.3. Timing of Packet Emission
The sender SHALL use the timing information provided by the application to time the emission of packets for a timely reception. This information may be contained in the Application Objects e.g., DASH segments and/or the presentation manifest. Hence, such packets of streaming media with real-time constraints SHALL be sent in such a way as to enable their timely reception with respect to the presentation timeline.¶
5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending
For File Mode sending:¶
5.5. FEC Framework Considerations
The FEC framework uses concepts of the FECFRAME work as defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], as well as the FEC building block, RFC 5052 [RFC5052], which is adopted in the existing FLUTE/ALC/LCT specifications.¶
The FEC design adheres to the following principles:¶
The FEC-specific components of the FEC framework are:¶
A receiver needs to be able to recover delivery objects from repair packets based on available FEC information.¶
5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction
In order to identify a delivery object in the context of the repair protocol, the following information is needed:¶
Typically, for real-time object delivery with smaller delivery object sizes, the first mapping is applied, i.e., the delivery object is a FEC object.¶
Assuming that the FEC object is the delivery object, for each delivery object, the associated FEC transport object is comprised of the concatenation of the delivery object, padding octets (P), and the FEC object size (F) in octets, where F is carried in a 4-octet field.¶
The FEC transport object size S, in FEC encoding symbols, SHALL be an integer multiple of the symbol size Y. S is determined from the session information and/or the repair packet headers.¶
F is carried in the last 4 octets of the FEC transport object. Specifically, let:¶
O' then constitutes the FEC transport object of size S*Y octets. Note that padding octets and the object size F are not sent in source packets of the delivery object but are only part of a FEC transport object that FEC decoding recovers in order to extract the FEC object and thus the delivery object or portion of the delivery object that constitutes the FEC object. In the above context, the FEC transport object size in symbols is S.¶
The general information about a FEC transport object that is conveyed to a FEC-enabled receiver is the source TSI, source TOI, and the associated octet range within the delivery object comprising the associated FEC object. However, as the size in octets of the FEC object is provided in the appended field within the FEC transport object, the remaining information can be conveyed as:¶
5.7. Super-Object Construction
From the FEC Repair Flow declaration, the construction of a FEC super-object as the concatenation of one or more FEC transport objects can be determined. The FEC super-object includes the general information about the FEC transport objects as described in the previous sections, as well as the placement order of FEC transport objects within the FEC super-object.¶
Let:¶
For each FEC super-object, the remaining general information that needs to be conveyed to a FEC-enabled receiver, beyond what is already carried in the FEC transport objects that constitute the FEC super-object, comprises:¶
The carriage of the FEC repair information is discussed below.¶
5.8. Repair Packet Considerations
The repair protocol is based on Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) as defined in RFC 5775 [RFC5775] and the Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651] with the following details:¶
5.9. Summary FEC Information
For each super-object (identified by a unique TOI within a Repair Flow that is in turn identified by the TSI in the LCT header) that is generated, the following information needs to be communicated to the receiver:¶
The above information is delivered:¶
6. Receiver Operation
The receiver receives packets and filters those packets according to the following. From the ROUTE session and each contained LCT channel, the receiver regenerates delivery objects from the ROUTE session and each contained LCT channel.¶
In the event that the receiver receives data that does not conform to the ROUTE protocol specified in this document, the receiver SHOULD attempt to recover gracefully by e.g., informing the application about the issues using means beyond the scope of this document. The ROUTE packetization specified in Section 5.2.1 implies that the receiver SHALL NOT receive overlapping data; if such a condition is encountered at the receiver, the packet SHALL be assumed to be corrupted.¶
The basic receiver operation is provided below (it assumes an error-free scenario), while repair considerations are provided in Section 7.¶
6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows
Upon receipt of each ROUTE packet of a Source Flow, the receiver proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.¶
- 1)
- The ROUTE receiver is expected to parse the LCT and FEC Payload ID to verify that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the payload is discarded without further processing.¶
- 2)
- All ROUTE packets used to recover a specific delivery object carry the same TOI value in the LCT header.¶
- 3)
- The ROUTE receiver is expected to assert that the TSI and the Codepoint represent valid operation points in the signaling metadata, i.e., the signaling contains a matching entry to the TSI value provided in the packet header, as well as for this TSI, and the Codepoint field in the LCT header has a valid Codepoint mapping.¶
- 4)
-
The ROUTE receiver should process the remainder of the payload, including the appropriate interpretation of the other payload header fields, using the source FEC Payload ID (to determine the start_offset) and the payload data to reconstruct the corresponding object as follows:¶
Upon recovery of both the complete set of packet payloads for the delivery object associated with a given TOI value, and the metadata for that delivery object, the reception of the delivery object, now a fully received Application Object, is complete.¶
Given the timely reception of ROUTE packets belonging to an
Application Object, the receiver SHALL make the Application Objects
available to the application in a timely fashion using the
application
6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition
When the receiver initially starts reception of ROUTE packets, it is likely that the reception does not start from the very first packet carrying the data of a multicast transport object; in this case, such a partially received object is normally discarded. However, the channel acquisition or "tune-in" times can be improved if the partially received object is usable by the application. One example realization for this is as follows:¶
6.3. Generating Extended FDT-Instance for File Mode
An Extended FDT-Instance conforming to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], is produced at the receiver using the service metadata and in-band signaling in the following steps:¶
6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location Derivation
The Content
"$TOI$" is substituted with the unique TOI value in the LCT header of the ROUTE packets used to recover the given delivery object (as specified in Section 6.1).¶
After the substitution, the fileTemplate SHALL be a valid URL
corresponding to the Content
An example @fileTemplate using a width of 5 is:
file
6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation
Either the EXT_FTI header (per RFC 5775 [RFC5775]) or the EXT_TOL
header, when present, is used to derive the Transport Object Length
(TOL) of the File. If the File
6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation
When present, the maxExpiresDelta attribute SHALL be used to generate
the value of the FDT
When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the EXT_TIME header with Expected Residual Time (ERT) SHALL be used to derive the expiry time of the Extended FDT-Instance. When both maxExpiresDelta and the ERT of EXT_TIME are present, the smaller of the two values should be used as the incremental time interval to be added to the receiver's current time to generate the effective value for @Expires. When neither maxExpiresDelta nor the ERT field of the EXT_TIME header is present, then the expiration time of the Extended FDT-Instance is given by its @Expires attribute.¶
7. FEC Application
7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines
It is up to the receiver to decide to use zero, one, or more of the FEC streams. Hence, the application assigns a recovery property to each flow, which defines aspects such as the delay and the required memory if one or the other is chosen. The receiver MAY decide whether or not to utilize Repair Flows based on the following considerations:¶
If a receiver decides to acquire a certain Repair Flow, then the receiver must receive data on all Source Flows that are protected by that Repair Flow to collect the relevant packets.¶
7.2. TOI Mapping
When mapping
When neither mappingTOIx nor mappingTOIy is present, there is a 1:1 relationship between each delivery object carried in the Source Flow as identified by ptsi to a FEC object carried in this Repair Flow. In this case, the TOI of each of those delivery objects SHALL be identical to the TOI of the corresponding FEC object.¶
7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout
The permitted start and end times for the receiver to perform the file repair procedure, in case of unsuccessful broadcast file reception, and associated rules and parameters are as follows:¶
7.4. Example FEC Operation
To be able to recover the delivery objects that are protected by a Repair Flow, a receiver needs to obtain the necessary Service signaling metadata fragments that describe the corresponding collection of delivery objects that are covered by this Repair Flow. A Repair Flow is characterized by the combination of an LCT channel, a unique TSI number, as well as the corresponding protected Source Flows.¶
If a receiver acquires data of a Repair Flow, the receiver is expected to collect all packets of all protected Transport Sessions. Upon receipt of each packet, whether it is a source or repair packet, the receiver proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.¶
8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles
Services (e.g., ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331], DVB-MABR [DVBMABR], etc.) may define specific ROUTE "profiles" based on this document in their respective standards organizations. An example is noted in the overview section: DVB has specified a profile of ATSC-ROUTE in DVB Adaptive Media Streaming over IP Multicast (DVB-MABR) [DVBMABR]. The definition has the following considerations. Services MAY¶
Services SHALL NOT redefine the semantics of any of the ROUTE attributes in LCT headers and extensions, as well as Service signaling attributes already specified in this document.¶
By following these guidelines, services can define profiles that are interoperable.¶
9. ROUTE Concepts
9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery
Different ROUTE delivery modes specified in Section 4 are optimized for delivery of different types of media data. For example, File Mode is specifically optimized for delivering DASH content using Segment Template with number substitution. Using File Template in EFDT avoids the need for the repeated sending of metadata as outlined in the following section. Same optimizations, however, cannot be used for time substitution and segment timeline where the addressing of each segment is time dependent and in general does not follow a fixed or repeated pattern. In this case, Entity Mode is more optimized since it carries the file location in band. Also, Entity Mode can be used to deliver a file or part of the file using HTTP Partial Content response headers.¶
9.2. File Mode Optimizations
In File Mode, the delivery object represents an Application Object. This mode replicates FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] but with the ability to send static and pre-known file metadata out of band.¶
In FLUTE, FDT-Instances are delivered in band and need to be generated and
delivered in real time if objects are generated in real time at the
sender. These FDT-Instances have some differences as compared to the FDT
specified in Section 3.4.2 of [RFC6726] and Section 7.2.10 of MBMS
[MBMS]. The key difference is that besides separated delivery of file
metadata from the delivery object it describes, the FDT functionality in
ROUTE may be extended by additional file metadata and rules that enable the
receiver to generate the Content
9.3. In-Band Signaling of Object Transfer Length
As an extension to FLUTE, ROUTE allows for using EXT_TOL LCT header extension with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits to signal the Transfer Length directly within the ROUTE packet.¶
The transport object length can also be determined without the use of EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object flag (B). However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information can be used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.¶
Applications using ROUTE for delivery of low-latency streaming content may make use of this feature for sender-end latency optimizations: the sender does not have to wait for the completion of the packaging of a whole Application Object to find its Transfer Length to be included in the FDT before the sending can start. Rather, partially encoded data can already be started to be sent via the ROUTE sender. As the time approaches when the encoding of the Application Object is nearing completion, and the length of the object becomes known (e.g., the time of writing the last CMAF Chunk of a DASH segment), only then the sender can signal the object length using the EXT TOL LCT header. For example, for a 2-second DASH segment with 100-millisecond chunks, it may result in saving up to 1.9 second latency at the sending end.¶
9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts
The ROUTE repair protocol is FEC-based and is enabled as an additional layer between the transport layer (e.g., UDP) and the object delivery layer protocol. The FEC reuses concepts of the FEC Framework defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], but in contrast to the FEC Framework in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], the ROUTE repair protocol does not protect packets but instead protects delivery objects as delivered in the source protocol. In addition, as an extension to FLUTE, it supports the protection of multiple objects in one source block which is in alignment with the FEC Framework as defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363]. Each FEC source block may consist of parts of a delivery object, as a single delivery object (similar to FLUTE) or multiple delivery objects that are bundled prior to FEC protection. ROUTE FEC makes use of FEC schemes in a similar way as those defined in RFC 5052 [RFC5052] and uses the terminology of that document. The FEC scheme defines the FEC encoding and decoding as well as the protocol fields and procedures used to identify packet payload data in the context of the FEC scheme.¶
In ROUTE, all packets are LCT packets as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. Source and repair packets may be distinguished by:¶
10. Interoperability Chart
As noted in prevision sections, ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] and DVB-MABR
[DVBMABR] are considered services using this document that constrain
specific features as well as add new ones. In this context, the
following table is an informative comparison of the interoperabilit
11. Security and Privacy Considerations
11.1. Security Considerations
As noted in Section 9, ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE as specified in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] and only diverges in certain signaling optimizations, especially for the real-time object delivery case. Hence, most of the security considerations documented in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] for the data flow itself, the session metadata (session control parameters in RFC 6726 [RFC6726]), and the associated building blocks apply directly to ROUTE as elaborated in the following along with some additional considerations.¶
Both encryption and integrity protection applied either on file or packet level, as recommended in the file corruption considerations of RFC 6726 [RFC6726], SHOULD be used for ROUTE. Additionally, RFC 3740 [RFC3740] documents multicast security architecture in great detail with clear security recommendations that SHOULD be followed.¶
When ROUTE is carried over UDP and a reverse channel from receiver to sender is available, the security mechanisms provided in RFC 9147 [RFC9147] SHOULD be applied.¶
In regard to considerations for attacks against session description, this
document does not specify the semantics or mechanism of delivery of session
metadata, though the same threats apply for service using ROUTE as
well. Hence, a service using ROUTE SHOULD take these threats
into consideration and address them appropriately following the guidelines
provided by RFC 6726 [RFC6726]. Additionally, to the recommendations of RFC 6726 [RFC6726], for Internet connected devices,
services SHOULD enable clients to access the session
description information using HTTPS with customary
authentication
In regard to FDT, there is one key difference for File Mode when using File
Template in EFDT, which avoids repeated sending of FDT-Instances and hence,
the corresponding threats noted in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] do not apply directly to ROUTE in this case. The threat,
however, is shifted to the ALC/LCT headers, since they carry the additional
signaling that enables determining Content
Finally, attacks against the congestion control building block for the case of ROUTE can impact the optional fast stream acquisition specified in Section 6.2. Receivers SHOULD have robustness against timestamp values that are suspicious, e.g., by comparing the signaled time in the LCT headers with the approximate time signaled by the MPD, and SHOULD discard outlying values. Additionally, receivers MUST adhere to the expiry timelines as specified in Section 6. Integrity protection mechanisms documented in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] SHOULD be used to address this threat.¶
11.2. Privacy Considerations
Encryption mechanisms recommended for security considerations in Section 11.1 SHOULD also be applied to enable privacy and protection from snooping attacks.¶
Since this protocol is primarily targeted for IP multicast
However, if clients access session description information via HTTPS, the same privacy considerations and solutions SHALL apply to this access as for regular HTTPS communication, an area that is very well studied and the concepts of which are being integrated directly into newer transport protocols such as IETF QUIC [RFC9000] enabling HTTP/3 [HTTP3]. Hence, such newer protocols SHOULD be used to foster privacy.¶
Note that streaming services MAY contain content that may only be accessed via DRM (digital rights management) systems. DRM systems can prevent unauthorized access to content delivered via ROUTE.¶
12. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.¶
13. References
13.1. Normative References
- [ATSCA331]
-
Advanced Television Systems Committee, "Signaling, Delivery, Synchronization
, and Error Protection" , ATSC Standard A/331:2022-03, . - [RFC1952]
-
Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3", RFC 1952, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC1952 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc1952 - [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 - [RFC2557]
-
Palme, J., Hopmann, A., and N. Shelness, "MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2557, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2557 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2557 - [RFC3986]
-
Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3986 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3986 - [RFC5052]
-
Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5052 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5052 - [RFC5445]
-
Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes", RFC 5445, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5445 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5445 - [RFC5651]
-
Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5651 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5651 - [RFC5775]
-
Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5775 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5775 - [RFC6330]
-
Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., Stockhammer, T., and L. Minder, "RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery", RFC 6330, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6330 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6330 - [RFC6363]
-
Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6363 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6363 - [RFC6726]
-
Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen, "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport", RFC 6726, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6726 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6726 - [RFC7231]
-
Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7231 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7231 - [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 - [RFC8551]
-
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure
/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification" , RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC8551 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8551
13.2. Informative References
- [CMAF]
-
International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology -- Multimedia application format (MPEG-A) -- Part 19: Common media application format (CMAF) for segmented media", First edition, ISO/IEC FDIS 23000-19, , <https://
www >..iso .org /standard /71975 .html - [DASH]
-
International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology - Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats", Fourth edition, ISO/IEC 23009-1:2019, , <https://
www >..iso .org /standard /79329 .html - [DVBMABR]
- ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Adaptive media streaming over IP multicast", version 1.1.1, ETSI TS 103 769, .
- [HTTP3]
-
Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3 (HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-quic -http -34 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -quic -http -34 - [MBMS]
-
ETSI, "Universal Mobile Telecommunicati
ons Systems (UMTS); LTE; 5G; Multimedia Broadcast , version 16.9.1, ETSI TS 126 346, ./Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and codecs" - [RFC3740]
-
Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security Architecture", RFC 3740, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3740 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3740 - [RFC6968]
-
Roca, V. and B. Adamson, "FCAST: Object Delivery for the Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocols", RFC 6968, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6968 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6968 - [RFC8932]
-
Dickinson, S., Overeinder, B., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., and A. Mankin, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators", BCP 232, RFC 8932, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8932 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8932 - [RFC9000]
-
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9000 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9000 - [RFC9147]
-
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9147 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9147
Acknowledgments
As outlined in the introduction and in ROUTE concepts in Section 9, the concepts specified in this document are the culmination of the collaborative work of several experts and organizations over the years. The authors would especially like to acknowledge the work and efforts of the following people and organizations to help realize the technologies described in this document (in no specific order): Mike Luby, Kent Walker, Charles Lo, and other colleagues from Qualcomm Incorporated, LG Electronics, Nomor Research, Sony, and BBC R&D.¶