RFC 9584: RTP Payload Format for Essential Video Coding (EVC)
- S. Zhao,
- S. Wenger,
- Y. Lim
Abstract
This document describes an RTP payload format for the Essential Video
Coding (EVC) standard, published as ISO/IEC International Standard
23094-1. EVC was developed by the MPEG. The RTP payload format allows
for the packetization of one or more Network Abstraction Layer (NAL)
units in each RTP packet payload and the fragmentation of a NAL unit
into multiple RTP packets. The payload format has broad applicability in
videoconferenci
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) 2024 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
The Essential Video Coding [EVC] standard, which is formally designated as ISO/IEC International Standard 23094-1 [EVC], was published in 2020. One of MPEG's goals is to keep EVC's Baseline profile essentially royalty-free by using technologies published more than 20 years ago or otherwise known to be available for use without a requirement for paying royalties, whereas more advanced profiles follow a reasonable and non
This document describes an RTP payload format for EVC. It shares its basic design with the NAL unit-based RTP payload formats of H.264 Video Coding [RFC6184], Scalable Video Coding (SVC) [RFC6190], High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) [RFC7798], and Versatile Video Coding (VVC) [RFC9328]. With respect to design philosophy, security, congestion control, and overall implementation complexity, it has similar properties to those earlier payload format specifications. This is a conscious choice, as at least the RTP Payload Format for H.264 video as described in [RFC6184] is widely deployed and generally known in the relevant implementer communities. Certain mechanisms described in [RFC6190] were incorporated, as EVC supports temporal scalability. EVC currently does not offer higher forms of scalability.¶
1.1. Overview of the EVC Codec
The codings described in [EVC], [AVC], [HEVC], and [VVC] share a similar hybrid video codec design. In this document, we provide a very brief overview of those features of EVC that are, in some form, addressed by the payload format specified herein. Implementers have to read, understand, and apply the ISO/IEC standard pertaining to EVC [EVC] to arrive at interoperable, well-performing implementations
Conceptually, all EVC, AVC, HEVC, and VVC include a Video Coding Layer (VCL), a term that is often used to refer to the coding-tool features, and a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL), which usually refers to the systems and transport interface aspects of the codecs.¶
1.1.1. Coding-Tool Features (Informative)
- Coding blocks and transform structure
-
EVC uses a traditional block-based coding structure, which divides the encoded image into blocks of up to 64x64 luma samples for the Baseline profile and 128x128 luma samples for the Main profile that can be recursively divided into smaller blocks. The Baseline profiles utilize HEVC-like quad
-tree -blocks partitioning that allows a block to be divided horizontally and vertically into four smaller square blocks. The Main profile adds two advanced coding structure tools: 1) Binary Ternary Tree (BTT) partitioning that allows non-square coding units and 2) Split Unit Coding Order segmentation that changes the processing order of the blocks from traditional left-to-right and top-to-bottom scanning order processing to an alternative right-to-left and bottom-to-top scanning order. In the Main profile, the picture can be divided into slices and tiles, which can be independently encoded and/or decoded in parallel.¶ EVC also uses a traditional video codecs prediction model assuming two general types of predictions: Intra (spatial) and Inter (temporal) predictions. A residue block is calculated by subtracting predicted data from the original (encoded) one. The Baseline profile allows only discrete cosine transform (DCT-2) and scalar quantization to transform and quantize residue data, wherein the Main profile additionally has options to use discrete sine transform (DST-7) and another type of discrete cosine transform (DCT-8). In addition, for the Main profile, Improved Quantization and Transform (IQT) uses a different mapping or clipping function for quantization. An inverse zig-zag scanning order is used for coefficient coding. Advanced Coefficient Coding (ADCC) in the Main profile can code coefficient values more efficiently, for example, indicated by the last non-zero coefficient. The Baseline profile uses a straightforward RLE-based approach to encode the quantized coefficients.¶
- Entropy coding
-
EVC uses a similar binary arithmetic coding mechanism as HEVC CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) and VVC. The mechanism includes a binarization step and a probability update defined by a lookup table. In the Main profile, the derivation process of syntax elements based on adjacent blocks makes the context modeling and initialization process more efficient.¶
- In-loop filtering
-
The Baseline profile of EVC uses the deblocking filter defined in H.263 Annex J [VIDEO-CODING]. In the Main profile, an Advanced Deblocking Filter (ADDB) can be used as an alternative, which can further reduce undesirable compression artifacts. The Main profile also defines two additional in-loop filters that can be used to improve the quality of decoded pictures before output and/or for Inter prediction. A Hadamard Transform Domain Filter (HTDF) is applied to the luma samples before deblocking, and a lookup table is used to determine four adjacent samples for filtering. An adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) allows signals of up to 25 different filters to be sent for the luma components; the best filter can be selected through the classification process for each 4x4 block. Similarly to VVC, the filter parameters of ALF are signaled in the Adaptation Parameter Set (APS).¶
- Inter prediction
-
The basis of EVC's Inter prediction is motion compensation using interpolation filters with a quarter sample resolution. In the Baseline profile, a motion vector is transmitted using one of three spatially neighboring motion vectors and a temporally collocated motion vector as a predictor. A motion vector difference may be signaled relative to the selected predictor, but there is a case where no motion vector difference is signaled, and there is no remaining data in the block. This mode is called a "skip" mode. The Main profile includes six additional tools to provide improved Inter prediction. With Advanced Motion Vectors Prediction (ADMVP), adjacent blocks can be conceptually merged to indicate that they use the same motion, but more advanced schemes can also be used to create predictions from the basic model list of candidate predictors. The Merge with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD) tool uses a process similar to the concept of merging neighboring blocks but also allows the use of expressions that include a starting point, motion amplitude, and direction of motion to send a motion vector signal. Using Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP), candidate motion vector predictions for the block can be derived from its neighboring blocks in the same picture and collocated blocks in the reference picture. The Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) tool provides a way to reduce the accuracy of a motion vector from a quarter sample to half sample, full sample, double sample, or quad sample, which provides an efficiency advantage, such as when sending large motion vector differences. The Main profile also includes the Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR), which uses a bilateral template matching process to refine the motion vectors without additional signaling.¶
- Intra prediction and intra coding
-
Intra prediction in EVC is performed on adjacent samples of coding units in a partitioned structure. For the Baseline profile, when all coding units are square, there are five different prediction modes: DC (mean value of the neighborhood), horizontal, vertical, and two different diagonal directions. In the Main profile, intra prediction can be applied to any rectangular coding unit, and 28 additional direction modes are available in the Enhanced Intra Prediction Directions (EIPDs). In the Main profile, an encoder can also use Intra Block Copy (IBC), where previously decoded sample blocks of the same picture are used as a predictor. A displacement vector in integer sample precision is signaled to indicate where the prediction block in the current picture is used for this mode.¶
- Reference frames management
-
In EVC, decoded pictures can be stored in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) for predicting pictures that follow them in the decoding order. In the Baseline profile, the management of the DPB (i.e., the process of adding and deleting reference pictures) is controlled by a straightforward AVC-like sliding window approach with very few parameters from the sequence parameter set (SPS). For the Main profile, DPB management can be handled much more flexibly using explicitly signaled Reference Picture Lists (RPLs) in the SPS or slice level.¶
1.1.2. Systems and Transport Interfaces
EVC inherits the basic systems and transport interface designs from AVC and HEVC. These include the NAL-unit-based syntax, hierarchical syntax and data unit structure, and Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) message mechanism. The hierarchical syntax and data unit structure consists of a sequence-level parameter set (i.e., SPS), two picture-level parameter sets (i.e., PPS and APS, each of which can apply to one or more pictures), slice-level header parameters, and lower-level parameters.¶
A number of key components that influenced the NAL design of EVC as well as this document are described below:¶
- Sequence parameter set
-
The Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) contains syntax elements pertaining to a Coded Video Sequence (CVS), which is a group of pictures, starting with a random access point picture and followed by zero or more pictures that may depend on each other and the random access point picture. In MPEG-2, the equivalent of a CVS is a Group of Pictures (GOP), which generally starts with an I frame and is followed by P and B frames. While more complex in its options of random access points, EVC retains this basic concept. In many TV-like applications, a CVS contains a few hundred milliseconds to a few seconds of video. In video conferencing (without switching Multipoint Control Units (MCUs) involved), a CVS can be as long in duration as the whole session.¶
- Picture and adaptation parameter set
-
The Picture Parameter Set (PPS) and the Adaptation Parameter Set (APS) carry information pertaining to a single picture. The PPS contains information that is likely to stay constant from picture to picture, at least for pictures of a certain type; whereas the APS contains information, such as adaptive loop filter coefficients, that are likely to change from picture to picture.¶
- Profile, level, and toolsets
-
Profiles and levels follow the same design considerations known from AVC, HEVC, and video codecs as old as MPEG-1 Video. The profile defines a set of tools (not to be confused with the "toolset" discussed below) that a decoder compliant with this profile has to support. In EVC, profiles are defined in Annex A of [EVC]. Formally, they are defined as a set of constraints that a bitstream needs to conform to. In EVC, the Baseline profile is much more severely constrained than the Main profile, reducing implementation complexity. Levels relate to bitstream complexity in dimensions such as maximum sample decoding rate, maximum picture size, and similar parameters directly related to computational complexity and/or memory demands.¶
Profiles and levels are signaled in the highest parameter set available, the SPS.¶
EVC contains another mechanism related to the use of coding tools, known as the toolset syntax elements. These syntax elements, toolset_idc_h and toolset_idc_l (located in the SPS), are bitmasks that allow encoders to indicate which coding tools they are using within the menu of profiles offered by the profile that is also signaled. No decoder conformance point is associated with the toolset, but a bitstream that was using a coding tool that is indicated as not being used in the toolset syntax element would be non-compliant. While MPEG specifically rules out the use of the toolset syntax element as a conformance point, walled garden implementations could do so without incurring the interoperabilit
y problems MPEG fears and create bitstreams and decoders that do not support one or more given tools. That, in turn, may be useful to mitigate certain intellectual property -related risks.¶ - Bitstream and elementary stream
-
Above the Coded Video Sequence (CVS), EVC defines a video bitstream that can be used as an elementary stream in the MPEG systems context. For this document, the video bitstream syntax level is not relevant.¶
- Random access support
-
EVC supports random access mechanisms based on IDR and clean random access (CRA) access units.¶
- Temporal scalability support
-
EVC supports temporal scalability through the generalized reference picture selection approach known since AVC/SVC. Up to six temporal layers are supported. The temporal layer is signaled in the NAL unit header (which co-serves as the payload header in this document), in the nuh_temporal_id field.¶
- Reference picture management
-
EVC's reference picture management is POC-based, similar to HEVC. In the Main profile, substantially all reference picture list manipulations available in HEVC are specified, including explicit transmissions or updates of reference picture lists. Although for reference pictures management purposes, EVC uses a modern VVC-like RPL approach, which is conceptually simpler than the HEVC one. In the Baseline profile, reference picture management is more restricted, allowing for a comparatively simple group of picture structures only.¶
- SEI Message
-
EVC inherits many of HEVC's SEI messages, occasionally with syntax and/or semantics changes, making them applicable to EVC. In addition, some of the codec-agnostic SEI messages of the VSEI specification [VSEI] are also mapped.¶
1.1.3. Parallel Processing Support (Informative)
EVC's Baseline profile includes no tools specifically addressing
parallel
1.1.4. NAL Unit Header
EVC maintains the NAL unit concept of [VVC] with different parameter options. EVC also uses a two-byte NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 1. The payload of a NAL unit refers to the NAL unit excluding the NAL unit header.¶
The semantics of the fields in the NAL unit header are as specified in EVC and described briefly below for convenience. In addition to the name and size of each field, the corresponding syntax element name in EVC is also provided.¶
- F:
-
1 bit¶
- forbidden
_zero _bit : - Required to be zero in EVC. Note that the inclusion of this bit in the NAL unit header was included to enable transport of EVC video over MPEG-2 transport systems (avoidance of start code emulations) [MPEG2S]. In this document, the value 1 may be used to indicate a syntax violation, e.g., for a NAL unit resulting from aggregating a number of fragmented units of a NAL unit but missing the last fragment, as described in Section 4.3.3.¶
- forbidden
- Type:
-
6 bits¶
- nal
_unit _type _plus1 : -
This field allows the NAL Unit Type to be computed. The NAL Unit Type (NalUnitType) is equal to the value found in this field, minus 1; in other words:¶
NalUnitType = nal
_unit _type _plus1 - 1.¶ The NAL unit type is detailed in Table 4 of [EVC]. If the value of NalUnitType is less than or equal to 23, the NAL unit is a VCL NAL unit. Otherwise, the NAL unit is a non-VCL NAL unit. For a reference of all currently defined NAL unit types and their semantics, please refer to Section 7.4.2.2 of [EVC]. Note that nal
_unit _type _plus1 MUST NOT be zero.¶
- nal
- TID:
-
3 bits¶
- nuh_temporal_id:
- This field specifies the temporal identifier of the NAL unit. The value of TemporalId is equal to TID. TemporalId shall be equal to 0 if it is an IDR NAL unit type (NAL unit type 1).¶
- Reserve:
-
5 bits¶
- nuh
_reserved _zero _5bits : - This field shall be equal to the version of the EVC
standard. Values of nuh
_reserved _zero _5bits greater than 0 are reserved for future use by ISO/IEC. Decoders conforming to a profile specified in Annex A of [EVC] shall ignore (i.e., remove from the bitstream and discard) all NAL units with values of nuh _reserved _zero _5bits greater than 0.¶
- nuh
- E:
-
1 bit¶
- nuh
_extension _flag : - This field shall be equal to the version of
the EVC standard. The value of nuh
_extension _flag equal to 1 is reserved for future use by ISO/IEC. Decoders conforming to a profile specified in Annex A of [EVC] shall ignore (i.e., remove from the bitstream and discard) all NAL units with values of nuh _extension _flag equal to 1.¶
- nuh
1.2. Overview of the Payload Format
This payload format defines the following processes required for transport of EVC-coded data over RTP [RFC3550]:¶
2. Conventions
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.¶
3. Definitions and Abbreviations
3.1. Definitions
This document uses the terms and definitions of EVC. Section 3.1.1 lists relevant definitions from [EVC] for convenience. Section 3.1.2 provides definitions specific to this document.¶
3.1.1. Definitions from the EVC Standard
- Access Unit (AU):
- A set of NAL units that are associated with each other according to a specified classification rule, are consecutive in decoding order, and contain exactly one coded picture.¶
- Adaptation Parameter Set (APS):
- A syntax structure containing syntax elements that apply to zero or more slices as determined by zero or more syntax elements found in slice headers.¶
- Bitstream:
- A sequence of bits, in the form of a NAL unit stream or a byte stream, that forms the representation of coded pictures and associated data forming one or more CVSs.¶
- Coded Picture:
- A coded representation of a picture containing all CTUs of the picture.¶
- Coded Video Sequence (CVS):
- A sequence of access units that consists, in decoding order, of an IDR access unit, followed by zero or more access units that are not IDR access units, including all subsequent access units up to but not including any subsequent access unit that is an IDR access unit.¶
- Coding Tree Block (CTB):
- An NxN block of samples for some value of N such that the division of a component into CTBs is a partitioning.¶
- Coding Tree Unit (CTU):
- A CTB of luma samples, two corresponding CTBs of chroma samples of a picture that has three sample arrays, or a CTB of samples of a monochrome picture or a picture that is coded using three separate color planes and syntax structures used to code the samples.¶
- Decoded Picture:
- A decoded picture is derived by decoding a coded picture.¶
- Decoded Picture Buffer (DPB):
- A buffer holding decoded pictures for reference, output reordering, or output delay specified for the hypothetical reference decoder in Annex C of the [EVC] standard.¶
- Dynamic Range Adjustment (DRA):
- A mapping process that is applied to the decoded picture prior to cropping and output as part of the decoding process; it is controlled by parameters conveyed in an Adaptation Parameter Set (APS).¶
- Hypothetical Reference Decoder (HRD):
- A hypothetical decoder model that specifies constraints on the variability of conforming NAL unit streams or conforming byte streams that an encoding process may produce.¶
- IDR Access Unit:
- An access unit in which the coded picture is an IDR picture.¶
- IDR Picture:
- The coded picture for which each VCL NAL unit has NalUnitType equal to IDR_NUT.¶
- Level:
- A defined set of constraints on the values that may be taken by the syntax elements and variables of this document, or the value of a transform coefficient prior to scaling.¶
- Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) Unit:
- A syntax structure containing an indication of the type of data to follow and bytes containing that data in the form of an RBSP interspersed as necessary.¶
- Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) Unit Stream:
- A sequence of NAL units.¶
- Non-IDR Picture:
- A coded picture that is not an IDR picture.¶
- Non-VCL NAL Unit:
- A NAL unit that is not a VCL NAL unit.¶
- Picture Parameter Set (PPS):
- A syntax structure containing syntax elements that apply to zero or more entire coded pictures as determined by a syntax element found in each slice header.¶
- Picture Order Count (POC):
- A variable that is associated with each picture, uniquely identifies the associated picture among all pictures in the CVS, and (when the associated picture is to be output from the DPB) indicates the position of the associated picture in output order relative to the output order positions of the other pictures in the same CVS that are to be output from the DPB.¶
- Raw Byte Sequence Payload (RBSP):
- A syntax structure containing an integer number of bytes that is encapsulated in a NAL unit and that is either empty or has the form of a string of data bits containing syntax elements followed by an RBSP stop bit and zero or more subsequent bits equal to 0.¶
- Sequence Parameter Set (SPS):
- A syntax structure containing syntax elements that apply to zero or more entire CVSs as determined by the content of a syntax element found in the PPS referred to by a syntax element found in each slice header.¶
- Slice:
- An integer number of tiles of a picture in the tile scan of the picture, exclusively contained in a single NAL unit.¶
- Tile:
- A rectangular region of CTUs within a particular tile column and a particular tile row in a picture.¶
- Tile Column:
- A rectangular region of CTUs having a height equal to the height of the picture and width specified by syntax elements in the PPS.¶
- Tile Row:
- A rectangular region of CTUs having a height specified by syntax elements in the PPS and a width equal to the width of the picture.¶
- Tile Scan:
- A specific sequential ordering of CTUs partitioning a picture in which the CTUs are ordered consecutively in CTU raster scan in a tile, whereas tiles in a picture are ordered consecutively in a raster scan of the tiles of the picture.¶
- Video Coding Layer (VCL) NAL Unit:
- A collective term for coded slice NAL units and the subset of NAL units that have reserved values of NalUnitType that are classified as VCL NAL units in this document.¶
3.1.2. Definitions Specific to This Document
- Media-Aware Network Element (MANE):
-
A network element, such as a middlebox, selective forwarding unit, or application
-layer gateway, that is capable of parsing certain aspects of the RTP payload headers or the RTP payload and reacting to their contents.¶ - NAL unit decoding order:
- A NAL unit order that conforms to the constraints on NAL unit order given in Section 7.4.2.3 of [EVC] and follows the order of NAL units in the bitstream.¶
- NALU-time:
- The value that the RTP timestamp would have if the NAL unit would be transported in its own RTP packet.¶
- NAL unit output order:
- A NAL unit order in which NAL units of different access units are in the output order of the decoded pictures corresponding to the access units, as specified in [EVC], and in which NAL units within an access unit are in their decoding order.¶
- RTP stream:
- See [RFC7656]. Within the scope of this document, one RTP stream is utilized to transport an EVC bitstream, which may contain one or more temporal sub-layers.¶
- Transmission order:
- The order of packets in ascending RTP sequence number order (in modulo arithmetic). Within an Aggregation Packet (AP), the NAL unit transmission order is the same as the order of appearance of NAL units in the packet.¶
3.2. Abbreviations
- AU
- Access Unit¶
- AP
- Aggregation Packet¶
- APS
- Adaptation Parameter Set¶
- ATS
- Adaptive Transform Selection¶
- B
- Bi-predictive¶
- CBR
- Constant Bit Rate¶
- CPB
- Coded Picture Buffer¶
- CTB
- Coding Tree Block¶
- CTU
- Coding Tree Unit¶
- CVS
- Coded Video Sequence¶
- DPB
- Decoded Picture Buffer¶
- HRD
- Hypothetical Reference Decoder¶
- HSS
- Hypothetical Stream Scheduler¶
- I
- Intra¶
- IDR
- Instantaneous Decoding Refresh¶
- LSB
- Least Significant Bit¶
- LTRP
- Long-Term Reference Picture¶
- MMVD
- Merge with Motion Vector Difference¶
- MSB
- Most Significant Bit¶
- NAL
- Network Abstraction Layer¶
- P
- Predictive¶
- POC
- Picture Order Count¶
- PPS
- Picture Parameter Set¶
- QP
- Quantization Parameter¶
- RBSP
- Raw Byte Sequence Payload¶
- RGB
- Red, Green, and Blue¶
- SAR
- Sample Aspect Ratio¶
- SEI
- Supplemental Enhancement Information¶
- SODB
- String Of Data Bits¶
- SPS
- Sequence Parameter Set¶
- STRP
- Short-Term Reference Picture¶
- VBR
- Variable Bit Rate¶
- VCL
- Video Coding Layer¶
4. RTP Payload Format
4.1. RTP Header Usage
The format of the RTP header is specified in [RFC3550] (included as Figure 2 for convenience). This payload format uses the fields of the header in a manner consistent with that specification.¶
The RTP payload (and the settings for some RTP header bits) for APs and Fragmentation Units (FUs) are specified in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, respectively.¶
The RTP header information to be set according to this RTP payload format is set as follows:¶
- Marker bit (M):
-
1 bit¶
Set for the last packet of the access unit and carried in the current RTP stream. This is in line with the normal use of the M bit in video formats to allow an efficient playout buffer handling.¶
- Payload Type (PT):
-
7 bits¶
The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new payload format is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified here. The assignment of a payload type has to be performed either through the profile used or in a dynamic way.¶
- Sequence Number (SN):
-
16 bits¶
- Timestamp:
-
32 bits¶
The RTP timestamp is set to the sampling timestamp of the content. A 90 kHz clock rate MUST be used. If the NAL unit has no timing properties of its own (e.g., parameter sets or certain SEI NAL units), the RTP timestamp MUST be set to the RTP timestamp of the coded picture of the access unit in which the NAL unit is included. For SEI messages, this information is specified in Annex D of [EVC]. Receivers MUST use the RTP timestamp for the display process, even when the bitstream contains picture timing SEI messages or decoding unit information SEI messages as specified in [EVC].¶
- Synchronization source (SSRC):
-
32 bits¶
Used to identify the source of the RTP packets. According to this document, a single SSRC is used for all parts of a single bitstream.¶
4.2. Payload Header Usage
The first two bytes of the payload of an RTP packet are referred to as the payload header. The payload header consists of the same fields (F, TID, Reserve, and E) as the NAL unit header, as shown in Section 1.1.4, irrespective of the type of the payload structure.¶
The TID value indicates (among other things) the relative importance of an RTP packet, for example, because NAL units with larger TID values are not used to decode the ones with smaller TID values. A lower value of TID indicates a higher importance. More important NAL units MAY be better protected against transmission losses than less important NAL units.¶
4.3. Payload Structures
Three different types of RTP packet payload structures are specified. A receiver can identify the type of an RTP packet payload through the Type field in the payload header.¶
The three different payload structures are as follows:¶
4.3.1. Single NAL Unit Packets
A single NAL unit packet contains exactly one NAL unit and consists of a payload header as defined in Table 4 of [EVC] (denoted as PayloadHdr), followed by a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte order), and the NAL unit payload data (the NAL unit excluding its NAL unit header) of the contained NAL unit, as shown in Figure 3.¶
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least significant bits of the decoding order number of the contained NAL unit. If sprop
4.3.2. Aggregation Packets (APs)
Aggregation Packets (APs) enable the reduction of packetization overhead for small NAL units, such as most of the non-VCL NAL units, which are often only a few octets in size.¶
An AP aggregates NAL units of one access unit, and it MUST NOT contain NAL units from more than one AU. Each NAL unit to be carried in an AP is encapsulated in an aggregation unit. NAL units aggregated in one AP are included in NAL
An AP consists of a payload header, as defined in Table 4 of [EVC] (denoted here as PayloadHdr with Type=56), followed by two or more aggregation units, as shown in Figure 4.¶
The fields in the payload header of an AP are set as follows. The F bit MUST be equal to 0 if the F bit of each aggregated NAL unit is equal to zero; otherwise, it MUST be equal to 1. The Type field MUST be equal to 56.¶
The value of TID MUST be the smallest value of TID of all the aggregated NAL units. The value of Reserve and E MUST be equal to 0 for this specification.¶
An AP MUST carry at least two aggregation units and can carry as many aggregation units as necessary; however, the total amount of data in an AP obviously MUST fit into an IP packet, and the size SHOULD be chosen so that the resulting IP packet is smaller than the path MTU size so to avoid IP layer fragmentation. An AP MUST NOT contain FUs specified in Section 4.3.3. APs MUST NOT be nested; i.e., an AP cannot contain another AP.¶
The first aggregation unit in an AP consists of a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte order) followed by a 16-bit unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets but including the NAL unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 5.¶
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least significant bits of the decoding order number of the aggregated NAL unit.¶
If sprop
An aggregation unit that is not the first aggregation unit in an AP will be followed immediately by a 16-bit unsigned size information (in network byte order) that indicates the size of the NAL unit in bytes (excluding these two octets but including the NAL unit header), followed by the NAL unit itself, including its NAL unit header, as shown in Figure 6.¶
Figure 7 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation units, labeled "NALU 1" and "NALU 2", without the DONL field being present.¶
Figure 8 presents an example of an AP that contains two aggregation units, labeled "NALU 1" and "NALU 2", with the DONL field being present.¶
4.3.3. Fragmentation Units (FUs)
FUs are introduced to enable fragmenting a single NAL unit into multiple RTP packets, possibly without cooperation or knowledge of the EVC encoder. A fragment of a NAL unit consists of an integer number of consecutive octets of that NAL unit. Fragments of the same NAL unit MUST be sent in consecutive order with ascending RTP sequence numbers (with no other RTP packets within the same RTP stream being sent between the first and last fragment).¶
When a NAL unit is fragmented and conveyed within FUs, it is referred to as a fragmented NAL unit. APs MUST NOT be fragmented. FUs MUST NOT be nested; i.e., an FU must not contain a subset of another FU.¶
The RTP timestamp of an RTP packet carrying an FU is set to the NALU-time of the fragmented NAL unit.¶
An FU consists of a payload header as defined in Table 4 of [EVC] (denoted as PayloadHdr with Type=57), an FU header of one octet, a conditional 16-bit DONL field (in network byte order), and an FU payload, as shown in Figure 9.¶
The fields in the payload header are set as follows. The Type field MUST be equal to 57. The fields F, TID, Reserve, and E MUST be equal to the fields F, TID, Reserve, and E, respectively, of the fragmented NAL unit.¶
The FU header consists of an S bit, an E bit, and a 6-bit FuType field, as shown in Figure 10.¶
The semantics of the FU header fields are as follows:¶
- S:
-
1 bit¶
When set to 1, the S bit indicates the start of a fragmented NAL unit, i.e., the first byte of the FU payload is also the first byte of the payload of the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU payload is not the start of the fragmented NAL unit payload, the S bit MUST be set to 0.¶
- E:
-
1 bit¶
When set to 1, the E bit indicates the end of a fragmented NAL unit, i.e., the last byte of the payload is also the last byte of the fragmented NAL unit. When the FU payload is not the last fragment of a fragmented NAL unit, the E bit MUST be set to 0.¶
- FuType:
-
6 bits¶
The field FuType MUST be equal to the field Type of the fragmented NAL unit.¶
The DONL field, when present, specifies the value of the 16 least significant bits of the decoding order number of the fragmented NAL unit.¶
If sprop
A non-fragmented NAL unit MUST NOT be transmitted in one FU; i.e., the S-bit and E-bit MUST NOT both be set to 1 in the same FU header.¶
The FU payload consists of fragments of the payload of the fragmented NAL unit so that if the FU payloads of consecutive FUs, starting with an FU with the S bit equal to 1 and ending with an FU with the E bit equal to 1, are sequentially concatenated, the payload of the fragmented NAL unit can be reconstructed. The NAL unit header of the fragmented NAL unit is not included as such in the FU payload. Instead, the information of the NAL unit header of the fragmented NAL unit is conveyed in F, TID, Reserve, and E fields of the FU payload headers of the FUs and the FuType field of the FU header of the FUs. An FU payload MUST NOT be empty.¶
If an FU is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all following fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to the same fragmented NAL unit unless the decoder in the receiver is known to gracefully handle incomplete NAL units.¶
A receiver in an endpoint or a MANE MAY aggregate the first n-1 fragments of a NAL unit to an (incomplete) NAL unit, even if fragment n of that NAL unit is not received. In this case, the forbidden
4.4. Decoding Order Number
For each NAL unit, the variable AbsDon is derived; it represents the decoding order number that is indicative of the NAL unit decoding order.¶
Let NAL unit n be the n-th NAL unit in transmission order within an RTP stream.¶
If sprop
Otherwise (where sprop
For any two NAL units (m and n), the following applies:¶
5. Packetization Rules
The following packetization rules apply:¶
6. De-packetization Process
The general concept behind de
The de
All normal RTP mechanisms related to buffer management apply. In particular, duplicated or outdated RTP packets (as indicated by the RTP sequence number and the RTP timestamp) are removed. To determine the exact time for decoding, factors such as a possible intentional delay to allow for proper inter-stream synchronization must be considered.¶
NAL units with NAL unit type values in the range of 0 to 55, inclusive, may be passed to the decoder. NAL-unit-like structures with NAL unit type values in the range of 56 to 62, inclusive, MUST NOT be passed to the decoder.¶
The receiver includes a receiver buffer, which is used to compensate for transmission delay jitter within individual RTP streams and to reorder NAL units from transmission order to the NAL unit decoding order. In this section, the receiver operation is described under the assumption that there is no transmission delay jitter within an RTP stream. To clarify the distinction from a practical receiver buffer, which is also used to compensate for transmission delay jitter, the buffer in this section will henceforth be referred to as the "de
The de
When sprop
When sprop
The receiver has two buffering states: initial buffering and buffering while playing. Initial buffering starts when the reception is initialized. After initial buffering, decoding and playback are started, and the buffering
Regardless of the buffering state, the receiver stores incoming NAL units in reception order into the de
Initial buffering lasts until the difference between the greatest and smallest AbsDon values of the NAL units in the de
After initial buffering, whenever the difference between the greatest and smallest AbsDon values of the NAL units in the de
The NAL unit in the de
When no more NAL units are flowing into the de
7. Payload Format Parameters
This section specifies the optional parameters. A mapping of the parameters with the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC8866] is also provided for applications that use SDP.¶
Parameters starting with the string "sprop" for stream properties can be used by a sender to provide a receiver with the properties of the stream that is or will be sent. The media sender (and not the receiver) selects whether, and with what values, "sprop" parameters are being sent. This uncommon characteristic of the "sprop" parameters may not be intuitive in the context of some signaling protocol concepts, especially with Offer/Answer. Please see Section 7.3.2 for guidance specific to the use of sprop parameters in the Offer/Answer case.¶
7.1. Media Type Registration
The receiver MUST ignore any parameter unspecified in this document.¶
- Type name:
- video¶
- Subtype name:
- evc¶
- Required parameters:
- N/A¶
- Optional parameters:
- profile-id, level-id, toolset-id,
max
-recv -level -id, sprop-sps, sprop-pps, sprop-sei, sprop -max -don -diff, sprop -depack -buf -bytes, depack-buf-cap (refer to Section 7.2 for definitions)¶ - Encoding considerations:
- This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550].¶
- Security considerations:
- See Section 9 of RFC 9584.¶
- Interoperability considerations:
- N/A¶
- Published specification:
- Please refer to RFC 9584 and EVC standard [EVC].¶
- Applications that use this media type:
- Any application that relies on EVC-based video services over RTP¶
- Fragment identifier considerations:
- N/A¶
- Additional information:
- N/A¶
- Person & email address to contact for further information:
-
Stephan Wenger(stewe @stewe .org )¶ - Intended usage:
- COMMON¶
- Restrictions on usage:
- N/A¶
- Author:
- See Authors' Addresses section of RFC 9584.¶
- Change controller:
- IETF <avtcore
@ietf .org>¶
7.2. Optional Parameters Definition
- profile-id, level-id, toolset-id:
-
These parameters indicate the profile, the level, and constraints of the bitstream carried by the RTP stream or a specific set of the profile, the level, and constraints the receiver supports.¶
More specifications of these parameters, including how they relate to syntax elements specified in [EVC] are provided below.¶
- profile-id:
-
When profile-id is not present, a value of 0 (i.e., the Baseline profile) MUST be inferred.¶
When used to indicate properties of a bitstream, profile-id MUST be derived from the profile_idc in the SPS.¶
EVC bitstreams transported over RTP using the technologies of this document SHOULD refer only to SPSs that have the same value in profile_idc, unless the sender has a priori knowledge that a receiver can correctly decode the EVC bitstream with different profile_idc values (for example, in walled garden scenarios). As exceptions to this rule, if the receiver is known to support a Baseline profile, a bitstream could safely end with CVS referring to an SPS wherein profile_idc indicates the Baseline Still picture profile. A similar exception can be made for Main profile and Main Still picture profile.¶
- level-id:
-
When level-id is not present, a value of 90 (corresponding to level 3, which allows for approximately standard
-definition television (SD TV) resolution and frame rates; see Annex A of [EVC]) MUST be inferred.¶ When used to indicate properties of a bitstream, level-id MUST be derived from the level_idc in the SPS.¶
If the level-id parameter is used for capability exchange, the following applies. If max
-recv -level -id is not present, the default level defined by level-id indicates the highest level the codec wishes to support. Otherwise, max -recv -level -id indicates the highest level the codec supports for receiving. For either receiving or sending, all levels that are lower than the highest level supported MUST also be supported.¶ - toolset-id:
- This parameter is a base64-encoding representation (Section 4 of [RFC4648]) of a 64-bit unsigned integer bit mask derived from the concatenation, in network byte order, of the syntax elements toolset_idc_h and toolset_idc_l. When used to indicate properties of a bitstream, its value MUST be derived from toolset_idh_h and toolset_idc_l in the sequence parameter set.¶
- max
-recv -level -id : -
This parameter MAY be used to indicate the highest level a receiver supports.¶
The value of max
-recv -level -id MUST be in the range of 0 to 255, inclusive.¶ When max
-recv -level -id is not present, the value is inferred to be equal to level-id.¶ max
-recv -level -id MUST NOT be present when the highest level the receiver supports is not higher than the default level.¶ - sprop-sps:
-
This parameter MAY be used to convey sequence parameter set NAL units of the bitstream for out-of-band transmission of sequence parameter sets. The value of the parameter is a comma-separated (',') list of base64-encoding representations (Section 4 of [RFC4648]) of the sequence parameter set NAL units as specified in Section 7.3.2.1 of [EVC].¶
- sprop-pps:
-
This parameter MAY be used to convey picture parameter set NAL units of the bitstream for out-of-band transmission of picture parameter sets. The value of the parameter is a comma-separated (',') list of base64-encoding representations (Section 4 of [RFC4648]) of the picture parameter set NAL units as specified in Section 7.3.2.2 of [EVC].¶
- sprop-sei:
-
This parameter MAY be used to convey one or more SEI messages that describe bitstream characteristics
. When present, a decoder can rely on the bitstream characteristics that are described in the SEI messages for the entire duration of the session, independently from the persistence scopes of the SEI messages as specified in [VSEI].¶ The value of the parameter is a comma-separated (',') list of base64-encoding representations (Section 4 of [RFC4648]) of SEI NAL units as specified in [VSEI].¶
- sprop
-max -don -diff : -
If there is no NAL unit naluA that is followed in transmission order by any NAL unit preceding naluA in decoding order (i.e., the transmission order of the NAL units is the same as the decoding order), the value of this parameter MUST be equal to 0.¶
Otherwise, this parameter specifies the maximum absolute difference between the decoding order number (i.e., AbsDon) values of any two NAL units naluA and naluB, where naluA follows naluB in decoding order and precedes naluB in transmission order.¶
The value of sprop
-max -don -diff MUST be an integer in the range of 0 to 32767, inclusive.¶ When not present, the value of sprop
-max -don -diff is inferred to be equal to 0.¶ - sprop
-depack -buf -bytes : -
This parameter signals the required size of the de
-packetization buffer in units of bytes. The value of the parameter MUST be greater than or equal to the maximum buffer occupancy (in units of bytes) of the de -packetization buffer as specified in Section 6.¶ The value of sprop
-depack -buf -bytes MUST be an integer in the range of 0 to 4294967295, inclusive.¶ When sprop
-max -don -diff is present and greater than 0, this parameter MUST be present and the value MUST be greater than 0. When not present, the value of sprop -depack -buf -bytes is inferred to be equal to 0.¶ - depack-buf-cap:
-
This parameter signals the capabilities of a receiver implementation and indicates the amount of de
-packetization buffer space in units of bytes that the receiver has available for reconstructing the NAL unit decoding order from NAL units carried in the RTP stream. A receiver is able to handle any RTP stream for which the value of the sprop -depack -buf -bytes parameter is smaller than or equal to this parameter.¶ When not present, the value of depack-buf-cap is inferred to be equal to 4294967295. The value of depack-buf-cap MUST be an integer in the range of 1 to 4294967295, inclusive.¶
7.3. SDP Parameters
The receiver MUST ignore any parameter unspecified in this document.¶
7.3.1. Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP
The media type video/evc string is mapped to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC8866] as follows:¶
A general usage of media representation in SDP is as follows:¶
A SIP Offer/Answer exchange wherein both parties are expected to both send and receive could look like the following. Only the media codec-specific parts of the SDP are shown.¶
The above represents an offer for symmetric video communication using [EVC] and its payload specification at the main profile and level 3. Informally speaking, this offer tells the receiver of the offer that the sender is willing to receive up to xKpxx resolution at the maximum bitrates specified in [EVC]. At the same time, if this offer were accepted "as is", the offer can expect that the Answerer would be able to receive and properly decode EVC media up to and including level 3.¶
With this answer to the offer above, the system receiving the offer advises the Offerer that it is incapable of handling evc at level 3 but is capable of decoding level 2. As EVC video codecs must support decoding at all levels below the maximum level they implement, the resulting user experience would likely be that both systems send video at level 2. However, nothing prevents an encoder from further downgrading its sending to, for example, level 1 if it were short of cycles or bandwidth or for other reasons.¶
7.3.2. Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model
This section describes the negotiation of unicast messages using the Offer/Answer model described in [RFC3264] and its updates.¶
This section applies to all profiles defined in [EVC], specifically to Baseline, Main, and the associated still image profiles.¶
The following limitations and rules pertaining to the media configuration apply:¶
The parameters identifying a media format configuration for EVC are profile-id and level-id. Profile_id MUST be used symmetrically.¶
The Answerer MUST structure its answer according to one of the following two options:¶
To simplify handling and matching of these configurations, the same RTP payload type number used in the offer SHOULD also be used in the answer, as specified in [RFC3264].¶
The answer MUST NOT contain a payload type number used in the offer for the media subtype unless the configuration is the same as in the offer or the configuration in the answer only differs from that in the offer with a different value of level-id.¶
7.3.2.1. Payload Format Configuration
The following limitations and rules pertain to the configuration of the payload format buffer management.¶
Figure 11 lists the interpretation of all the parameters that MAY be used for the various combinations of offer, answer, and direction attributes.¶
Parameters used for declaring receiver capabilities are, in general, downgradable, i.e., they express the upper limit for a sender's possible behavior. Thus, a sender MAY select to set its encoder using only lower/lesser or equal values of these parameters.¶
When a sender's capabilities are declared with the configuration parameters, these parameters express a configuration that is acceptable for the sender to receive bitstreams. In order to achieve high interoperabilit
An implementation SHOULD be able to understand all media type parameters (including all optional media type parameters), even if it doesn't support the functionality related to the parameter. This, in conjunction with proper application logic in the implementation, allows the implementation, after having received an offer, to create an answer by potentially downgrading one or more of the optional parameters to the point where the implementation can cope. This leads to higher chances of interoperabilit
An Answerer MAY extend the offer with additional media format configurations. However, to enable their usage, in most cases, a second offer is required from the Offerer to provide the bitstream property parameters that the media sender will use. This also has the effect that the Offerer has to be able to receive this media format configuration, and not only to send it.¶
7.3.4. Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions
When EVC over RTP is offered with SDP in a declarative style, as in the Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [RFC7826] or Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) [RFC2974], the following considerations apply.¶
7.3.5. Considerations for Parameter Sets
When out-of-band transport of parameter sets is used, parameter sets MAY still be additionally transported in-band unless explicitly disallowed by an application, and some of these additional parameter sets may update some of the out-of-band transported parameter sets. An update of a parameter set refers to the sending of a parameter set of the same type using the same parameter set ID but with different values for at least one other parameter of the parameter set.¶
8. Use with Feedback Messages
The following subsections define the use of the Picture Loss Indication (PLI) [RFC4585] and Full Intra Request (FIR) [RFC5104] feedback messages with [EVC].¶
In accordance with this document, a sender MUST NOT send Slice Loss Indication (SLI) or Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI); and a receiver MUST ignore RPSI and MUST treat a received SLI as a received PLI, ignoring the "First", "Number", and "PictureID" fields of the PLI.¶
8.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
As specified in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC4585], the reception of a PLI by a media sender indicates "the loss of an undefined amount of coded video data belonging to one or more pictures". Without having any specific knowledge of the setup of the bitstream (such as use and location of in-band parameter sets, IDR picture locations, picture structures, and so forth), a reaction to the reception of a PLI by an EVC sender SHOULD be to send an IDR picture and relevant parameter sets, potentially with sufficient redundancy so as to ensure correct reception. However, sometimes information about the bitstream structure is known. For example, such information can be parameter sets that have been conveyed out of band through mechanisms not defined in this document and that are known to stay static for the duration of the session. In that case, it is obviously unnecessary to send them in-band as a result of the reception of a PLI. Other examples could be devised based on a priori knowledge of different aspects of the bitstream structure. In all cases, the timing and congestion
8.2. Full Intra Request (FIR)
The purpose of the FIR message is to force an encoder to send an independent decoder refresh point as soon as possible while observing applicable congestion
Upon reception of a FIR, a sender MUST send an IDR picture. Parameter sets MUST also be sent, except when there is a priori knowledge that the parameter sets have been correctly established. A typical example for that is an understanding between the sender and receiver, established by means outside this document, that parameter sets are exclusively sent out of band.¶
9. Security Considerations
The scope of this section is limited to the payload format itself and to one feature of [EVC] that may pose a particularly serious security risk if implemented naively. The payload format, in isolation, does not form a complete system. Implementers are advised to read and understand relevant security
Within this RTP payload format, and with the exception of the user data SEI message as described below, no security threats other than those common to RTP payload formats are known. In other words, neither the various media
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [RFC3550] and in any applicable RTP profile such as RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711], or RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124]. However, as "Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution" [RFC7202] discusses, it is not an RTP payload format's responsibility to discuss or mandate what solutions are used to meet the basic security goals like confidentiality
Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied end to end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression. A potential denial
EVC is particularly vulnerable to such attacks, as it is extremely simple to generate datagrams containing NAL units that affect the decoding process of many future NAL units. Therefore, the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED based on [RFC7202].¶
Like HEVC [RFC7798] and VVC [VVC], EVC [EVC] includes a user data Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) message. This SEI message allows inclusion of an arbitrary bitstring into the video bitstream. Such a bitstring could include JavaScript, machine code, and other active content.¶
EVC [EVC] leaves the handling of this SEI message to the receiving system. In order to avoid harmful side effects of the user data SEI message, decoder implementations cannot naively trust its content. For example, forwarding all received JavaScript code detected by a decoder implementation to a web browser unchecked would be a bad and insecure implementation practice. The safest way to deal with user data SEI messages is to simply discard them, but that can have negative side effects on the quality of experience by the user.¶
End-to-end security with authentication, integrity, or confidentiality protection will prevent a MANE from performing media-aware operations other than discarding complete packets. In the case of confidentiality protection, it will even be prevented from discarding packets in a media-aware way. To be allowed to perform such operations, a MANE is required to be a trusted entity that is included in the security context establishment.¶
10. Congestion Control
Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RTP [RFC3550] and with any applicable RTP profile, e.g., AVP [RFC3551] or AVPF [RFC4585]. If best-effort service is being used, an additional requirement is that users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within an acceptable range. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path and experiencing the same network conditions would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than all RTP streams combined. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion
The bitrate adaptation necessary for obeying the congestion control principle is easily achievable when real-time encoding is used, for example, by adequately tuning the quantization parameter. However, when pre-encoded content is being transmitted, bandwidth adaptation requires the pre-coded bitstream to be tailored for such adaptivity.¶
The key mechanism available in [EVC] is temporal scalability. A media sender can remove NAL units belonging to higher temporal sub-layers (i.e., those NAL units with a large value of TID) until the sending bitrate drops to an acceptable range.¶
The mechanisms mentioned above generally work within a defined profile and level; therefore, no renegotiation of the channel is required. Only when non
MANEs MAY remove certain unusable packets from the RTP stream when that RTP stream was damaged due to previous packet losses. This can help reduce the network load in certain special cases. For example, MANEs can remove those FUs where the leading FUs belonging to the same NAL unit have been lost, because the trailing FUs are meaningless to most decoders. MANE can also remove higher temporal scalable layers if the outbound transmission (from the MANE's viewpoint) experiences congestion.¶
11. IANA Considerations
The media type specified in Section 7.1 has been registered with IANA.¶
12. References
12.1. Normative References
- [EVC]
-
"Information technology -- General video coding -- Part 1: Essential video coding", ISO/IEC 23094-1:2020, , <https://
www >..iso .org /standard /57797 .html - [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 - [RFC3551]
-
Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3551 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3551 - [RFC3711]
-
Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3711 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3711 - [RFC4585]
-
Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4585 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4585 - [RFC4648]
-
Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4648 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4648 - [RFC5104]
-
Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman, "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5104 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5104 - [RFC5124]
-
Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5124 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5124 - [RFC5576]
-
Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5576 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5576 - [RFC7826]
-
Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M., and M. Stiemerling, Ed., "Real-Time Streaming Protocol Version 2.0", RFC 7826, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7826 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7826 - [RFC8082]
-
Wenger, S., Lennox, J., Burman, B., and M. Westerlund, "Using Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback with Layered Codecs", RFC 8082, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8082 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8082 - [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 - [RFC8866]
-
Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8866 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8866 - [RFC9328]
-
Zhao, S., Wenger, S., Sanchez, Y., Wang, Y.-K., and M. M. Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VVC)", RFC 9328, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9328 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9328 - [VSEI]
-
ITU-T, "Versatile supplemental enhancement information messages for coded video bitstreams", ITU-T Recommendation H.274, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -H .274
12.2. Informative References
- [AVC]
-
ITU-T, "Part 10: Advanced video coding", ITU-T Recommendation H.264, , <https://
www >..iso .org /standard /66069 .html - [HEVC]
-
ITU-T, "High efficiency video coding", ITU-T Recommendation H.265, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -H .265 - [MPEG2S]
- IS0/IEC, "Information technology - Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information - Part 1: Systems", ISO/IEC 13818-1:2013, .
- [RFC2974]
-
Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2974 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2974 - [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 - [RFC6190]
-
Wenger, S., Wang, Y.-K., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis, "RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6190 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6190 - [RFC7201]
-
Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7201 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7201 - [RFC7202]
-
Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7202 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7202 - [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 - [RFC7667]
-
Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7667 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7667 - [RFC7798]
-
Wang, Y.-K., Sanchez, Y., Schierl, T., Wenger, S., and M. M. Hannuksela, "RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)", RFC 7798, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7798 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7798 - [VIDEO-CODING]
-
ITU-T, "Video coding for low bit rate communication", ITU-T Recommendation H.263, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -H .263 - [VVC]
-
ITU-T, "Versatile video coding", ITU-T Recommendation H.266, , <http://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -H .266
Acknowledgements
Large parts of this specification share text with the RTP payload format for VVC [RFC9328]. Roman Chernyak is thanked for his valuable review comments. We thank the authors of that specification for their excellent work.¶