Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


RFC 8859SDP Attribute MultiplexingJanuary 2021
NandakumarStandards Track[Page]
Stream:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC:
8859
Category:
Standards Track
Published:
ISSN:
2070-1721
Author:
S. Nandakumar
Cisco

RFC 8859

A Framework for Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes When Multiplexing

Abstract

The purpose of this specification is to provide a framework for analyzing the multiplexing characteristics of Session Description Protocol (SDP) attributes when SDP is used to negotiate the usage of a single 5-tuple for sending and receiving media associated with multiple media descriptions.

This specification also categorizes the existing SDP attributes based on the framework described herein.

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 athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8859.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1.Introduction

SDP defines several attributes for capturing characteristics that apply to the individual media descriptions (described by "m=" lines) and the overall multimedia session. Typically, different media types (audio, video, etc.) described using different media descriptions represent separate RTP sessions that are carried over individual transport-layer flows. However,[RFC8843] defines a way to use a single address:port combination (BUNDLE address) for receiving media associated with multiple SDP media descriptions. This would, for example, allow the usage of a single set of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)[RFC8445] candidates for multiple media descriptions. This, in turn, has made it necessary to understand the interpretation and usage of the SDP attributes defined for the multiplexed media descriptions.

Given the number of SDP attributes registered with the[IANA] and the possibility of new attributes being defined in the future, there is need for a framework to analyze these attributes for their applicability in the transport multiplexing use cases.

The document starts with providing the motivation for requiring such a framework. This is followed by introduction to the SDP attribute analysis framework and procedures, following which several sections apply the framework to the SDP attributes registered with the[IANA].

2.Terminology

5-tuple:
A collection of the following values: source address, source port, destination address, destination port, and transport-layer protocol.
3GPP:
Third Generation Partnership Project; see<https://www.3gpp.org> for more information about this organization.

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.Motivation

An effort to reduce the number of necessary transport-level flows is required because of the time and complications involved in setting up Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)[RFC5763] transports for use by RTP based on ICE[RFC8445] and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). These procedures motivate conservation of ports bindings on the Network Address Translators (NATs). This necessity has resulted in the definition of ways, such as that described in[RFC8843], to multiplex RTP over a single transport flow in order to preserve network resources such as port numbers. This imposes further restrictions on applicability of the SDP attributes as they are defined today.

The specific problem is that there are attribute combinations that make sense when specified on independent "m=" lines -- as with classical SDP -- that do not make sense when those "m=" lines are then multiplexed over the same transport. To give an obvious example, ICE permits each "m=" line to have an independently specified "ice-ufrag" attribute. However, if the media from multiple "m=" lines is multiplexed over the same ICE component, then the meaning of media-level "ice-ufrag" attributes becomes muddled.

At the time of writing this document, there are close to 250 SDP attributes registered with the[IANA], and more will be added in the future. There is no clearly defined procedure to establish the validity/applicability of these attributes when used with transport multiplexing.

4.SDP Attribute Analysis Framework

Attributes in an SDP session description can be defined at the session level, media level, or source level. Informally, there are various semantic groupings for these attributes. One such grouping could be as follows:

The proposed framework analyzes the SDP attributes usage under multiplexing and assigns each SDP attribute to an appropriate multiplexing category. Since the multiplexing categories defined in this specification are independent of any informal semantic groupings of the SDP attributes, the categorizations assigned are normative.

4.1.Category: NORMAL

The attributes in the NORMAL category can be independently specified when multiplexed, and they retain their original semantics.

In the example given below, the direction and label attributes are independently specified for audio and video "m=" lines. These attributes are not impacted by multiplexing these media streams over a single transport-layer flow.

     v=0     o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     s=     c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     t=0 0     m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 99     a=sendonly     a=label:1     a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000     m=video 49172 RTP/AVP 31     a=recvonly     a=label:2     a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000

4.2.Category: CAUTION

It is not advisable to multiplex with the attributes in the CAUTION category, since their usage under multiplexing might lead to incorrect behavior.

Example: Multiplexing media descriptions over a single Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) transport[RFC5762] is not recommended, since DCCP is a connection-oriented protocol and therefore doesn't allow multiple connections on the same 5-tuple.

     v=0     o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com     s=     c=IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com     t=0 0     m=video 5004 DCCP/RTP/AVP 99     a=rtpmap:99 h261/9000     a=dccp-service-code:SC=x52545056     a=setup:passive     a=connection:new     m=video 5004 DCCP/RTP/AVP 100     a=rtpmap:100 h261/9000     a=dccp-service-code:SC=x5254504f     a=setup:passive     a=connection:new

4.3.Category: IDENTICAL

The attributes and their associated values (if any) in the IDENTICAL categoryMUST be repeated across all the media descriptions under multiplexing.

Attributes such as rtcp-mux fall into this category. Since RTCP reporting is done per RTP session, RTCP multiplexingMUST be enabled for both the audio and video "m=" lines if they are transported over a single 5-tuple.

     v=0     o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com     s=     c=IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com     t=0 0     m=audio 34567 RTP/AVP 97     a=rtcp-mux     m=video 34567 RTP/AVP 31     a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000     a=rtcp-mux

Note: Even though IDENTICAL attributes must be repeated across all media descriptions under multiplexing, they might not always be explicitly encoded across all media descriptions.[RFC8843] defines rules for when attributes and their values are implicitly applied to media description.

4.4.Category: SUM

The attributes in the SUM category can be set as they are normally used, but software using them in the multiplexing scenarioMUST apply the sum of all the attributes being multiplexed instead of trying to use them independently. This is typically used for bandwidth or other rate-limiting attributes to the underlying transport.

The software parsing the SDP sample below should use the aggregate Application Specific (AS) bandwidth value from the individual media descriptions to determine the AS value for the multiplexed session. Thus the calculated AS value would be 256+64 kilobits per second for the given example.

      v=0      o=test 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com      c=IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com      t=0 0      m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0      b=AS:64      m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 31      b=AS:256

4.5.Category: TRANSPORT

The attributes in the TRANSPORT category can be set normally for multiple items in a multiplexed group, but the softwareMUST pick the one that's associated with the "m=" line whose information is used for setting up the underlying transport.

In the example below, the "a=crypto" attribute is defined for both the audio and video "m=" lines. The video media line's "a=crypto" attribute is chosen since its MID value (bar) appears first in the "a=group:BUNDLE" line. This is due to the BUNDLE grouping semantic[RFC8843], which mandates that the values from the "m=" line corresponding to the mid appearing first on the "a=group:BUNDLE" line be considered for setting up the RTP transport.

     v=0     o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     s=     c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     t=0 0     a=group:BUNDLE bar foo     m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 99     a=mid:foo     a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80       inline:d0RmdmcmVCspeEc3QGZiNWpVLFJhQX1cfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32     a=rtpmap:99 iLBC/8000     m=video 51374 RTP/AVP 31     a=mid:bar     a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80       inline:EcGZiNWpFJhQXdspcl1ekcmVCNWpVLcfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32     a=rtpmap:96 H261/90000

4.6.Category: INHERIT

The attributes in the INHERIT category encapsulate other SDP attributes or parameters. These attributes inherit their multiplexing characteristics from the attributes or parameters they encapsulate. Such attributes are defined in[RFC3407],[RFC5939], and[RFC6871] as part of a generic framework for indicating and negotiating capabilities in the SDP related to transport, media, and media format.

The inheritance manifests itself when the encapsulated attribute or parameter is being leveraged. In the case of SDP Capability Negotiation[RFC5939], for example, this occurs when a capability (encapsulating attribute) is used as part of a configuration; the configuration inherits the multiplexing category of each of its constituent (encapsulated) attributes and parameters. The inherited attributesMUST be coherent in order to form a valid configuration from a multiplexing point of view (seeSection 14 for further details).

       v=0       o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com       s=       c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com       t=0 0       m=video 3456 RTP/AVP 100       a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000       a=fmtp:100 max-fr=30;max-fs=8040       a=sqn: 0       a=cdsc: 1 video RTP/AVP 100       a=cpar: a=rtcp-mux       m=video 3456 RTP/AVP 101       a=rtpmap:101 VP8/90000       a=fmtp:100 max-fr=15;max-fs=1200       a=cdsc: 2 video RTP/AVP 101       a=cpar: a=rtcp-mux

In this example, the category IDENTICAL is inherited by the cpar-encapsulated "rtcp-mux" attribute.

4.7.Category: IDENTICAL-PER-PT

The attributes in the IDENTICAL-PER-PT category define the RTP payload configuration on the basis of the payload type, and theyMUST have identical values across all the media descriptions for a given RTP payload type when repeated. These payload types identify the same codec configuration as defined inSection 9.1 of [RFC8843] under this context.

In the SDP example below, Payload Types 96 and 97 are repeated across all the video "m=" lines, and all the payload-specific parameters (for example, rtpmap and fmtp) are identical. (Note: some line breaks are due to formatting only.)

     v=0     o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     s=     c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com     t=0 0     a=group:BUNDLE cam1 cam2     m=video 96 97     a=mid:cam1     a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000     a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=42400d; max-fs=3600; max-fps=3000;     max-mbps=108000; max-br=1000     a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000     a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42400a; max-fs=240; max-fps=3000;     max-mbps=7200; max-br=200     m=video  96 97     a=mid:cam2     a=rtpmap:96 H264/90000     a=fmtp:96 profile-level-id=42400d; max-fs=3600; max-fps=3000;     max-mbps=108000; max-br=1000     a=rtpmap:97 H264/90000     a=fmtp:97 profile-level-id=42400a; max-fs=240; max-fps=3000;     max-mbps=7200; max-br=200

4.8.Category: SPECIAL

For the attributes in the SPECIAL category, the text in the specification defining the attributeMUST be consulted for further handling when multiplexed.

As an example, for the attribute "extmap"[RFC5285], the specification defining the extension needs to be consulted to understand the multiplexing implications.

4.9.Category: TBD

The attributes in the TBD category have not been analyzed under the proposed multiplexing framework andSHOULD NOT be multiplexed.

5.Analysis of Existing Attributes

This section analyzes attributes listed in[IANA], grouped under the IETF document that defines them.

The "Level" column indicates whether the attribute is currently specified as:

The "Mux Category" column identifies the multiplexing category assigned to each attribute, and the "Notes" column captures additional informative details regarding the assigned category, wherever necessary.

5.1.RFC 4566: SDP

[RFC4566] defines SDP that is intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation.

Table 1:RFC 4566 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
sendrecvNot impactedBNORMAL
sendonlyNot impactedBNORMAL
recvonlyNot impactedBNORMAL
inactiveNot impactedBNORMAL
catNot impactedSNORMAL
ptime The attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
maxptimeThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
orientNot impactedMNORMAL
framerateThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
qualityNot impactedMNORMAL
rtpmapThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
fmtpThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
keywdsNot impactedSNORMAL
typeNot impactedSNORMAL
type:broadcastNot impactedSNORMAL
type:H332Not impactedSNORMAL
type:meetingNot impactedSNORMAL
type:moderatedNot impactedSNORMAL
type:testNot impactedSNORMAL
toolNot impactedSNORMAL
charsetNot impactedSNORMAL
sdplangNot impactedBNORMAL
langNot impactedBNORMAL

5.2.RFC 4585: RTP/AVPF

[RFC4585] defines an extension to the Audio-visual Profile (AVP) that enables receivers to provide, statistically, more immediate feedback to the senders and thus allows for short-term adaptation and efficient feedback-based repair mechanisms to be implemented.

Table 2:RFC 4585 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-fbSince RTCP feedback attributes are scoped by payload type (PT), their valuesMUST be identical for a given PT across the multiplexed "m=" lines.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

5.3.RFC 5761: Multiplexing RTP and RTCP

[RFC5761] discusses issues that arise when multiplexing RTP data packets and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets on a single UDP port. It describes when such multiplexing is and is not appropriate, and it explains how the SDP can be used to signal multiplexed sessions.

Table 3:RFC 5761 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-muxRTP and RTCP multiplexing affects the entire RTP session.MIDENTICAL

5.4.RFC 3312: Integration of Resource Management and SIP

[RFC3312] defines a generic framework for preconditions, which are extensible through IANA registration. This document also discusses how network quality of service can be made a precondition for establishment of sessions initiated by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). These preconditions require that the participant reserve network resources before continuing with the session.

Table 4:RFC 3312 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
desRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
confRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
currRefer to notes belowMCAUTION

NOTE: A mismatched set of preconditions across media descriptions results in session establishment failures due to inability to meet the requested resource reservations.

5.5.RFC 4574: SDP "label" Attribute

[RFC4574] defines a new SDP media-level attribute: "label". The "label" attribute carries a pointer to a media stream in the context of an arbitrary network application that uses SDP. The sender of the SDP document can attach the "label" attribute to a particular media stream or streams. The application can then use the provided pointer to refer to each particular media stream in its context.

Table 5:RFC 4574 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
labelNot impactedMNORMAL

5.6.RFC 5432: QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP

[RFC5432] defines procedures for negotiating QoS mechanisms using the SDP offer/answer model.

Table 6:RFC 5432 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
qos-mech-send Refer toSection 10.BTRANSPORT
qos-mech-recvRefer toSection 10.BTRANSPORT

5.7.RFC 4568: SDP Security Descriptions

[RFC4568] defines an SDP cryptographic attribute for unicast media streams. The attribute describes a cryptographic key and other parameters that serve to configure security for a unicast media stream in either a single message or a roundtrip exchange.

Table 7:RFC 4568 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
cryptocrypto attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT

5.8.RFC 5762: RTP over DCCP

RTP is a widely used transport for real-time multimedia on IP networks. DCCP is a transport protocol that provides desirable services for real-time applications.[RFC5762] specifies a mapping of RTP onto DCCP, along with associated signaling, such that real-time applications can make use of the services provided by DCCP.

Table 8:RFC 5762 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesCurrentMux Category
dccp-service-code If RFC 6773 is not being used in addition to RFC5762, the port in the "m=" line is a DCCP port. Being a connection-oriented protocol, DCCP does not allow multiple connections on the same 5-tuple.MCAUTION

NOTE: If RFC 6773 is being used in addition to RFC 5762, and the DCCP-in-UDP layer has additional demultiplexing, then it may be possible to use different DCCP service codes for each DCCP flow, given each uses a different DCCP port. However, doing so might conflict with the media type of the "m=" line. None of this is standardized yet, and it wouldn't work as explained. Hence performing multiplexing is not recommended even in this alternate scenario.

5.9.RFC 6773: DCCP-UDP Encapsulation

[RFC6773] specifies an alternative encapsulation of DCCP, referred to as DCCP-UDP. This encapsulation allows DCCP to be carried through the current generation of Network Address Translation (NAT) middleboxes without modification of those middleboxes.

Table 9:RFC 6773 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
dccp-port Multiplexing is not recommended due to potential conflict between the port used for DCCP encapsulation/decapsulation and the RTP.MCAUTION

NOTE: RFC 6773 allows DCCP-UDP encapsulation, with the UDP port being the port of the DCCP encapsulation/decapsulation service. This encapsulation allows arbitrary DCCP packets to be encapsulated, and the DCCP port chosen can conflict with the port chosen for the RTP traffic. Multiplexing several DCCP-in-UDP encapsulations on the same UDP port with no RTP traffic on the same port implies collapsing several DCCP port spaces together. Whether or not this works depends on the nature of DCCP encapsulation and ports choices; it is thus very application dependent.

5.10.RFC 5506: Reduced-Size RTCP in RTP Profile

[RFC5506] discusses benefits and issues that arise when allowing RTCP packets to be transmitted with reduced size.

Table 10:RFC 5506 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-rsizeReduced-size RTCP affects the entire RTP session.MIDENTICAL

5.11.RFC 6787: Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2

The Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2) allows client hosts to control media service resources such as speech synthesizers, recognizers, verifiers, and identifiers residing in servers on the network. MRCPv2 is not a "stand-alone" protocol; it relies on other protocols, such as the SIP, to coordinate MRCPv2 clients and servers and manage session between them, and SDP to describe, discover, and exchange capabilities. It also depends on SIP and SDP to establish the media sessions and associated parameters between the media source or sink and the media server. Once this is done, the MRCPv2 exchange operates over the control session established above, allowing the client to control the media-processing resources on the speech resource server.[RFC6787] defines attributes for this purpose.

Table 11:RFC 6787 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
resourceNot impactedMNORMAL
channelNot impactedMNORMAL
cmidNot impactedMNORMAL

5.12.RFC 8445: ICE

[RFC8445] describes a protocol for NAT traversal for UDP-based multimedia sessions established with the offer/answer model. ICE makes use of the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol and its extension, Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN). ICE can be used by any protocol utilizing the offer/answer model, such as the SIP.

Table 12:RFC 8445 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ice-liteNot impactedSNORMAL
ice-optionsNot impactedSNORMAL
ice-mismatchNot impactedSNORMAL
ice-pwdice-pwdMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT
ice-ufragice-ufragMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT
candidateice candidateMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT
remote-candidatesice remote candidateMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT
ice2Not impactedSNORMAL

5.13.RFC 5285: RTP Header Extensions

[RFC5285] provides a general mechanism for using the header-extension feature of RTP. (Note:[RFC5285] has been obsoleted by[RFC8285].) It provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and registration is decentralized. The actual extensions in use in a session are signaled in the setup information for that session.

Table 13:RFC 5285 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
extmapRefer to the document defining the specific RTP extension.BSPECIAL

5.14.RFC 3605: RTCP Attribute in SDP

Originally, SDP assumed that RTP and RTCP were carried on consecutive ports. However, this is not always true when NATs are involved.[RFC3605] specifies an early mechanism for indicating the RTCP port.

Table 14:RFC 3605 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcpRTCP portMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT

5.15.RFC 5576: Source-Specific SDP Attributes

[RFC5576] defines a mechanism for describing RTP media sources -- which are identified by their synchronization source (SSRC) identifiers -- in SDP, to associate attributes with these sources and express relationships among sources. It also defines several source-level attributes that can be used to describe properties of media sources.

Table 15:RFC 5576 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ssrcRefer to notes below.MNORMAL
ssrc-groupRefer toSection 9 for specific analysis of the grouping semantics.MNORMAL
cnameNot impactedSRNORMAL
previous-ssrcRefer to notes belowSRNORMAL
fmtpThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.SRIDENTICAL-PER-PT

NOTE: If SSRCs are repeated across "m=" lines being multiplexed, theyMUST all represent the same underlying RTP Source.

5.16.RFC 7273: RTP Clock Source Signaling

[RFC7273] specifies SDP signaling that identifies timestamp reference clock sources and SDP signaling that identifies the media clock sources in a multimedia session.

Table 16:RFC 7273 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ts-refclkNot impactedBNORMAL
mediaclkNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:ntpNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:ptpNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:gpsNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:galNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:glonassNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:localNot impactedBNORMAL
ts-refclk:privateNot impactedBNORMAL
mediaclk:senderNot impactedBNORMAL
mediaclk:directNot impactedBNORMAL
mediaclk:IEEE1722Not impactedBNORMAL

5.17.RFC 6236: Image Attributes in SDP

[RFC6236] proposes a new generic session setup attribute to make it possible to negotiate different image attributes, such as image size. A possible use case is to make it possible for a low-end handheld terminal to display video without the need to rescale the image, something that may consume large amounts of memory and processing power. The document also helps to maintain an optimal bitrate for video as only the image size that is desired by the receiver is transmitted.

Table 17:RFC 6236 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
imageattrThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

5.18.RFC 7197: Duplication Delay Attribute in SDP

[RFC7197] defines an attribute to indicate the presence of temporally redundant media streams and the duplication delay in SDP.

Table 18:RFC 7197 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
duplication-delayNot impactedBNORMAL

5.19.RFC 7266: RTCP XR Blocks for MOS Metric Reporting

[RFC7266] defines an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block that includes two new segment types and associated SDP parameters that allow the reporting of mean opinion score (MOS) metrics for use in a range of RTP applications.

Table 19:RFC 7266 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
calgextmapNot impactedBNORMAL

5.20.RFC 6285: Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions

[RFC6285] describes a method of using the existing RTP and RTCP machinery that reduces the acquisition delay. In this method, an auxiliary unicast RTP session carrying the reference information to the receiver precedes or accompanies the multicast stream. This unicast RTP flow can be transmitted at a faster-than-natural bitrate to further accelerate the acquisition. The motivating use case for this capability is multicast applications that carry real-time compressed audio and video.

Table 20:RFC 6285 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rams-updatesNot recommendedMCAUTION

5.21.RFC 6230: Media Control Channel Framework

[RFC6230] describes a framework and protocol for application deployment where the application programming logic and media processing are distributed. This implies that application programming logic can seamlessly gain access to appropriate resources that are not co-located on the same physical network entity. The framework uses SIP to establish an application-level control mechanism between application servers and associated external servers such as media servers.

Table 21:RFC 6230 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
cfw-idNot impactedMNORMAL

5.22.RFC 6364: SDP Elements for FEC Framework

[RFC6364] specifies the use of SDP to describe the parameters required to signal the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework Configuration Information between the sender(s) and receiver(s). This document also provides examples that show the semantics for grouping multiple source and repair flows together for the applications that simultaneously use multiple instances of the FEC Framework.

Table 22:RFC 6364 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
fec-source-flowRefer to the document defining specific FEC scheme.MSPECIAL
fec-repair-flowRefer to the document defining specific FEC scheme.MSPECIAL
repair-windowRefer to the document defining specific FEC scheme.MSPECIAL

5.23.RFC 4796: "content" Attribute

[RFC4796] defines a new SDP media-level attribute, "content". The "content" attribute defines the content of the media stream to a more detailed level than the media description line. The sender of an SDP session description can attach the "content" attribute to one or more media streams. The receiving application can then treat each media stream differently (e.g., show it on a big or small screen) based on its content.

Table 23:RFC 4796 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
contentNot impactedMNORMAL

5.24.RFC 3407: SDP Simple Capability Declaration

[RFC3407] defines a set of SDP attributes that enables SDP to provide a minimal and backwards-compatible capability declaration mechanism.

Table 24:RFC 3407 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
sqnNot impactedBNORMAL
cdscNot impactedBNORMAL
cparRefer toSection 14BINHERIT
cparminRefer to notes belowBSPECIAL
cparmaxRefer to notes belowBSPECIAL

NOTE: The attributes "a=cparmin" and "a=cparmax" define minimum and maximum numerical values associated with the attributes described in "a=cpar".

Since the cpar attribute can either define a "b=" attribute or any "a=" attribute, the multiplexing category depends on the actual attribute being encapsulated and the implications of the numerical values assigned. Hence it is recommended to consult the specification defining attributes "cparmin" and "cparmax" to further analyze their behavior under multiplexing.

5.25.RFC 6284: Port Mapping between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions

[RFC6284] presents a port-mapping solution that allows RTP receivers to choose their own ports for an auxiliary unicast session in RTP applications using both unicast and multicast services. The solution provides protection against denial-of-service or packet amplification attacks that could be used to cause one or more RTP packets to be sent to a victim client.

Table 25:RFC 6284 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
portmapping-reqNot recommended if port mapping is required by the applicationMCAUTION

5.26.RFC 6714: MSRP-CEMA

[RFC6714] defines a Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) extension, Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA). Support of this extension is optional. The extension allows middleboxes to anchor the MSRP connection without the need for middleboxes to modify the MSRP messages; thus, it also enables secure end-to-end MSRP communication in networks where such middleboxes are deployed. This document also defines an SDP attribute, "msrp-cema", that MSRP endpoints use to indicate support of the CEMA extension.

Table 26:RFC 6714 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
msrp-cemaRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE: As perSection 9 of [RFC8843], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing MSRP flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the assignments of multiplexing categories for the attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.27.RFC 4583: SDP Format for BFCP Streams

[RFC4583] specifies how to describe Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) streams in SDP descriptions. User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP streams use this format in their offers and answers.

Table 27:RFC 4583 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
floorctrlRefer to notes belowMTBD
confidRefer to notes belowMTBD
useridRefer to notes belowMTBD
flooridRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE:[RFC4583] has been obsoleted by[RFC8856], which redefines the SDP attributes listed in this section, including the "Mux Category" values. However,[RFC8856] does not change the "Mux Category" values of the attributes.

NOTE: As perSection 9 of [RFC8843], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing BFCP streams over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the assignments of multiplexing categories for the attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.28.RFC 5547: SDP Offer/Answer for File Transfer

[RFC5547] provides a mechanism to negotiate the transfer of one or more files between two endpoints by using the SDP offer/answer model specified in[RFC3264].

Table 28:RFC 5547 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
file-selectorRefer to notes belowMTBD
file-transfer-idRefer to notes belowMTBD
file-dispositionRefer to notes belowMTBD
file-dateRefer to notes belowMTBD
file-iconRefer to notes belowMTBD
file-rangeRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE: As perSection 9 of [RFC8843], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing MSRP flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the assignments of multiplexing categories for attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.29.RFC 6849: SDP and RTP Media Loopback Extension

[RFC6849] adds new SDP media types and attributes that enable establishment of media sessions where the media is looped back to the transmitter. Such media sessions will serve as monitoring and troubleshooting tools by providing the means for measurement of more advanced Voice over IP (VoIP), real-time text, and Video over IP performance metrics.

Table 29:RFC 6849 Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
loopback rtp-pkt-loopbackThe attribute valueMUST be same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
loopback rtp-media-loopbackThe attribute valueMUST be same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
loopback-sourceNot impactedMNORMAL
loopback-mirrorNot impactedMNORMAL

5.30.RFC 5760: RTCP with Unicast Feedback

[RFC5760] specifies an extension to RTCP to use unicast feedback to a multicast sender. The proposed extension is useful for single-source multicast sessions such as source-specific multicast (SSM) communication where the traditional model of many-to-many group communication is either not available or not desired.

Table 30:RFC 5760 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-unicastThe attributeMUST be reported across all multiplexed "m=" lines.MIDENTICAL

5.31.RFC 3611: RTCP XR

[RFC3611] defines the Extended Report (XR) packet type for RTCP and defines how the use of XR packets can be signaled by an application if it employs the Session Description Protocol (SDP).

Table 31:RFC 3611 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-xrNot impactedBNORMAL

5.32.RFC 5939: SDP Capability Negotiation

[RFC5939] defines a general SDP Capability Negotiation framework. It also specifies how to provide attributes and transport protocols as capabilities and negotiate them using the framework. Extensions for other types of capabilities (e.g., media types and media formats) may be provided in other documents.

Table 32:RFC 5939 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
pcfgRefer toSection 14MSPECIAL
acfgRefer toSection 14MSPECIAL
csupNot impactedBNORMAL
creqNot impactedBNORMAL
acapRefer toSection 14BINHERIT
tcapRefer toSection 14BINHERIT
cap-v0Not impactedBNORMAL

5.33.RFC 6871: SDP Media Capabilities Negotiation

SDP capability negotiation provides a general framework for indicating and negotiating capabilities in SDP. The base framework only defines capabilities for negotiating transport protocols and attributes.[RFC6871] extends the framework by defining media capabilities that can be used to negotiate media types and their associated parameters.

Table 33:RFC 6871 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rmcapRefer toSection 14BIDENTICAL-PER-PT
omcapNot impactedBNORMAL
mfcapRefer toSection 14BIDENTICAL-PER-PT
mscapRefer toSection 14BINHERIT
lcfgRefer toSection 14BSPECIAL
sescapRefer to notes belowSCAUTION
med-v0Not impactedSNORMAL

NOTE: The "sescap" attribute is not recommended for use with multiplexing. The reason is that it requires the use of unique configuration numbers across the entire SDP (per[RFC6871]) as opposed to within a media description only (per[RFC5939]). As described inSection 14, the use of identical configuration numbers between multiplexed (bundled) media descriptions is the default way of indicating compatible configurations in a bundle.

5.34.RFC 7006: Miscellaneous Capabilities Negotiation in SDP

[RFC7006] extends the SDP Capability Negotiation framework to allow endpoints to negotiate three additional SDP capabilities. In particular, this memo provides a mechanism to negotiate bandwidth ("b=" line), connection data ("c=" line), and session or media titles ("i=" line for each session or media).

Table 34:RFC 7006 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
bcapInherit the category SUM as applicable to the "b=" attributeBINHERIT
bcap-v0Not impactedBNORMAL
ccapThe connection address typeMUST be identical across all the multiplexed "m=" lines.BIDENTICAL
ccap-v0Not impactedBNORMAL
icapNot impactedBNORMAL
icap-v0Not impactedBNORMAL

5.35.RFC 4567: Key Management Extensions for SDP and RTSP

[RFC4567] defines general extensions for SDP and Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) to carry messages, as specified by a key management protocol, in order to secure the media. These extensions are presented as a framework to be used by one or more key management protocols. As such, their use is meaningful only when complemented by an appropriate key management protocol.

Table 35:RFC 4567 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
key-mgmtKey management protocolMUST be identical across all the "m=" lines.BIDENTICAL
mikeyKey management protocolMUST be identical across all the "m=" lines.BIDENTICAL

5.36.RFC 4572: Comedia over TLS in SDP

[RFC4572] specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using SDP. (Note:[RFC4572] has been obsoleted by[RFC8122].) It defines a new SDP protocol identifier, "TCP/TLS". It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP "fingerprint" attribute that identifies the certificate that will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured.

Table 36:RFC 4572 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
fingerprintfingerprint valueMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT

5.37.RFC 4570: SDP Source Filters

[RFC4570] describes how to adapt SDP to express one or more source addresses as a source filter for one or more destination "connection" addresses. It defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP "source-filter" attribute that may reference either IPv4 or IPv6 address(es) as either an inclusive or exclusive source list for either multicast or unicast destinations. In particular, an inclusive source filter can be used to specify a source-specific multicast (SSM) session.

Table 37:RFC 4570 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
source-filterThe attributeMUST be repeated across all multiplexed "m=" lines.BIDENTICAL

5.38.RFC 6128: RTCP Port for Multicast Sessions

SDP has an attribute that allows RTP applications to specify an address and a port associated with the RTCP traffic. In RTP-based source-specific multicast (SSM) sessions, the same attribute is used to designate the address and the RTCP port of the Feedback Target in the SDP description. However, the RTCP port associated with the SSM session itself cannot be specified by the same attribute to avoid ambiguity and thus is required to be derived from the "m=" line of the media description. Deriving the RTCP port from the "m=" line imposes an unnecessary restriction.[RFC6128] removes this restriction by introducing a new SDP attribute.

Table 38:RFC 6128 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
multicast-rtcpMulticast RTCP portMUST be identical across all the "m=" lines.BIDENTICAL

5.39.RFC 6189: ZRTP

[RFC6189] defines ZRTP, a protocol for media path Diffie-Hellman exchange to agree on a session key and parameters for establishing unicast SRTP sessions for VoIP applications.

Table 39:RFC 6189 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
zrtp-hashThe zrtp-hash attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT

5.40.RFC 4145: Connection-Oriented Media

[RFC4145] describes how to express media transport over TCP using SDP. It defines the SDP "TCP" protocol identifier, the SDP "setup" attribute, which describes the connection setup procedure, and the SDP "connection" attribute, which handles connection re-establishment.

Table 40:RFC 4145 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
setupThe setup attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT
connectionThe connection attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT

5.41.RFC 6947: The SDP "altc" Attribute

[RFC6947] proposes a mechanism that allows the same SDP offer to carry multiple IP addresses of different address families (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6). The proposed "altc" attribute solves the backward-compatibility problem that plagued Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) due to their syntax.

Table 41:RFC 6947 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
altcThe IP address and portMUST be the ones that correspond to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT

5.42.RFC 7195: SDP Extension for Circuit-Switched Bearers in PSTN

[RFC7195] describes use cases, requirements, and protocol extensions for using the SDP offer/answer model for establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).

Table 42:RFC 7195 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
cs-correlation:calleridRefer to notes belowMTBD
cs-correlation:uuieRefer to notes belowMTBD
cs-correlation:dtmfRefer to notes belowMTBD
cs-correlation:externalRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE:[RFC7195] defines SDP attributes for establishing audio and video media streams over circuit-switched bearers by defining a new nettype value, "PSTN". However,Section 7.2 of [RFC8843] requires the "c=" line nettype value to be "IN". If there exists in future a specification that defines procedures to multiplex media streams over nettype "PSTN", the multiplexing categories for attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.43.RFC 7272: IDMS Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)

[RFC7272] defines a new RTCP packet type and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block Type to be used for achieving Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS).

Table 43:RFC 7272 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtcp-idmsNot impactedMNORMAL

5.44.RFC 5159: Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Broadcast (BCAST) SDP Attributes

[RFC5159] provides descriptions of SDP attributes used by the Open Mobile Alliance's "Service and Content Protection for Mobile Broadcast Services" specification.

Table 44:RFC 5159 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
bcastversionNot impactedSNORMAL
stkmstreamNot impactedBNORMAL
SRTPAuthenticationNeeds further analysisMTBD
SRTPROCTxRateNeeds further analysisMTBD

5.45.RFC 6193: Media Description for IKE in SDP

[RFC6193] specifies how to establish a media session that represents a virtual private network using the Session Initiation Protocol for the purpose of on-demand media/application sharing between peers. It extends the protocol identifier of SDP so that it can negotiate use of the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) for media sessions in the SDP offer/answer model.

Table 45:RFC 6193 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ike-setupUnlikely to use IKE in the context of multiplexingBCAUTION
psk-fingerprintUnlikely to use IKE in the context of multiplexingBCAUTION
ike-espUnlikely to use IKE in the context of multiplexingBCAUTION
ike-esp-udpencapUnlikely to use IKE in the context of multiplexingBCAUTION

5.46.RFC 2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol

The Real Time Streaming Protocol, or RTSP, is an application-level protocol for control over the delivery of data with real-time properties. RTSP provides an extensible framework to enable controlled, on-demand delivery of real-time data, such as audio and video.

Table 46:RFC 2326 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
etagRFC 2326 is obsolete.BCAUTION
rangeRFC 2326 is obsolete.BCAUTION
controlRFC 2326 is obsolete.BCAUTION
mtagRFC 2326 is obsolete.BCAUTION

NOTE:[RFC2326] defines SDP attributes that are applicable in the declarative usage of SDP alone. For the purposes of this document, only the offer/answer usage of SDP is considered to be mandated by[RFC8843].

5.47.RFC 7826: Real-Time Streaming Protocol

The Real-Time Streaming Protocol, or RTSP, is an application-level protocol for control over the delivery of data with real-time properties. RTSP provides an extensible framework to enable controlled, on-demand delivery of real-time data, such as audio and video.

Table 47:RFC 7826 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rangeRTSP is not supported for RTP stream multiplexing.BCAUTION
controlRTSP is not supported for RTP stream multiplexing.BCAUTION
mtagRTSP is not supported for RTP stream multiplexing.BCAUTION

NOTE:[RFC7826] defines SDP attributes that are applicable in the declarative usage of SDP alone. For the purposes of this document, only the offer/answer usage of SDP is considered to be mandated by[RFC8843].

5.48.RFC 6064: SDP and RTSP Extensions for 3GPP

The Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS) and the Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) defined by 3GPP use SDP and RTSP with some extensions.[RFC6064] provides information about these extensions and registers the RTSP and SDP extensions with IANA.

Table 48:RFC 6064 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
X-predecbufsizeRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
X-initpredecbufperiodRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
X-initpostdecbufperiodRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
X-decbyterateRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3gpp-videopostdecbufsizeRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
framesizeRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-Integrity-KeyRefer to notes belowSCAUTION
3GPP-SDP-AuthRefer to notes belowSCAUTION
3GPP-SRTP-ConfigRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
altRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
alt-default-idRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
alt-groupRefer to notes belowSCAUTION
3GPP-Adaptation-SupportRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-Asset-InformationRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
mbms-modeRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
mbms-flowidRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
mbms-repairRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-MetricsRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Corruption durationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Rebuffering durationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Initial buffering durationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Successive loss of RTP packetsRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Frame rate deviationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Jitter durationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Content Switch TimeRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Average Codec BitrateRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Codec InformationRefer to notes belowMCAUTION
3GPP-QoE-Metrics:Buffer StatusRefer to notes belowMCAUTION

NOTE:[RFC6064] defines SDP attributes that are applicable in the declarative usage of SDP alone. For the purposes of this document, only the offer/answer usage of SDP is considered to be mandated by[RFC8843].

5.49.RFC 3108: ATM SDP

[RFC3108] describes conventions for using SDP described for controlling ATM bearer connections and any associated ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL).

Table 49:RFC 3108 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
aalTypeRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
eecidRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
capabilityRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
qosClassRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
bcobRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
stcRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
upccRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
atmQOSparmsRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
atmTrfcDescRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
abrParmsRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
abrSetupRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
bearerTypeRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
lijRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
anycastRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
cacheRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
bearerSigIERefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aalAppRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
cbrRateRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
sbcRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
clkrecRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
fecRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
prtflRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
structureRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
cpsSDUsizeRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal2CPSRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal2CPSSDUrateRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal2sscs3661unassuredRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal2sscs3661assuredRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal2sscs3662Refer to notes belowBCAUTION
aal5sscopRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
atmmapRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
silenceSuppRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
ecanRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
gcRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
profileDescRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
vselRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
dselRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
fselRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
onewaySelRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
codecconfigRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
isup_usiRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
uiLayer1_ProtRefer to notes belowBCAUTION
chainRefer to notes belowBCAUTION

NOTE: RFC 3108 describes conventions for using SDP for characterizing ATM bearer connections using an AAL1, AAL2, or AAL5 adaptation layer. For AAL1, AAL2, and AAL5, bearer connections can be used to transport single media streams. In addition, for AAL1 and AAL2, multiple media streams can be multiplexed into a bearer connection. For all adaptation types (AAL1, AAL2, and AAL5), bearer connections can be bundled into a single media group. In all cases addressed by RFC 3108, a real-time media stream (voice, video, voiceband data, pseudowire, and others) or a multiplex of media streams is mapped directly into an ATM connection. RFC 3108 does not address cases where ATM serves as a low-level transport pipe for IP packets that can, in turn, carry one or more real-time (e.g., VoIP) media sessions with a life cycle different from that of the underlying ATM transport.

5.50.3GPP TS 183.063

[TISPAN] describes Telecommunications and Internet converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN);

Table 50:3GPP TS 183.063 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
PSCidNot impactedSNORMAL
bc_serviceNot impactedSNORMAL
bc_programNot impactedSNORMAL
bc_service_packageNot impactedSNORMAL

5.51.3GPP TS 24.229

[IP-CALL] specifies an IP multimedia call control protocol based on Session Initial protocol and Session Description Protocol.

Table 51:3GPP TS 24.229 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
secondary-realmsecondary-realmMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT
visited-realmvisited-realmMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.MTRANSPORT
omr-m-cksumNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-s-cksumNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-m-attNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-s-attNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-m-bwNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-s-bwNot impactedMNORMAL
omr-codecsNot impactedMNORMAL

5.52.ITU T.38

[T.38] defines procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile communications over IP networks.

Table 52:ITU T.38 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
T38FaxVersionRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38MaxBitRateRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxFillBitRemovalRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxTranscodingMMRRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxTranscodingJBIGRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxRateManagementRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxMaxBufferRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxMaxDatagramRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxUdpECRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxMaxIFPRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxUdpECDepthRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38FaxUdpFECMaxSpanRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38ModemTypeRefer to notes belowMTBD
T38VendorInfoRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE: As perSection 9 of [RFC8843], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing fax protocol flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing category assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.53.ITU-T Q.1970

[Q.1970] defines Bearer Independent Call Control (BICC) IP bearer control protocol.

Table 53:ITU-T Q.1970 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ipbcpipbcp version identifies the types of IP bearer control protocol (IPBCP) message used in BICC (ITU-T Q.1901) environment that are limited to single-media payload. Refer to the pertinent ITU-T specifications while multiplexing.SSPECIAL

5.54.ITU-T H.248.15

ITU-T H.248.15[H.248.15] defines the Gateway Control Protocol SDP H.248 package attribute.

Table 54:ITU-T H.248.15 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
h248itemIt is only applicable for signaling the inclusion of H.248 extension packages to a gateway via the local and remote descriptors. The attribute itself is unaffected by multiplexing, but the package referenced in a specific use of the attribute can be impacted. Further analysis of each package is needed to determine if there is an issue. This is only a concern in environments using a decomposed server/gateway with H.248 signaled between them. The ITU-T will need to do further analysis of various packages when they specify how to signal the use of multiplexing to a gateway.BSPECIAL

5.55.RFC 4975: The Message Session Relay Protocol

[RFC4975] describes the Message Session Relay Protocol, a protocol for transmitting a series of related instant messages in the context of a session. Message sessions are treated like any other media stream when set up via a rendezvous or session-creation protocol such as the Session Initiation Protocol.

Table 55:RFC 4975 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
accept-typesRefer to notes belowMTBD
accept-wrapped-typesRefer to notes belowMTBD
max-sizeRefer to notes belowMTBD
pathRefer to notes belowMTBD

NOTE: As perSection 9 of [RFC8843], there exists no publicly available specification that defines procedures for multiplexing/demultiplexing MSRP flows over a single 5-tuple. Once such a specification is available, the multiplexing categories assignments for the attributes in this section could be revisited.

5.56.Historical Attributes

This section specifies analysis for the attributes that are included for historic usage alone by the[IANA].

Table 56:Historical Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rtpred1Historic attributesMCAUTION
rtpred2Historic attributesMCAUTION

6.bwtype Attribute Analysis

This section specifies handling of specific bandwidth attributes when used in multiplexing scenarios.

6.1.RFC 4566: SDP

[RFC4566] defines SDP that is intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation.

Table 57:RFC 4566 bwtype Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
bwtype:CTNot impactedSNORMAL
bwtype:AS For media-level usage, the aggregate of individual bandwidth values is considered.BSUM

6.2.RFC 3556: SDP Bandwidth Modifiers for RTCP Bandwidth

[RFC3556] defines an extension to SDP to specify two additional modifiers for the bandwidth attribute. These modifiers may be used to specify the bandwidth allowed for RTCP packets in an RTP session.

Table 58:RFC 3556 bwtype Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
bwtype:RSSession-level usage represents session aggregate, and media-level usage indicates SUM of the individual values while multiplexing.BSUM
bwtype:RRSession-level usage represents session aggregate, and media-level usage indicates SUM of the individual values while multiplexing.BSUM

6.3.RFC 3890: Bandwidth Modifier for SDP

[RFC3890] defines SDP Transport Independent Application Specific Maximum (TIAS) bandwidth modifier that does not include transport overhead; instead, an additional packet-rate attribute is defined. The transport-independent bitrate value together with the maximum packet rate can then be used to calculate the real bitrate over the transport actually used.

Table 59:RFC 3890 bwtype Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
bwtype:TIASThe usage of TIAS is not defined under offer/answer usage.BSPECIAL
maxprateThe usage of TIAS and maxprate is not well defined under multiplexing.BSPECIAL

NOTE: The intention of TIAS is that the media-level bitrate is multiplied with the known per-packet overhead for the selected transport and the maxprate value to determine the worst-case bitrate from the transport to more accurately capture the required usage. Summing TIAS values independently across "m=" lines and multiplying the computed sum with maxprate and the per-packet overhead would inflate the value significantly. Instead, performing multiplication and adding the individual values is a more appropriate usage.

7.rtcp-fb Attribute Analysis

This section analyzes rtcp-fb SDP attributes.

7.1.RFC 4585: RTP/AVPF

[RFC4585] defines an extension to the Audio-Visual Profile (AVP) that enables receivers to provide, statistically, more immediate feedback to the senders; it thus allows for short-term adaptation and implementation of efficient feedback-based repair mechanisms.

Table 60:RFC 4585 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ack rpsiThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ack appFeedback parametersMUST be handled in the app-specific way when multiplexed.MSPECIAL
nackThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nack pliThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nack sliThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nack rpsiThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nack appFeedback parametersMUST be handled in the app specific way when multiplexed.MSPECIAL
trr-intThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

7.2.RFC 5104: Codec Control Messages in AVPF

[RFC5104] specifies a few extensions to the messages defined in the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF). They are helpful primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where centralized multipoint functionalities are in use. However, some are also usable in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls.

Table 61:RFC 5104 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ccmThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

7.3.RFC 6285: Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions (RAMS)

[RFC6285] describes a method of using the existing RTP and RTCP machinery that reduces the acquisition delay. In this method, an auxiliary unicast RTP session carrying the Reference Information to the receiver precedes or accompanies the multicast stream. This unicast RTP flow can be transmitted at a faster-than-natural bitrate to further accelerate the acquisition. The motivating use case for this capability is multicast applications that carry real-time compressed audio and video.

Table 62:RFC 6285 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
nack raiThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

7.4.RFC 6679: ECN for RTP over UDP/IP

[RFC6679] specifies how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) can be used with the RTP running over UDP, using the RTCP as a feedback mechanism. It defines a new RTCP Extended Report (XR) block for periodic ECN feedback, a new RTCP transport feedback message for timely reporting of congestion events, and a STUN extension used in the optional initialization method using ICE.

Table 63:RFC 6679 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ecn-capable-rtpECN markup is enabled at the RTP session level.MIDENTICAL
nack ecnThis attribute enables ECN at the RTP session level.MIDENTICAL

7.5.RFC 6642: Third-Party Loss Report

In a large RTP session using the RTCP feedback mechanism defined in[RFC4585], a feedback target may experience transient overload if some event causes a large number of receivers to send feedback at once. This overload is usually avoided by ensuring that feedback reports are forwarded to all receivers, allowing them to avoid sending duplicate feedback reports. However, there are cases where it is not recommended to forward feedback reports, and this may allow feedback implosion.[RFC6642] discusses these cases and defines a new RTCP Third-Party Loss Report that can be used to inform receivers that the feedback target is aware of some loss event, allowing them to suppress feedback. Associated SDP signaling is also defined.

Table 64:RFC 6642 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
nack tlleiThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nack psleiThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

7.6.RFC 5104: Codec Control Messages in AVPF

[RFC5104] specifies a few extensions to the messages defined in the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF). They are helpful primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where centralized multipoint functionalities are in use. However, some are also usable in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls.

Table 65:RFC 5104 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ccm firThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ccm tmmbrThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ccm tstrThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ccm vbcmThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

8.group Attribute Analysis

This section analyzes SDP "group" attribute semantics[RFC5888].

8.1.RFC 5888: SDP Grouping Framework

[RFC5888] defines a framework to group "m=" lines in SDP for different purposes.

Table 66:RFC 5888 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:LSNot impactedSNORMAL
group:FIDNot impactedSNORMAL

8.2.RFC 3524: Mapping Media Streams to Resource Reservation Flows

[RFC3524] defines an extension to the SDP grouping framework. It allows requesting a group of media streams to be mapped into a single resource reservation flow. The SDP syntax needed is defined, as well as a new "semantics" attribute called Single Reservation Flow (SRF).

Table 67:RFC 3524 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:SRFNot impactedSNORMAL

8.3.RFC 4091: ANAT Semantics

[RFC4091] defines ANAT semantics for the SDP grouping framework. (Note:[RFC4091] has been obsoleted by[RFC8445].) The ANAT semantics allow alternative types of network addresses to establish a particular media stream.

Table 68:RFC 4091 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:ANATANAT semantics is obsoleted.SCAUTION

8.4.RFC 5956: FEC Grouping Semantics in SDP

[RFC5956] defines the semantics for grouping the associated source and FEC-based repair flows in SDP. The semantics defined in the document are to be used with the SDP Grouping Framework[RFC5888]. These semantics allow the description of grouping relationships between the source and repair flows when one or more source and/or repair flows are associated in the same group; they also provide support for additive repair flows. SSRC-level grouping semantics are also defined in this document for RTP streams using SSRC multiplexing.

Table 69:RFC 5956 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:FEC-FRNot impactedSNORMAL

8.5.RFC 5583: Signaling Media Decoding Dependency in SDP

[RFC5583] defines semantics that allow for signaling the decoding dependency of different media descriptions with the same media type in SDP. This is required, for example, if media data is separated and transported in different network streams as a result of using a layered or multiple descriptive media coding process.

Table 70:RFC 5583 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:DDPNot impactedSNORMAL
depend layThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT
depend mdcThe attribute valueMUST be the same for a given codec configuration.MIDENTICAL-PER-PT

8.6.RFC 7104: Duplication Grouping Semantics in the SDP

[RFC7104] defines the semantics for grouping redundant streams in SDP. The semantics defined in this document are to be used with the SDP Grouping Framework. Grouping semantics at the synchronization source (SSRC) level are also defined in this document for RTP streams using SSRC multiplexing.

Table 71:RFC 7104 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
group:DUPNot impactedSNORMAL

9.ssrc-group Attribute Analysis

This section analyzes "ssrc-group" semantics.

9.1.RFC 5576: Source-Specific SDP Attributes

[RFC5576] defines a mechanism for describing RTP media sources -- which are identified by their synchronization source (SSRC) identifiers -- in SDP, to associate attributes with these sources and express relationships among sources. It also defines several source-level attributes that can be used to describe properties of media sources.

Table 72:RFC 5576 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ssrc-group:FIDNot impactedSRNORMAL
ssrc-group:FECNot impactedSRNORMAL
ssrc-group:FEC-FRNot impactedSRNORMAL

9.2.RFC 7104: Duplication Grouping Semantics in the SDP

[RFC7104] defines the semantics for grouping redundant streams in SDP. The semantics defined in this document are to be used with the SDP Grouping Framework. Grouping semantics at the synchronization source (SSRC) level are also defined in this document for RTP streams using SSRC multiplexing.

Table 73:RFC 7104 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
ssrc-group:DUPNot impactedSRNORMAL

10.QoS Mechanism Token Analysis

This section analyzes QoS tokes specified with SDP.

10.1.RFC 5432: QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP

[RFC5432] defines procedures to negotiate QoS mechanisms using the SDP offer/answer model.

Table 74:RFC 5432 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
rsvprsvp attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport flow.BTRANSPORT
nsisrsvp attributeMUST be the one that corresponds to the "m=" line chosen for setting up the underlying transport.BTRANSPORT

NOTE: A single Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for each flow being multiplexed doesn't impact multiplexing, since QoS mechanisms are signaled/scoped per flow. For scenarios that involve having different DSCP code points for packets being transmitted over the same 5-tuple, issues as discussed in[RFC7657] need to be taken into consideration.

11.k= Attribute Analysis

11.1.RFC 4566: SDP

[RFC4566] defines SDP that is intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation.

Table 75:RFC 4566 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
k=It is not recommended to use this attribute under multiplexing.SCAUTION

12.content Attribute Analysis

12.1.RFC 4796

[RFC4796] defines a new SDP media-level attribute, "content". The "content" attribute defines the content of the media stream to a more detailed level than the media description line. The sender of an SDP session description can attach the "content" attribute to one or more media streams. The receiving application can then treat each media stream differently (e.g., show it on a big or small screen) based on its content.

Table 76:RFC 4796 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
content:slidesNot impactedMNORMAL
content:speakerNot impactedMNORMAL
content:mainNot impactedMNORMAL
content:slNot impactedMNORMAL
content:altNot impactedMNORMAL

12.2.3GPP TS 24.182

[IMS-CAT] specifies an IP multimedia subsystem for customized alerting tones.

Table 77:3GPP TS 24.182 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
g.3gpp.catUsage defined for the IP multimedia subsystemMNORMAL

12.3.3GPP TS 24.183

[IMS-CRS] specifies an IP multimedia subsystem for customized ringing signal.

Table 78:3GPP TS 24.183 Attribute Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
g.3gpp.crsUsage defined for the IP multimedia subsystemMNORMAL

13.Payload Formats

13.1.RFC 5109: RTP Payload Format for Generic FEC

[RFC5109] describes a payload format for generic Forward Error Correction (FEC) for media data encapsulated in RTP. It is based on the exclusive-or (parity) operation. The payload format allows end systems to apply protection using various protection lengths and levels, in addition to using various protection group sizes to adapt to different media and channel characteristics. It enables complete recovery of the protected packets or partial recovery of the critical parts of the payload, depending on the packet loss situation.

Table 79:RFC 5109 Payload Format Analysis
NameNotesLevelMux Category
audio/ulpfecNot recommended for multiplexing due to reuse of SSRCs.MCAUTION
video/ulpfecNot recommended for multiplexing due to reuse of SSRCs.MCAUTION
text/ulpfecNot recommended for multiplexing due to reuse of SSRCs.MCAUTION
application/ulpfecNot recommended for multiplexing due to reuse of SSRCs.MCAUTION

14.Multiplexing Considerations for Encapsulating Attributes

This section deals with recommendations for defining the multiplexing characteristics of the SDP attributes that encapsulate other SDP attributes/parameters. As of today, such attributes, for example, are defined in[RFC3407],[RFC5939] and[RFC6871] as part of a generic framework for indicating and negotiating transport-, media-, and media-format-related capabilities in the SDP.

The behavior of such attributes under multiplexing is, in turn, defined by the multiplexing behavior of the attributes they encapsulate, which are made known once the offer/answer negotiation process is completed.

14.1.RFC 3407: cpar Attribute Analysis

The[RFC3407] capability parameter attribute "a=cpar" encapsulates a "b=" (bandwidth) or an "a=" attribute. For bandwidth attribute encapsulation, the category SUM is inherited. For the case of "a=" attribute, the category corresponding to the SDP attribute being encapsulated is inherited.

 v=0 o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com s= c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com t=0 0 m=video 3456 RTP/AVP 100 a=rtpmap:100 VP8/90000 a=sqn: 0 a=cdsc: 1 video RTP/AVP 100 a=cpar: a=rtcp-mux m=video 3456 RTP/AVP 101 a=rtpmap:101 VP8/90000 a=fmtp:100 max-fr=15;max-fs=1200 a=cdsc: 2 video RTP/AVP 101 a=cpar: a=rtcp-mux

In this example, the category IDENTICAL is inherited for the cpar-encapsulated "rtcp-mux" attribute.

14.2.RFC 5939 Analysis

[RFC5939] defines a general SDP capability negotiation framework. It also specifies how to provide transport protocols and SDP attributes as capabilities and negotiate them using the framework.

For this purpose,[RFC5939] defines the following:

  • A set of capabilities for the session and its associated media-stream components, supported by each side. The attribute "a=acap" defines how to list an attribute name and its associated value (if any) as a capability. The attribute "a=tcap" defines how to list transport protocols (e.g., "RTP/AVP") as capabilities.
  • A set of potential configurations ("a=pcfg") provided by the offerer to indicate which combinations of those capabilities can be used for the session and its associated media stream components. Potential configurations are not ready for use until fully negotiated. They provide an alternative thatMAY be used, subject to SDP capability-negotiation procedures. In particular, the answererMAY choose one of the potential configurations for use as part of the current offer/answer exchange.
  • An actual configuration ("a=acfg") for the session and its associated media stream components. The actual configuration identifies the potential configuration that was negotiated for use. Use of an actual configuration does not require any further negotiation.
  • A negotiation process that takes the current actual and the set of potential configurations (combinations of capabilities) as input and provides the negotiated actual configurations as output. In[RFC5939], the negotiation process is done independently for each media description.

14.2.1.Recommendation: Procedures for Potential Configuration Pairing

This section provides recommendations for entities generating and processing SDP under the generic capability-negotiation framework as defined in[RFC5939] under the context of media-stream multiplexing.

These recommendations are provided for the purposes of enabling the offerer to make sure that the generated potential configurations between the multiplexed streams can (easily) be negotiated to be consistent between those streams. In particular, the procedures aim to simplify the answerer's procedure for choosing potential configurations that are consistent across all the multiplexed media descriptions.

A potential configuration selects a set of attributes and parameters that become part of the media description when negotiated. When multiplexing media descriptions with potential configurations specified, thereMAY be a need for coordinating this selection between multiplexed media descriptions to ensure the right multiplexing behavior.

Although it is possible to analyze the various potential configurations in multiplexed media descriptions to find combinations that satisfy such constraints, it can quickly become complicated to do so.

The procedures defined in[RFC5939] state that each potential configuration in the SDP has a unique configuration number; however, the scope of uniqueness is limited to each media description. To make it simple for the answerer to chose valid combinations of potential configurations across media descriptions in a given BUNDLE group, we provide a simple rule for constructing potential configurations:

  • Let m-bundle be the set of media descriptions that form a given bundle.
  • Let m-bundle-pcfg be the set of media descriptions in m-bundle that include one or more potential configurations.
  • Each media description in m-bundle-pcfgMUST have at least one potential configuration with the same configuration number (e.g., "1").
  • For each potential configuration with configuration number x in m-bundle-pcfg, the offererMUST ensure that if the answerer chooses configuration number x in each of the media descriptions in m-bundle-pcfg, then the resulting SDP will have all multiplexing constraints satisfied for those media descriptions.
  • Since it is nearly impossible to define a generic mechanism for various capability extensions, this document doesn't provide procedures for dealing with the capability-extension attributes. However,Section 14.3 provides analysis of media-capability-extension attributes as defined in[RFC6871].

The above allows the answerer to easily find multiplexing-compatible combinations of potential configurations. The answerer simply chooses a potential configuration (number) that is present in all of the media descriptions with potential configurations in the bundle.

Note that it is still possible for the offerer to provide additional potential configurations with independent configuration numbers. The answerer will have to perform more complicated analysis to determine valid multiplexed combinations of those.

14.2.1.1.Example: Transport-Capability Multiplexing
v=0o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.coms=c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.comt=0 0a=tcap:1 RTP/SAVPFa=tcap:2 RTP/SAVPa=group:BUNDLE audio videom=audioa=mid:audioa=pcfg:1 t=1a=pcfg:2m=videoa=mid:videoa=pcfg:1 t=1a=pcfg:2 t=2

In this example, the potential configurations that offer transport-protocol capability of RTP/SAVPF have the same configuration number "1" in both the audio and video media descriptions.

14.2.1.2.Example: Attribute-Capability Multiplexing
v=0o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.coms=c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.comt=0 0a=acap:1 a=rtcp-muxa=acap:2 a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80  inline:EcGZiNWpFJhQXdspcl1ekcmVCNWpVLcfHAwJSoj|2^20|1:32a=group:BUNDLE audio videom=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 99a=mid:audioa=pcfg:1 a=1a=pcfg:2m=video 560024 RTP/AVP 100a=mid:videoa=pcfg:1 a=1a=pcfg:2 a=2

In this example, the potential configuration number "1" is repeated while referring to attribute capability a=rtcp-mux, since the behavior is IDENTICAL for the attribute a=rtcp-mux under multiplexing.

14.3.RFC 6871 Analysis

[RFC6871] extends the capability negotiation framework described in[RFC5939] by defining media capabilities that can be used to indicate and negotiate media types and their associated format parameters. It also allows indication of latent configurations and session capabilities.

14.3.1.Recommendation: Dealing with Payload Type Numbers

[RFC6871] defines a new payload type parameter ("pt") to be used with the potential, actual, and latent configuration parameters. The parameter associates RTP payload type numbers with the referenced RTP-based media-format capabilities ("a=rmcap") defined in[RFC6871] and is appropriate only when the transport protocol uses RTP. This means that the same payload type number can be assigned as part of potential or actual configurations in different media descriptions in a bundle. There are rules for the usage of identical payload type values across multiplexed "m=" lines, described in[RFC8843], which must be followed here, as well. As described inSection 14.2.1, the use of identical configuration numbers for compatible configurations in different media descriptions that are part of the bundle provides a way to ensure that the answerer can easily pick compatible configurations here, as well.

14.3.1.1.Example: Attribute Capability under Shared Payload Type

The attributes "a=rmcap" and "a=mfcap" follow the above recommendations under multiplexing.

v=0o=- 25678 753849 IN IP4 192.0.2.1s=c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1t=0 0a=creq:med-v0m=audio 54322 RTP/AVP 96a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000/1a=fmtp:96 mode-change-capability=1; max-red=220;mode-set=0,2,4,7a=rmcap:1,3 audio AMR-WB/16000/1a=rmcap:2 audio AMR/8000/1a=mfcap:1,2 mode-change-capability=1a=mfcap:3 mode-change-capability=2a=pcfg:1 m=1 pt=1:96a=pcfg:2 m=2 pt=2:97a=pcfg:3 m=3 pt=3:98m=audio 54322 RTP/AVP 96a=rtpmap:96 AMR-WB/16000/1a=fmtp:96 mode-change-capability=1; max-red=220;mode-set=0,2,4,7a=rmcap:4 audio AMR/8000/1a=rmcap:5 audio OPUS/48000/2a=mfcap:5 minptime=40a=mfcap:4 mode-change-capability=1a=pcfg:1 m=4 pt=4:97a=pcfg:4 m=5 pt=5:101

In this example, the potential configuration number "1" is repeated when referring to media and media-format capability used for the Payload Type 96. This implies that both media capabilities 2 and 4, along with their media-format capabilities,MUST refer to the same codec configuration, as per the definition of IDENTICAL-PER-PT.

14.3.2.Recommendation: Dealing with Latent Configurations

[RFC6871] adds the notion of a latent configuration that provides configuration information that may be used to guide a subsequent offer/exchange -- e.g., by adding another media stream or using alternative codec combinations not currently offered. Latent configurations have configuration numbers that cannot overlap with the potential configuration numbers[RFC6871]. Supported combinations of potential and latent configurations are indicated by use of the "a=sescap" attribute; however, use of this attribute is not recommended with multiplexed media, since it requires the use of unique configuration numbers across the SDP. Taken together, this means there is no well-defined way to indicate supported combinations of latent configurations, or combinations of latent and potential configurations with multiplexed media. It is still allowed to use the latent configuration attribute; however, the limitations above will apply. To determine valid combinations, actual negotiation will have to be attempted subsequently instead.

15.IANA Considerations

Section 15.1 defines a new subregistry, which has been added by the IANA, for identifying the initial registrations for various multiplexing categories applicable, as described in this document.

IANA has added a new column named "Mux Category" to several of the subregistries in the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The tables inSection 15.2 identify the names of entries in the existing subregistry and specify the value to be put in the new "Mux Category" column of the associated IANA registry for each.

15.1.New "Multiplexing Categories" Subregistry

A new subregistry has been created. It is called "Multiplexing Categories" and has the following registrations initially:

Table 80
Multiplexing CategoriesReference
NORMALRFC 8859
CAUTIONRFC 8859
IDENTICALRFC 8859
TRANSPORTRFC 8859
SUMRFC 8859
INHERITRFC 8859
IDENTICAL-PER-PTRFC 8859
SPECIALRFC 8859
TBDRFC 8859

Further entries can be registered using Standard Actions policies outlined in[RFC8126], which requires IESG review and approval and Standards Track IETF RFC publication.

Each registration needs to indicate the multiplexing category value to be added to the "Multiplexing Categories" subregistry, as defined in this section.

Such a registrationMUST also indicate the applicability of the newly defined multiplexing category value to various subregistries defined in the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry.

15.2."Mux Category" Column for Subregistries

Each subsection identifies a subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The tables list the column that identifies the SDP attribute name/Token/Value from the corresponding subregistries and the values to be used for the new "Mux Category" column to be added.

Entries in the existing subregistries of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry that lack a value for the "Mux Category" in this specification will get a value of "TBD".

The registration policy for updates to the "Mux Category" column values for existing parameters, or when registering new parameters, is beyond the scope of this document. The registration policy for the affected table is defined in[RFC8866].

15.2.1.Table: SDP bwtype

The following values have been added to the "bwtype" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 81
SDP NameMux Category
CTNORMAL
ASSUM
RSSUM
RRSUM
TIASSPECIAL

15.2.2.Table: attribute-name

The following values have been added to the "attribute-name" (formerly "att-field") subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

NOTE: The attributes from[FLUTE] ("flute-tsi", "flute-ch", "FEC-declaration", "FEC-OTI-extension", "content-desc") were not analyzed for their multiplexing behavior, due to the expired status of the draft. For the purposes of this specification, the multiplexing category of "TBD" is assigned.

Table 82
SDP NameMux Category
catNORMAL
keywdsNORMAL
typeNORMAL
type:broadcastNORMAL
type:H332NORMAL
type:meetingNORMAL
type:moderatedNORMAL
type:testNORMAL
charsetNORMAL
charset:iso8895-1NORMAL
toolNORMAL
ipbcpSPECIAL
groupNORMAL
ice-liteNORMAL
ice-optionsNORMAL
bcastversionNORMAL
3GPP-Integrity-KeyCAUTION
3GPP-SDP-AuthCAUTION
alt-groupCAUTION
PSCidNORMAL
bc_serviceNORMAL
bc_programNORMAL
bc_service_packageNORMAL
sescapCAUTION
rtsp-ice-d-mTBD
recvonlyNORMAL
sendrecvNORMAL
sendonlyNORMAL
sdplangNORMAL
langNORMAL
h248itemSPECIAL
sqnNORMAL
cdscNORMAL
cparINHERIT
cparminSPECIAL
cparmaxSPECIAL
rtcp-xrNORMAL
maxprateSPECIAL
setupTRANSPORT
connectionTRANSPORT
key-mgmtIDENTICAL
source-filterIDENTICAL
inactiveNORMAL
fingerprintTRANSPORT
flute-tsiTBD
flute-chTBD
FEC-declarationTBD
FEC-OTI-extensionTBD
content-descTBD
ice-pwdTRANSPORT
ice-ufragTRANSPORT
stkmstreamNORMAL
extmapSPECIAL
qos-mech-sendTRANSPORT
qos-mech-recvTRANSPORT
csupNORMAL
creqNORMAL
acapINHERIT
tcapINHERIT
3GPP-QoE-MetricsCAUTION
3GPP-Asset-InformationCAUTION
mbms-modeCAUTION
mbms-repairCAUTION
ike-setupIDENTICAL
psk-fingerprintIDENTICAL
multicast-rtcpIDENTICAL
rmcapIDENTICAL-PER-PT
omcapNORMAL
mfcapIDENTICAL-PER-PT
mscapINHERIT
3gpp.iut.replicationTBD
bcapINHERIT
ccapIDENTICAL
icapNORMAL
etagCAUTION
duplication-delayNORMAL
rangeCAUTION
controlCAUTION
mtagCAUTION
ts-refclkNORMAL
mediaclkNORMAL
calgextmapNORMAL
ptimeIDENTICAL-PER-PT
orientNORMAL
orient:portraitNORMAL
orient:landscapeNORMAL
orient:seascapeNORMAL
framerateIDENTICAL-PER-PT
qualityNORMAL
rtpmapIDENTICAL-PER-PT
fmtpIDENTICAL-PER-PT
rtpred1CAUTION
rtpred2CAUTION
T38FaxVersionTBD
T38MaxBitRateTBD
T38FaxFillBitRemovalTBD
T38FaxTranscodingMMRTBD
T38FaxTranscodingJBIGTBD
T38FaxRateManagementTBD
T38FaxMaxBufferTBD
T38FaxMaxDatagramTBD
T38FaxUdpECTBD
maxptimeIDENTICAL-PER-PT
desCAUTION
currCAUTION
confCAUTION
midNORMAL
rtcpTRANSPORT
rtcp-fbIDENTICAL-PER-PT
labelNORMAL
T38VendorInfoTBD
cryptoTRANSPORT
eecidCAUTION
aalTypeCAUTION
capabilityCAUTION
qosClassCAUTION
bcobCAUTION
stcCAUTION
upccCAUTION
atmQOSparmsCAUTION
atmTrfcDescCAUTION
abrParmsCAUTION
abrSetupCAUTION
bearerTypeCAUTION
lijCAUTION
anycastCAUTION
cacheCAUTION
bearerSigIECAUTION
aalAppCAUTION
cbrRateCAUTION
sbcCAUTION
clkrecCAUTION
fecCAUTION
prtflCAUTION
structureCAUTION
cpsSDUsizeCAUTION
aal2CPSCAUTION
aal2CPSSDUrateCAUTION
aal2sscs3661unassuredCAUTION
aal2sscs3661assuredCAUTION
aal2sscs3662CAUTION
aal5sscopCAUTION
atmmapCAUTION
silenceSuppCAUTION
ecanCAUTION
gcCAUTION
profileDescCAUTION
vselCAUTION
dselCAUTION
fselCAUTION
onewaySelCAUTION
codecconfigCAUTION
isup_usiCAUTION
uiLayer1_ProtCAUTION
chainCAUTION
floorctrlTBD
confidTBD
useridTBD
flooridTBD
FECNORMAL
accept-typesTBD
accept-wrapped-typesTBD
max-sizeTBD
pathTBD
dccp-service-codeCAUTION
rtcp-muxIDENTICAL
candidateTRANSPORT
ice-mismatchNORMAL
remote-candidatesTRANSPORT
SRTPAuthenticationTBD
SRTPROCTxRateTBD
rtcp-rsizeIDENTICAL
file-selectorTBD
file-transfer-idTBD
file-dispositionTBD
file-dateTBD
file-iconTBD
file-rangeTBD
dependIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ssrcNORMAL
ssrc-groupNORMAL
rtcp-unicastIDENTICAL
pcfgSPECIAL
acfgSPECIAL
zrtp-hashTRANSPORT
X-predecbufsizeCAUTION
X-initpredecbufperiodCAUTION
X-initpostdecbufperiodCAUTION
X-decbyterateCAUTION
3gpp-videopostdecbufsizeCAUTION
framesizeCAUTION
3GPP-SRTP-ConfigCAUTION
altCAUTION
alt-default-idCAUTION
3GPP-Adaption-SupportCAUTION
mbms-flowidCAUTION
fec-source-flowSPECIAL
fec-repair-flowSPECIAL
repair-windowSPECIAL
rams-updatesCAUTION
imageattrIDENTICAL-PER-PT
cfw-idNORMAL
portmapping-reqCAUTION
ecn-capable-rtpIDENTICAL
visited-realmTRANSPORT
secondary-realmTRANSPORT
omr-s-cksumNORMAL
omr-m-cksumNORMAL
omr-codecsNORMAL
omr-m-attNORMAL
omr-s-attNORMAL
omr-m-bwNORMAL
omr-s-bwNORMAL
msrp-cemaTBD
dccp-portCAUTION
resourceNORMAL
channelNORMAL
cmidNORMAL
contentNORMAL
lcfgSPECIAL
loopbackNORMAL
loopback-sourceNORMAL
loopback-mirrorNORMAL
chatroomTBD
altcTRANSPORT
T38FaxMaxIFPTBD
T38FaxUdpECDepthTBD
T38FaxUdpFECMaxSpanTBD
T38ModemTypeTBD
cs-correlationTBD
rtcp-idmsNORMAL
cnameNORMAL
previous-ssrcNORMAL
fmtpIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ts-refclkNORMAL
mediaclkNORMAL

15.2.3.Table: content SDP Parameters

The following values have been added to the "content SDP Parameters" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 83
SDP NameMux Category
slidesNORMAL
speakerNORMAL
slNORMAL
mainNORMAL
altNORMAL
g.3gpp.catNORMAL
g.3gpp.crsNORMAL

15.2.4.Table: Semantics for the "group" SDP Attribute

The following values have been added to the "Semantics for the 'group' SDP Attribute" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 84
TokenMux Category
LSNORMAL
FIDNORMAL
SRFNORMAL
ANATCAUTION
FECNORMAL
FEC-FRNORMAL
CSNORMAL
DDPNORMAL
DUPNORMAL

15.2.5.Table: "rtcp-fb" Attribute Values

The following values have been added to the "'rtcp-fb' Attribute Values" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 85
Value NameMux Category
ackIDENTICAL-PER-PT
appSPECIAL
ccmIDENTICAL-PER-PT
nackIDENTICAL-PER-PT
trr-intIDENTICAL-PER-PT

15.2.6.Table: "ack" and "nack" Attribute Values

The following values have been added to the "'ack' and 'nack' Attribute Values" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 86
Value NameMux Category
sliIDENTICAL-PER-PT
pliIDENTICAL-PER-PT
rpsiIDENTICAL-PER-PT
appSPECIAL
raiIDENTICAL-PER-PT
tlleiIDENTICAL-PER-PT
psleiIDENTICAL-PER-PT
ecnIDENTICAL

15.2.7.Table: "depend" SDP Attribute Values

The following values have been added to the "'depend' SDP Attribute Values" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 87
TokenMux Category
layIDENTICAL-PER-PT
mdcIDENTICAL-PER-PT

15.2.8.Table: "cs-correlation" Attribute Values

The following values have been added to the "'cs-correlation' Attribute Values" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 88
ValueMux Category
calleridTBD
uuieTBD
dtmfTBD
externalTBD

15.2.9.Table: Semantics for the "ssrc-group" SDP Attribute

The following values have been added to the "Semantics for the 'ssrc-group' SDP Attribute" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 89
TokenMux Category
FIDNORMAL
FECNORMAL
FEC-FRNORMAL
DUPNORMAL

15.2.10.Table: SDP/RTSP Key Management Protocol Identifiers

The following values have been added to the "SDP/RTSP key management protocol identifiers" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 90
Value NameMux Category
mikeyIDENTICAL

15.2.11.Table: Codec Control Messages

The following values have been added to the "Codec Control Messages" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 91
Value NameMux Category
firIDENTICAL-PER-PT
tmmbrIDENTICAL-PER-PT
tstrIDENTICAL-PER-PT
vbcmIDENTICAL-PER-PT

15.2.12.Table: QoS Mechanism Tokens

The following values have been added to the "QoS Mechanism Tokens" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 92
QoS MechanismMux Category
rsvpTRANSPORT
nsisTRANSPORT

15.2.13.Table: SDP Capability Negotiation Option Tags

The following values have been added to the "SDP Capability Negotiation Option Tags" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 93
Option TagMux Category
cap-v0NORMAL
med-v0NORMAL
bcap-v0NORMAL
ccap-v0NORMAL
icap-v0NORMAL

15.2.14.Table: Timestamp Reference Clock Source Parameters

The following values have been added to the "Timestamp Reference Clock Source Parameters" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 94
NameMux Category
ntpNORMAL
ptpNORMAL
gpsNORMAL
galNORMAL
glonassNORMAL
localNORMAL
privateNORMAL

15.2.15.Table: Media Clock Source Parameters

The following values have been added to the "Media Clock Source Parameters" subregistry of the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. The references have been updated to point to this RFC as well as the previous references.

Table 95
NameMux Category
senderNORMAL
directNORMAL
IEEE1722NORMAL

16.Security Considerations

The primary security considerations for RTP, including the way it is used here, are described in[RFC3550] and[RFC3711].

When multiplexing SDP attributes with the category "CAUTION", the implementations should be aware of possible issues described in this specification.

17.References

17.1.Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S.,"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4566]
Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins,"SDP: Session Description Protocol",RFC 4566,DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC8126]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten,"Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 8126,DOI 10.17487/RFC8126,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B.,"Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174,DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8843]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 8843,DOI 10.17487/RFC8843,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8843>.

17.2.Informative References

[FLUTE]
Walsh, R., Peltotalo, J., Peltotalo, S., Curcio, I. D., and H. Mehta,"SDP Descriptors for FLUTE",Work in Progress,Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rmt-flute-sdp-03,,<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-flute-sdp-03>.
[H.248.15]
ITU-T,"Gateway control protocol: SDP ITU-T H.248 package attribute",ITU-T Recommendation H.248.15,,<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.248.15>.
[IANA]
IANA,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters",<https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters>.
[IMS-CAT]
3GPP,"IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Customized Alerting Tones (CAT); Protocol specification",Specification 24.182,Specification 24.182,,<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24182.htm>.
[IMS-CRS]
3GPP,"IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Customized Ringing Signal (CRS); Protocol specification",Specification 24.183,,<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24183.htm>.
[IP-CALL]
3GPP,"IP multimedia call control protocol based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP); Stage 3",Specification 24.229,,<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24229.htm>.
[Q.1970]
ITU-T,"Q.1970: BICC IP bearer control protocol",ITU-T Recommendation Q.1970,,<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.1970-200609-I/en>.
[RFC2326]
Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier,"Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)",RFC 2326,DOI 10.17487/RFC2326,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2326>.
[RFC3108]
Kumar, R. and M. Mostafa,"Conventions for the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections",RFC 3108,DOI 10.17487/RFC3108,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3108>.
[RFC3264]
Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne,"An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 3264,DOI 10.17487/RFC3264,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC3312]
Camarillo, G., Ed., Marshall, W., Ed., and J. Rosenberg,"Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",RFC 3312,DOI 10.17487/RFC3312,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3312>.
[RFC3407]
Andreasen, F.,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Simple Capability Declaration",RFC 3407,DOI 10.17487/RFC3407,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3407>.
[RFC3524]
Camarillo, G. and A. Monrad,"Mapping of Media Streams to Resource Reservation Flows",RFC 3524,DOI 10.17487/RFC3524,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3524>.
[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/RFC3550,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3556]
Casner, S.,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth",RFC 3556,DOI 10.17487/RFC3556,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3556>.
[RFC3605]
Huitema, C.,"Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 3605,DOI 10.17487/RFC3605,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.
[RFC3611]
Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",RFC 3611,DOI 10.17487/RFC3611,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3611>.
[RFC3711]
Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman,"The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",RFC 3711,DOI 10.17487/RFC3711,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC3890]
Westerlund, M.,"A Transport Independent Bandwidth Modifier for the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 3890,DOI 10.17487/RFC3890,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3890>.
[RFC4091]
Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg,"The Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework",RFC 4091,DOI 10.17487/RFC4091,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4091>.
[RFC4145]
Yon, D. and G. Camarillo,"TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 4145,DOI 10.17487/RFC4145,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4145>.
[RFC4567]
Arkko, J., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., Norrman, K., and E. Carrara,"Key Management Extensions for Session Description Protocol (SDP) and Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)",RFC 4567,DOI 10.17487/RFC4567,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4567>.
[RFC4568]
Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media Streams",RFC 4568,DOI 10.17487/RFC4568,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4568>.
[RFC4570]
Quinn, B. and R. Finlayson,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Source Filters",RFC 4570,DOI 10.17487/RFC4570,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4570>.
[RFC4572]
Lennox, J.,"Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 4572,DOI 10.17487/RFC4572,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4572>.
[RFC4574]
Levin, O. and G. Camarillo,"The Session Description Protocol (SDP) Label Attribute",RFC 4574,DOI 10.17487/RFC4574,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4574>.
[RFC4583]
Camarillo, G.,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams",RFC 4583,DOI 10.17487/RFC4583,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4583>.
[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/RFC4585,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4585>.
[RFC4796]
Hautakorpi, J. and G. Camarillo,"The Session Description Protocol (SDP) Content Attribute",RFC 4796,DOI 10.17487/RFC4796,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4796>.
[RFC4975]
Campbell, B., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and C. Jennings, Ed.,"The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",RFC 4975,DOI 10.17487/RFC4975,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4975>.
[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/RFC5104,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5104>.
[RFC5109]
Li, A., Ed.,"RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction",RFC 5109,DOI 10.17487/RFC5109,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.
[RFC5159]
Dondeti, L., Ed. and A. Jerichow,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes for Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Broadcast (BCAST) Service and Content Protection",RFC 5159,DOI 10.17487/RFC5159,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5159>.
[RFC5285]
Singer, D. and H. Desineni,"A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions",RFC 5285,DOI 10.17487/RFC5285,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5285>.
[RFC5432]
Polk, J., Dhesikan, S., and G. Camarillo,"Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 5432,DOI 10.17487/RFC5432,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5432>.
[RFC5506]
Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund,"Support for Reduced-Size Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities and Consequences",RFC 5506,DOI 10.17487/RFC5506,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[RFC5547]
Garcia-Martin, M., Isomaki, M., Camarillo, G., Loreto, S., and P. Kyzivat,"A Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Mechanism to Enable File Transfer",RFC 5547,DOI 10.17487/RFC5547,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5547>.
[RFC5576]
Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl,"Source-Specific Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 5576,DOI 10.17487/RFC5576,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.
[RFC5583]
Schierl, T. and S. Wenger,"Signaling Media Decoding Dependency in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 5583,DOI 10.17487/RFC5583,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5583>.
[RFC5760]
Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler,"RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback",RFC 5760,DOI 10.17487/RFC5760,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5760>.
[RFC5761]
Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund,"Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port",RFC 5761,DOI 10.17487/RFC5761,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5761>.
[RFC5762]
Perkins, C.,"RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",RFC 5762,DOI 10.17487/RFC5762,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5762>.
[RFC5763]
Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla,"Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",RFC 5763,DOI 10.17487/RFC5763,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5763>.
[RFC5888]
Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne,"The Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework",RFC 5888,DOI 10.17487/RFC5888,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5888>.
[RFC5939]
Andreasen, F.,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation",RFC 5939,DOI 10.17487/RFC5939,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5939>.
[RFC5956]
Begen, A.,"Forward Error Correction Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol",RFC 5956,DOI 10.17487/RFC5956,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5956>.
[RFC6064]
Westerlund, M. and P. Frojdh,"SDP and RTSP Extensions Defined for 3GPP Packet-Switched Streaming Service and Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service",RFC 6064,DOI 10.17487/RFC6064,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6064>.
[RFC6128]
Begen, A.,"RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Port for Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions",RFC 6128,DOI 10.17487/RFC6128,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6128>.
[RFC6189]
Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas,"ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP",RFC 6189,DOI 10.17487/RFC6189,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189>.
[RFC6193]
Saito, M., Wing, D., and M. Toyama,"Media Description for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 6193,DOI 10.17487/RFC6193,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6193>.
[RFC6230]
Boulton, C., Melanchuk, T., and S. McGlashan,"Media Control Channel Framework",RFC 6230,DOI 10.17487/RFC6230,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6230>.
[RFC6236]
Johansson, I. and K. Jung,"Negotiation of Generic Image Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 6236,DOI 10.17487/RFC6236,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6236>.
[RFC6284]
Begen, A., Wing, D., and T. Van Caenegem,"Port Mapping between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions",RFC 6284,DOI 10.17487/RFC6284,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6284>.
[RFC6285]
Ver Steeg, B., Begen, A., Van Caenegem, T., and Z. Vax,"Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions",RFC 6285,DOI 10.17487/RFC6285,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6285>.
[RFC6364]
Begen, A.,"Session Description Protocol Elements for the Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework",RFC 6364,DOI 10.17487/RFC6364,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6364>.
[RFC6642]
Wu, Q., Ed., Xia, F., and R. Even,"RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extension for a Third-Party Loss Report",RFC 6642,DOI 10.17487/RFC6642,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6642>.
[RFC6679]
Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P., and K. Carlberg,"Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP",RFC 6679,DOI 10.17487/RFC6679,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6679>.
[RFC6714]
Holmberg, C., Blau, S., and E. Burger,"Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)",RFC 6714,DOI 10.17487/RFC6714,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6714>.
[RFC6773]
Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins,"DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for NAT Traversal",RFC 6773,DOI 10.17487/RFC6773,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6773>.
[RFC6787]
Burnett, D. and S. Shanmugham,"Media Resource Control Protocol Version 2 (MRCPv2)",RFC 6787,DOI 10.17487/RFC6787,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6787>.
[RFC6849]
Kaplan, H., Ed., Hedayat, K., Venna, N., Jones, P., and N. Stratton,"An Extension to the Session Description Protocol (SDP) and Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) for Media Loopback",RFC 6849,DOI 10.17487/RFC6849,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6849>.
[RFC6871]
Gilman, R., Even, R., and F. Andreasen,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Media Capabilities Negotiation",RFC 6871,DOI 10.17487/RFC6871,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6871>.
[RFC6947]
Boucadair, M., Kaplan, H., Gilman, R., and S. Veikkolainen,"The Session Description Protocol (SDP) Alternate Connectivity (ALTC) Attribute",RFC 6947,DOI 10.17487/RFC6947,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6947>.
[RFC7006]
Garcia-Martin, M., Veikkolainen, S., and R. Gilman,"Miscellaneous Capabilities Negotiation in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 7006,DOI 10.17487/RFC7006,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7006>.
[RFC7104]
Begen, A., Cai, Y., and H. Ou,"Duplication Grouping Semantics in the Session Description Protocol",RFC 7104,DOI 10.17487/RFC7104,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7104>.
[RFC7195]
Garcia-Martin, M. and S. Veikkolainen,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension for Setting Audio and Video Media Streams over Circuit-Switched Bearers in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)",RFC 7195,DOI 10.17487/RFC7195,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7195>.
[RFC7197]
Begen, A., Cai, Y., and H. Ou,"Duplication Delay Attribute in the Session Description Protocol",RFC 7197,DOI 10.17487/RFC7197,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7197>.
[RFC7266]
Clark, A., Wu, Q., Schott, R., and G. Zorn,"RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Metric Reporting",RFC 7266,DOI 10.17487/RFC7266,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7266>.
[RFC7272]
van Brandenburg, R., Stokking, H., van Deventer, O., Boronat, F., Montagud, M., and K. Gross,"Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",RFC 7272,DOI 10.17487/RFC7272,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7272>.
[RFC7273]
Williams, A., Gross, K., van Brandenburg, R., and H. Stokking,"RTP Clock Source Signalling",RFC 7273,DOI 10.17487/RFC7273,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7273>.
[RFC7657]
Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones,"Differentiated Services (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication",RFC 7657,DOI 10.17487/RFC7657,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
[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/RFC7826,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7826>.
[RFC8122]
Lennox, J. and C. Holmberg,"Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",RFC 8122,DOI 10.17487/RFC8122,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8122>.
[RFC8285]
Singer, D., Desineni, H., and R. Even, Ed.,"A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions",RFC 8285,DOI 10.17487/RFC8285,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8285>.
[RFC8445]
Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg,"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal",RFC 8445,DOI 10.17487/RFC8445,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.
[RFC8856]
Camarillo, G., Kristensen, T., and C. Holmberg,"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams",RFC 8856,DOI 10.17487/RFC8856,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8856>.
[RFC8866]
Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley,"SDP: Session Description Protocol",RFC 8866,DOI 10.17487/RFC8866,,<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8866>.
[T.38]
ITU-T,"Procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile communication over IP networks",ITU-T Recommendation T.38,,<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-T.38/e>.
[TISPAN]
ETSI,"Telecommunications and Internet converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); IMS-based IPTV stage 3 specification",Technical Specification 183 063 V2.1.0,,<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/183000_183099/183063/02.01.00_60/ts_183063v020100p.pdf>.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thankCullen Jennings andFlemming Andreasen for suggesting the categories, contributing text, and reviewing the draft of this document. I would also like to thankMagnus Westerlund,Christer Holmberg,Jonathan Lennox,Bo Burman,Ari Keränen, andDan Wing for suggesting structural changes that improved the document's readability.

I would like also to thank the following experts for their inputs and reviews as listed:

I would like to thankChris Lonvick for the SECDIR review,Dan Romascanu for the Gen-ART review, andSabrina Tanamal for the IANA review.

Thanks toBen Campbell for Area Director review suggestions. Thanks toSpencer Dawkins,Stephen Farrel,Alissa Cooper,Mirja Kühlewind, and the entire IESG for their reviews.

Author's Address

Suhas Nandakumar
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose,CA95134
United States of America
Email:snandaku@cisco.com

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp