Internet Info 1993/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (1993).iso/inet/ietf/avt/avt-minutes-92nov.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 12.1 KB | 295 lines

Editor's Note: Minutes received 12/21/92

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Steve Casner/USC-ISI

Minutes of Audio/Video Transport Working Group (AVT)

The AVT Working Group met for three sessions.  In the first two, we
reviewed the draft specification for the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP); the third session was an ``implementors agreement'' session
focusing on software video encoding.

Presentations of Draft RTP Specification

We are indebted to Henning Schulzrinne for his efforts in writing a
summary of the discussion from the Working Group meeting at the July
IETF, and subsequently developing that into a concise RTP specification
and a separate rationale document comparing the design tradeoffs
considered by the Working Group.  We began with a presentation by
Henning on the draft protocol specification.  In brief, RTP supports the
following functions:


   o Transfer of media data.
   o Demultiplexing of multiple flows.
   o Content identification.
   o Synchronization and sequencing.
   o Options for simple control functions such as identification of
     participants.


RTP consists primarily of protocol header for real-time data packets.
In the typical case, the RTP header is just 8 octets long and composed
of the following fields (this includes some changes since the meeting):


   o Protocol version (2 bits, value 1)
   o Flow identifier (6 bits)
   o Option present bit
   o Synchronization bit (marks end of synchronization unit)
   o Content type index (6 bits)
   o Packet sequence number (16 bits)
   o Timestamp, middle 32 bits of NTP-format timestamp


The slides are not included here, but full details on the protocol are
available in the Internet-Drafts just released (see section 4).

Discussion of the Specification Seeking ``rough consensus''.

There were many issues discussed, but no roadblocks were identified.
Some items simply required additional explanation in the text.  All
items were resolved sufficiently for the editor to produce the next

                                   1





draft.  The following items are expanded in the text below:


   o Framing of data units
   o End-of-synchronization-unit flag
   o Conference announcement protocol as a separate document
   o Timestamp mechanisms
   o Encoding/flow descriptors
   o Backchannel information, including QoS measurement
   o Profiles and mapping to port numbers


Framing is required when using RTP over a stream-oriented protocol
layer, but we discussed here that it is also needed to allow multiple
data units (e.g., from different media) in one packet.  To allow
alignment and to avoid length constraints, the frame length field was
increased to 32 bits.

There was no objection to the change of the header flag from start-to
end-of-synchronization-unit.  This gives a few advantages with only a
slight addition in complexity.

In the protocol draft sent out just before the meeting, a Conference
Announcement Protocol (CAP) was added.  CAP is intended as one near-term
method of simple conference control until more sophisticated control
protocols are developed.  However, this protocol was deemed by some to
be outside the scope of the Working Group, and in any case the Working
Group agreed it should be specified separately from the RTP. It was
agreed also that no specific references to audio or video encoding
should be made in the RTP specification because it should be usable for
other applications as well.

Unlike the previous two meetings, there was relatively little discussion
of timestamp formats.  The Group has settled on a real-time timestamp,
rather than a timestamp based on the media sample clock, to allow the
timestamp to be independent of the content type and to aid inter-media
synchronization.  However, we need implementation experience to validate
this choice.  We discussed the need to clarify the wording in the
specification to say that globally synchronized time is not required if
it is not available (and inter-media synchronization is not required);
also to specify that timestamps within a synchronization unit should be
derived from media timing.

The topic receiving the most discussion was the encoding/flow (EF) field
and the EF description (EFDESC). The idea was that the value of the EF
field would be used as an index into a table both the flow (or sequence
state space) and the encoding (renamed content) which is opaque to the
RTP layer.  Since the meeting, this combined-function field has been
found difficult to implement, and it has been separated into two fields
by sacrificing the ``option length'' field and replacing it with just an
``option present'' bit.  This requires parsing of all the options to
determine where the data starts, but that may not be a disadvantage if
all options must be processed before the data anyway.


                                   2





Another topic receiving substantial discussion was the need to provide a
backchannel from receivers to the sender.  The draft contained a
``quality of service measurement'' option that could be multicast by
receivers with or without their own data, but there may also be a need
to unicast encoding control information back to the sender for error
control or flow control.  There is a need to identify to which flow from
the sender the backchannel information pertains.

A new idea was that RTP may be used in various ways for different
applications, and that we need to define and indicate those modes of
use.  The term ``profile'' is taken for this purpose.  A profile might
indicate that one or more options are always present in a specified
order, effectively increasing the fixed size of the header.  The profile
would also specify how content types are defined (statically in the
profile, or dynamically through some higher-level control protocol).  It
is expected that use of RTP with a particular profile may be identified
by a registered port number for IP multicast service.  Since unicast
service may require dynamically assigned port numbers, the profile will
have to be identified (perhaps by the registered port number) in the
control protocol that communicates the dynamic port numbers between the
endpoints.  More work is needed on this topic.

It was suggested that we need a model for ``entity addressing'' covering
both the multicast and unicast cases.  This touches on the use of IP
multicast addresses, port numbers, flow identifiers, and identification
of multiple sources within one host.  Should the model of a flow be
unidirectional or bidirectional?  These questions were not answered.

In addition to the topics listed above, we discussed the need to address
security measures (authentication, confidentiality, integrity) before
this protocol draft can become an RFC. However, we did not define those
measures yet.

``Implementors Agreement'' Session

The real-time transport protocol should be independent of the media
encoding algorithms and formats that belong to the next higher layer.
However, several members of the Working Group are developing packages
for software video compression, so we devoted the third Working Group
session to an ``implementors agreement'' discussion to promote
convergence and interoperation among these packages.

We heard presentations by Thierry Turletti on the INRIA ``IVS'' system
implementing software H.261 encoding; by Richard Cogger from Cornell on
the CUSeeMe package for Macintosh; and a short description was given
remotely by Ron Frederick at Xerox PARC on the ``nv'' package.  Paul
Milazzo, who has previously made a presentation on the BBN ``DVC''
system, and Bob Clements of BBN, also participated in the discussion
remotely over the packet audio channel.  Oliver Jones from PictureTel
made a presentation on coding standards applicable to this effort.

We found there was much in common among these systems, and several of
the implementors agreed to work together toward convergence and

                                   3





interoperation.  A first step is for a description of each of these
systems to be posted to the mailing list [e-mail] (some
information has already been posted).  There was some discussion of
defining an API for the software compression algorithms so they could be
plugged into application frameworks on different platforms.  However,
Paul Milazzo pointed out that it may be necessary to interleave
compression operations into the acquisition process to reduce processing
time, so it may infeasible or at least premature to define an API
between the two steps.

We also determined there were no conflicts between the draft RTP
protocol and the requirements of these packages.  We will need to define
an enumeration of these experimental encodings to allow systems to
process multiple formats.

Further Working Group Activities

Subsequent to this meeting, an updated set of Internet-Drafts on RTP was
issued on December 18th to incorporate the changes discussed at the
meeting.  These are:


   o draft-ietf-avt-rtp-00.txt
   o draft-ietf-avt-encoding-00.txt
   o draft-ietf-avt-profile-00.txt
   o draft-ietf-avt-issues-00.ps, .txt


The first draft is the specification of the real-time transport protocol
itself.  The second and third drafts define a set of media encodings and
a sample profile for use of those encodings to implement audio and video
multiparticipant conferences with minimal control.  The last draft is an
updated discussion of the issues and decisions involved in the design of
the protocol.

Before these drafts are issued as RFCs, it is important that we obtain
sufficient implementation and operational experience to validate or
revise the protocol.  Our goal should be to implement the protocol for
both audio and video, experiment with it and have implementations ready
for use to multicast the next IETF meeting in March.  Assuming success
in this process, the drafts should then be submitted to become RFCs
after review at the March meeting.

Attendees

Vikas Aggarwal           [e-mail]
Brian Bataille           [e-mail]
Lou Berger               [e-mail]
Dean Blackketter         [e-mail]
Rita Brennan             [e-mail]
Stephen Casner           [e-mail]
Kay Chang                [e-mail]


                                   4





Wo Chang                 [e-mail]
Richard Cogger           [e-mail]
Robert Cole              [e-mail]
Hans Eriksson            [e-mail]
Jerry Friesen            [e-mail]
James Geddes             [e-mail]
Robert Gilligan          [e-mail]
Mark Green               [e-mail]
Thomas Hacker            [e-mail]
Don Hoffman              [e-mail]
Christian Huitema        [e-mail]
Oliver Jones             [e-mail]
Phil Karn                [e-mail]
Charley Kline            [e-mail]
Jim Knowles              [e-mail]
Christopher Kolb         [e-mail]
Fong-Ching Liaw          [e-mail]
Louis Mamakos            [e-mail]
Donald Merritt           [e-mail]
Greg Minshall            [e-mail]
Mitra                    [e-mail]
Kathleen Nichols         [e-mail]
Ari Ollikainen           [e-mail]
Michael Patton           [e-mail]
Jim Perchik              [e-mail]
Mike Petry               [e-mail]
Joe Ragland              [e-mail]
Bala Rajagopalan         [e-mail]
Allan Rubens             [e-mail]
Tom Sandoski             [e-mail]
Eve Schooler             [e-mail]
Dallas Scott             [e-mail]
Lansing Sloan            [e-mail]
Frank Solensky           [e-mail]
Joo Young Song           [e-mail]
Terrance Sullivan        [e-mail]
Tang Tang                [e-mail]
Morton Taragin           [e-mail]
Sally Tarquinio          [e-mail]
Claudio Topolcic         [e-mail]
Thierry Turletti         [e-mail]
Zheng Wang               [e-mail]
Von Welch                [e-mail]
Peter Will               [e-mail]
Kirk Williams            [e-mail]
Jeff Young               [e-mail]
Paul Zawada              [e-mail]



                                   5