RTP over QUIC (RoQ)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Joerg Ott , Mathis Engelbart , Spencer Dawkins | ||
| Last updated | 2024-02-12 (Latest revision 2023-10-23) | ||
| Replaces | draft-engelbart-rtp-over-quic | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Dr. Bernard D. Aboba | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | bernarda@microsoft.com |
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-08
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance J. Ott
Internet-Draft M. Engelbart
Intended status: Standards Track Technical University Munich
Expires: 15 August 2024 S. Dawkins
Tencent America LLC
12 February 2024
RTP over QUIC (RoQ)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-08
Abstract
This document specifies a minimal mapping for encapsulating Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets
within the QUIC protocol. This mapping is called RTP over QUIC
(RoQ). It also discusses how to leverage state from the QUIC
implementation in the endpoints, in order to reduce the need to
exchange RTCP packets and how to implement congestion control and
rate adaptation without relying on RTCP feedback.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Audio/Video Transport
Core Maintenance Working Group mailing list (avt@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/mengelbart/rtp-over-quic-draft.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 August 2024.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. "Always-On" Transport-level Authentication and
Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2. "Always-On" Internet-Safe Congestion Avoidance . . . 5
1.2.3. RTP Rate Adaptation Based on QUIC Feedback . . . . . 6
1.2.4. Path MTU Discovery and RTP Media Coalescence . . . . 7
1.2.5. Multiplexing RTP, RTCP, and Non-RTP Flows on a Single
QUIC Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.6. Exploiting Multiple Connections . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.7. Exploiting New QUIC Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. What's in Scope for this Specification . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4. What's Out of Scope for this Specification . . . . . . . 9
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. RTP with QUIC Streams, QUIC Datagrams, and a Mixture of
Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Supported RTP Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Connection Establishment and ALPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Draft version identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. QUIC Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1. Stream Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.2. Media Frame Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.3. Flow control and MAX_STREAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. QUIC Datagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Connection Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Congestion Control and Rate Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Congestion Control at the Transport Layer . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Rate Adaptation at the Application Layer . . . . . . . . 26
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
7.3. Sharing QUIC connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Replacing RTCP and RTP Header Extensions with QUIC
Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.1. RoQ Datagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. RoQ Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.3. Multihop Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.4. Feedback Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.4.1. Negative Acknowledgments ("NACK") . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.4.2. ECN Feedback ("ECN") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.4.3. Goodbye Packets ("BYE") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.1. Impact of Connection Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.2. 0-RTT considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13.1. Registration of a RoQ Identification String . . . . . . 34
13.2. RoQ Error Codes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix A. List of optional QUIC Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix B. Considered RTCP Packet Types and RTP Header
Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B.1. RTCP Control Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B.2. Extended Reports (XR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.3. Generic RTP Feedback (RTPFB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B.4. Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB) . . . . . . . . . . 55
B.5. RTP Header extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.5.1. Compact Header Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.5.2. SDES Compact Header Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
B.6.1. Mapping QUIC Feedback to RTCP Receiver Reports
("RR") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
B.6.2. Congestion Control Feedback ("CCFB") . . . . . . . . 60
B.6.3. Extended Report ("XR") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
B.6.4. Application Layer Repair and other Control
Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix C. Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
1. Introduction
This document specifies a minimal mapping for encapsulating Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
[RFC3550] packets within the QUIC protocol ([RFC9000]). This mapping
is called RTP over QUIC (RoQ). It also discusses how to leverage
state from the QUIC implementation in the endpoints, in order to
reduce the need to exchange RTCP packets, and how to implement
congestion control and rate adaptation without relying on RTCP
feedback.
1.1. Background
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] is generally used to
carry real-time media for conversational media sessions, such as
video conferences, across the Internet. Since RTP requires real-time
delivery and is tolerant to packet losses, the default underlying
transport protocol has been UDP, recently with DTLS on top to secure
the media exchange and occasionally TCP (and possibly TLS) as a
fallback.
This specification describes an application usage of QUIC
([RFC9308]). As a baseline, the specification does not expect more
than a standard QUIC implementation as defined in [RFC8999],
[RFC9000], [RFC9001], and [RFC9002], providing a secure end-to-end
transport that is also expected to work well through NATs and
firewalls. Beyond this baseline, real-time applications can benefit
from QUIC extensions such as unreliable QUIC datagrams [RFC9221],
which provides additional desirable properties for real-time traffic
(e.g., no unnecessary retransmissions, avoiding head-of-line
blocking).
1.2. Motivations
From time to time, someone asks the reasonable question, "why should
anyone implement and deploy RoQ"? This reasonable question deserves
a better answer than "because we can". Upon reflection, the
following motivations seem useful to state.
The motivations in this section are in no particular order, and this
reflects the reality that not all implementers and deployers would
agree on "the most important motivations".
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
1.2.1. "Always-On" Transport-level Authentication and Encryption
Although application-level mechanisms to encrypt RTP and RTCP
payloads have existed since the introduction of Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711], encryption of RTP and RTCP
header fields and contributing sources has only been defined recently
(in Cryptex [RFC9335], and both SRTP and Cryptex are optional
capabilities for RTP.
This is in sharp contrast to "always-on" transport-level encryption
in the QUIC protocol, using Transport Layer Security (TLS 1.3) as
described in [RFC9001]. QUIC implementations always authenticate the
entirety of each packet, and encrypt as much of each packet as is
practical, even switching from "long headers", which expose more QUIC
header fields needed to establish a connection, to "short headers",
which only expose the absolute minimum QUIC header fields needed to
identify the connection to the receiver, so that the QUIC payload is
presented to the right QUIC application [RFC8999].
1.2.2. "Always-On" Internet-Safe Congestion Avoidance
When RTP is carried directly over UDP, as is commonly done, the
underlying UDP protocol provides no transport services beyond path
multiplexing using UDP ports. All congestion avoidance behavior is
up to the RTP application itself, and if anything goes wrong with the
application resulting in an RTP sender failing to recognize that it
is contributing to path congestion, the "worst case" response is to
invoke RTP "circuit breaker" procedures [RFC8083], resulting in
"ceasing transmission", as described in Section 4.5 of [RFC8083].
Because RTCP-based circuit breakers only detect long-lived
congestion, a response based on these mechanisms will not happen
quickly.
In contrast, when RTP is carried over QUIC, QUIC implementations
maintain their own estimates of key transport parameters needed to
detect and respond to possible congestion, and these are independent
of any measurements RTP senders and receivers are maintaining. The
result is that even if an RTP sender continues to "send", QUIC
congestion avoidance procedures (for example, the procedures defined
in [RFC9002]) will cause the RTP packets to be buffered while QUIC
responds to detected packet loss. This happens without RTP senders
taking any action, but the RTP sender has no control over this QUIC
mechanism.
Moreover, when a single QUIC connection is used to multiplex both
RTP-RTCP and non-RTP packets as described in Section 1.2.5, the
shared QUIC connection will still be Internet-safe, with no
coordination required.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
While QUIC's response to congestion ensures that RoQ will be
"Internet-safe", from the network's perspective, it is helpful to
remember that a QUIC sender responds to detected congestion by
delaying packets that are already available to send, to give the path
to the QUIC receiver time to recover from congestion.
* If the QUIC connection encapsulates RTP, this means that some RTP
packets will be delayed, and will arrive at the receiver later
than a user of the RTP flow might prefer.
* If the QUIC connection also encapsulates RTCP, this means that
these RTCP messages will also be delayed, and will not be sent in
a timely manner. This delay can interfere with a sender's ability
to stabilize rate control and achieve audio/video synchronization.
Taken as a whole,
* Timely RTP stream-level rate adaptation will give a better user
experience by minimizing endpoint queuing delays and packet loss,
* but in the presence of packet loss, QUIC connection-level
congestion control will respond more quickly to the end of
congestion than RTP "circuit breakers".
1.2.3. RTP Rate Adaptation Based on QUIC Feedback
RTP makes use of a large number of RTP-specific feedback mechanisms
because when RTP is carried directly over UDP, there is no other way
to receive feedback. Some of these mechanisms are specific to the
type of media RTP is sending, but others can be mapped from
underlying QUIC implementations that are using this feedback to
perform congestion control for any QUIC connection, regardless of the
application reflected in the QUIC STREAM [RFC9000] and DATAGRAM
[RFC9221] frames. This is described in (much) more detail in
Section 7 on rate adaptation, and in Section 8 on replacing RTCP and
RTP header extensions with QUIC feedback.
One word of caution is in order - RTP implementations may rely on at
least some minimal periodic RTCP feedback, in order to determine that
an RTP flow is still active, and is not causing sustained congestion
(as described in [RFC8083], but since this "periodicity" is measured
in seconds, the impact of this "duplicate" feedback on path bandwidth
utilization is likely close to zero.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
1.2.4. Path MTU Discovery and RTP Media Coalescence
The minimum Path MTU supported by conformant QUIC implementations is
1200 bytes [RFC9000], and in addition, QUIC implementations allow
senders to use either DPLPMTUD ([RFC8899]) or PMTUD ([RFC1191],
[RFC8201]) to determine the actual MTU size that the receiver and
path between sender and receiver support, which can be even larger.
This is especially useful in certain conferencing topologies, where
otherwise senders have no choice but to use the lowest path MTU for
all conference participants, but even in point-to-point RTP sessions,
this also allows senders to piggyback audio media in the same UDP
packet as video media, for example, and also allows QUIC receivers to
piggyback QUIC ACK frames on any QUIC frames being transmitted in the
other direction.
1.2.5. Multiplexing RTP, RTCP, and Non-RTP Flows on a Single QUIC
Connection
In order to conserve ports, especially at NATs and Firewalls, this
specification defines a flow identifier, so that multiple RTP flows,
RTCP flows, and non-RTP flows can be distinguished even if they are
carried on the same QUIC connection. This is described in more
detail in Section 5.1.
1.2.6. Exploiting Multiple Connections
Although there is much interest in multiplexing flows on a single
QUIC connection as described in Section 1.2.5, QUIC also provides the
capability of establishing and validating multiple paths for a single
QUIC connection [RFC9000]. Once multiple paths have been validated,
a sender can migrate from one path to another with no additional
signaling, allowing an endpoint to move from one endpoint address to
another without interruption, as long as only a single path is in
active use at any point in time.
Connection migration may be desireable for a number of reasons, but
to give one example, this allows a sender to distinguish between more
costly cellular paths and less costly WiFi paths, with no action
required from the application.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
1.2.7. Exploiting New QUIC Capabilities
In addition to connection migration as described in Section 1.2.6,
the capability of validating multiple paths for simultaneous active
use is under active development in the IETF
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-multipath]. We don't discuss Multipath QUIC
further in this document, because the specification hasn't been
approved yet, but it's one example of ways that RTP, a mature
protocol, can exploit new transport capabilities as they become
available.
1.3. What's in Scope for this Specification
This document defines a mapping for RTP and RTCP over QUIC, called
RoQ, and describes ways to reduce the amount of RTCP traffic by
leveraging state information readily available within a QUIC
endpoint. This document also describes different options for
implementing congestion control and rate adaptation for RoQ.
This specification focuses on providing a secure encapsulation of RTP
packets for transmission over QUIC. The expected usage is wherever
RTP is used to carry media packets, allowing QUIC in place of other
transport protocols such as TCP, UDP, SCTP, DTLS, etc. That is, we
expect RoQ to be used in contexts in which a signaling protocol is
used to announce or negotiate a media encapsulation and the
associated transport parameters (such as IP address, port number).
RoQ is not intended as a stand-alone media transport, although QUIC
transport parameters could be statically configured.
The above implies that RoQ is targeted at peer-to-peer operation; but
it may also be used in client-server-style settings, e.g., when
talking to a conference server as described in RFC 7667 ([RFC7667]),
or, if RoQ is used to replace RTSP ([RFC7826]), to a media server.
An appropriate rate adaptation algorithm can be plugged in to adapt
the media bitrate to the available bandwidth. This document does not
mandate any specific rate adaptation mechanism, so the application
can use a rate adaption mechanism of its choice.
Moreover, this document describes how a QUIC implementation and its
API can be extended to improve efficiency of the RoQ protocol
operation.
RoQ does not impact the usage of RTP Audio Video Profiles (AVP)
([RFC3551]), or any RTP-based mechanisms, even though it may render
some of them unnecessary, e.g., Secure Real-Time Transport Prococol
(SRTP) ([RFC3711]) might not be needed, because end-to-end security
is already provided by QUIC, and double encryption by QUIC and by
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
SRTP might have more costs than benefits. Nor does RoQ limit the use
of RTCP-based mechanisms, even though some information or functions
obtained by using RTCP mechanisms may also be available from the
underlying QUIC implementation by other means.
Between two (or more) endpoints, RoQ supports multiplexing multiple
RTP-based media streams within a single QUIC connection and thus
using a single (destination IP address, destination port number,
source IP address, source port number, protocol) 5-tuple.. We note
that multiple independent QUIC connections may be established in
parallel using the same destination IP address, destination port
number, source IP address, source port number, protocol) 5-tuple.,
e.g. to carry different media channels. These connections would be
logically independent of one another.
1.4. What's Out of Scope for this Specification
This document does not attempt to enhance QUIC for real-time media or
define a replacement for, or evolution of, RTP. Work to map other
media transport protocols to QUIC is under way elsewhere in the IETF.
RoQ is designed for use with point-to-point connections, because QUIC
itself is not defined for multicast operation. The scope of this
document is limited to unicast RTP/RTCP, even though nothing would or
should prevent its use in multicast setups once QUIC supports
multicast.
RoQ does not define congestion control and rate adaptation algorithms
for use with media. However, Section 7 discusses options for how
congestion control and rate adaptation could be performed at the QUIC
and/or at the RTP layer, and how information available at the QUIC
layer could be exposed via an API for the benefit of RTP layer
implementation.
*Editor's note:* Need to check whether Section 7 will also
describe the QUIC interface that's being exposed, or if that ends
up somewhere else in the document.
RoQ does not define prioritization mechanisms when handling different
media as those would be dependent on the media themselves and their
relationships. Prioritization is left to the application using RoQ.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
This document does not cover signaling for session setup. SDP for
RoQ is defined in separate documents such as
[I-D.draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic], and can be carried in any
signaling protocol that can carry SDP, including the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) ([RFC3261]), Real-Time Protocols for
Browser-Based Applications (RTCWeb) ([RFC8825]), or WebRTC-HTTP
Ingestion Protocol (WHIP) ([I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]).
2. Terminology and Notation
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.
*Editor's note:* the list of terms below will almost certainly
grow in size as the specification matures.
*Note to the Reader:* the meaning of the terms "congestion
control" and "rate adaptation" in the IETF community have evolved
over the decades since "slow start" and "congestion avoidance"
were added as mandatory to implement in TCP, in Section 4.2.2.15
of [RFC1122]. Historically, "congestion control" usually referred
to "achieving network stability" ([VJMK88]), by protecting the
network from senders who continue to transmit packets that exceed
the ability of the network to carry them, even after packet loss
occurs (called "congestion collapse").
Modern general-purpose "congestion control" algorithms have moved
beyond avoiding congestion collapse, and work to avoid
"bufferbloat", which causes increasing round-trip delays, as
described in Section 7.2.
"Rate adaptation" more commonly refers to strategies intended to
guide senders on when to send "the next packet", so that one-way
delays along the network path remain minimal.
When RTP runs over QUIC, as described in this specification, QUIC is
performing congestion control, and the RTP application is responsible
for performing rate adaptation.
In this document, these terms are used with the meanings listed
below, with the recognition that not all the references in this
document use these terms in the same way.
The following terms are used:
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Bandwidth Estimation: An algorithm to estimate the available
bandwidth of a link in a network. Such an estimation can be used
for rate adaptation, i.e., adapt the rate at which an application
transmits data.
Congestion Control: A mechanism to limit the aggregate amount of
data that has been sent over a path to a receiver, but has not
been acknowledged by the receiver. This prevents a sender from
overwhelming the capacity of a path between a sender and a
receiver, causing some outstanding data to be discarded before the
receiver can receive the data and acknowledge it to the sender. A
congestion control mechanism may respond to packet loss (detected
by timeouts), or to impending packet loss (signaled by mechanisms
such as Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]). It may also
limit growth in round-trip delays, due to increasing queuing
delays (signaled by mechanisms such as Low Latency, Low Loss, and
Scalable Throughput (L4S) [RFC9330]). Congestion control
mechanisms are often implemented at the transport layer of the
protocol stack, but can also be implemented at the application
layer.
Datagram: Datagrams exist in UDP as well as in QUIC's unreliable
datagram extension. If not explicitly noted differently, the term
datagram in this document refers to a QUIC Datagram as defined in
[RFC9221].
Delay-based or Low-latency congestion control algorithm: A
congestion control algorithm that aims at keeping queues, and thus
the latency, at intermediary network elements as short as
possible. Delay-based congestion control algorithms use, for
example, an increasing one-way delay as a signal of impending
congestion, and adjust the sending rate to prevent continued
increases in one-way delay.
Endpoint: A QUIC server or client that participates in an RoQ
session.
Frame: A QUIC frame as defined in [RFC9000].
Loss-based congestion control algorithm: A congestion control
algorithm that uses packet loss, or an Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) that is interpreted as loss (as in [RFC3168]),
as a signal for congestion. Loss-based congestion control
algorithms allow senders to send data on a path until packets are
dropped by intermediary network elements, which the algorithm
treats as a signal of congestion.
QUIC congestion controller: A software component of an application's
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
QUIC implementation that implements a congestion control
algorithm.
Rate Adaptation: An application-level mechanism that adjusts the
sending rate of an application in order to respond to changing
path conditions. For example, an application sending video might
respond to indications of congestion by adjusting the resolution
of the video it is sending.
Receiver: An endpoint that receives media in RTP packets and may
send or receive RTCP packets.
RTP congestion controller: A software component of an application's
RTP implementation that implements a congestion control algorithm.
Sender: An endpoint that sends media in RTP packets and may send or
receive RTCP packets.
Packet diagrams in this document use the format defined in
Section 1.3 of [RFC9000] to illustrate the order and size of fields.
3. Protocol Overview
This document introduces a mapping of the Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) to the QUIC transport protocol. RoQ allows the use of
QUIC streams and QUIC datagrams to transport real-time data, and
thus, the QUIC implementation MUST support QUIC's datagram extension,
if RTP packets should be sent over QUIC datagrams.
[RFC3550] specifies that RTP sessions need to be transmitted on
different transport addresses to allow multiplexing between them.
RoQ uses a different approach to leverage the advantages of QUIC
connections without managing a separate QUIC connection per RTP
session. QUIC does not provide demultiplexing between different
flows on datagrams but suggests that an application implement a
demultiplexing mechanism if required. An example of such a mechanism
would be flow identifiers prepended to each datagram frame as
described in Section 2.1 of [I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram]. RoQ
uses a flow identifier to replace the network address and port number
to multiplex many RTP sessions over the same QUIC connection.
An RTP application is responsible for determining what to send in an
encoded media stream, and how to send that encoded media stream
within a targeted bitrate.
This document does not mandate how an application determines what to
send in an encoded media stream, because decisions about what to send
within a targeted bitrate, and how to adapt to changes in the
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
targeted bitrate, can be application and codec-specific. For
example, adjusting quantization in response to changing network
conditions may work well in many cases, but if what's being shared is
video that includes text, maintaining readability is important.
As of this writing, the IETF has produced two Experimental-track
congestion control specifications, Network-Assisted Dynamic
Adaptation (NADA) [RFC8698] and Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation for
Multimedia (SCReAM) [RFC8298]. These congestion control algorithms
require some feedback about the network's performance to calculate
target bitrates. Traditionally this feedback is generated at the
receiver and sent back to the sender via RTCP.
Since QUIC also collects some metrics about the network's
performance, these metrics can be used to generate the required
feedback at the sender-side and provide it to the congestion control
algorithm to avoid the additional overhead of the RTCP stream. This
is discussed in more detail in Section 8.
3.1. RTP with QUIC Streams, QUIC Datagrams, and a Mixture of Both
This document describes the use of both QUIC streams and QUIC
datagrams as RTP encapsulations, but does not take a position on
which encapsulation an application should use. Indeed, an
application can use both QUIC streams and QUIC datagram
encapsulations. The choice of which encapsulation is used is up to
the application developer, but it is worth noting the differences.
QUIC [RFC9000] was initially designed to carry HTTP [RFC9114] in QUIC
streams, and QUIC streams provide what HTTP application developers
require - for example, QUIC streams provide a stateful, connection-
oriented, flow-controlled, reliable, ordered stream of bytes to an
application. QUIC streams can be multiplexed over a single QUIC
connection, using stream IDs to demultiplex incoming messages.
QUIC Datagrams [RFC9221] were developed as a QUIC extension, intended
to support applications that do not require reliable delivery of
application data. This extension defines two QUIC DATAGRAM frame
types (one including a length field, the other not including a length
field), and these DATAGRAM frames can co-exist with QUIC STREAM
frames within a single QUIC connection, sharing the connection's
cryptographic and authentication context, and congestion controller
context.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
There is no default relative priority between DATAGRAM frames with
respect to each other, and there is no default priority between
DATAGRAM frames and QUIC streams. The implementation likely presents
an API to allow appplications to assign relative priorities, but this
is not mandated by the standard and may not be present in all
implementations.
Because QUIC datagrams are an extension to QUIC, they inherit a great
deal of functionality from QUIC (much of which is described in
Section 1.2); so much so that it is easier to explain what datagrams
do NOT inherit.
* DATAGRAM frames do not provide any explicit flow control
signaling. This means that a QUIC receiver may not be able to
commit the necessary resources to process incoming frames, but the
purpose for DATAGRAM frames is to carry application-level
information that can be lost and will not be retransmitted,
* DATAGRAM frames do inherit the QUIC connection's congestion
controller. This means that although there is no frame-level flow
control, DATAGRAM frames may be delayed until the controller
allows them to be sent, or dropped (with an optional notification
to the sending application). Implementations can also delay
sending DATAGRAM frames to maintain consistent packet pacing (as
described in Section 7.7 of [RFC9002]), and can allow an
application to specify a sending expiration time, but these
capabilities are not mandated by the standard and may not be
present in all implementations.
* DATAGRAM frames cannot be fragmented. They are limited in size by
the max_datagram_frame_size transport parameter, and further
limited by the max_udp_payload_size transport parameter and the
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of the path between endpoints.
* DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole. There is
no QUIC-level way to multiplex/demultiplex DATAGRAM frames within
a single QUIC connection. Any multiplexing identifiers must be
added, interpreted, and removed by an application, and they will
be sent as part of the payload of the DATAGRAM frame itself.
Because QUIC datagrams are an extension to QUIC, a RoQ endpoint
cannot count on a RoQ peer supporting that extension. The RoQ
endpoint may discover that its peer does not support datagrams while
using signaling to set up QUIC connections, but may also discover
that its peer has not negotiated the use of this extension during the
QUIC handshake. When this happens, the RoQ endpoint needs to make a
decision about what to do next.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
* If the use of QUIC datagrams was critical, the endpoint can simply
close the QUIC connection, allowing someone or something to
correct this mismatch, so that QUIC datagrams can be used.
* If the use of QUIC datagrams was not critical, the endpoint can
negotiate the use of QUIC streams instead.
3.2. Supported RTP Topologies
RoQ only supports some of the RTP topologies described in [RFC7667].
Most notably, due to QUIC [RFC9000] being a purely IP unicast
protocol at the time of writing, RoQ cannot be used as a transport
protocol for any of the paths that rely on IP multicast in several
multicast topologies (e.g., _Topo-ASM_, _Topo-SSM_, _Topo-SSM-RAMS_).
Some "multicast topologies" can include IP unicast paths (e.g.,
_Topo-SSM_, _Topo-SSM-RAMS_). In these cases, the unicast paths can
use RoQ.
RTP supports different types of translators and mixers. Whenever a
middlebox such as a translator or a mixer needs to access the content
of RTP/RTCP-packets, the QUIC connection has to be terminated at that
middlebox.
RoQ streams (see Section 5.2) can support much larger RTP packet
sizes than other transport protocols such as UDP can, which can lead
to problems with transport translators which translate from RoQ to
RTP over a different transport protocol. A similar problem can occur
if a translator needs to translate from RTP over UDP to RoQ
datagrams, where the MTU of a QUIC datagram may be smaller than the
MTU of a UDP datagram. In both cases, the translator may need to
rewrite the RTP packets to fit into the smaller MTU of the other
protocol. Such a translator may need codec-specific knowledge to
packetize the payload of the incoming RTP packets in smaller RTP
packets.
Additional details are provided in the following table.
+=======================================+============+========+==========+
|RFC 7667 Section |Shortcut |RTP over|Comments |
| |Name |QUIC? | |
+=======================================+============+========+==========+
|3.1 |Topo-Point- |yes | |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|to-Point | | |
|rfc7667#section-3.1) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.2.1.1 |Topo-PtP- |yes |Note-NAT |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Relay | | |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
|rfc7667#section-3.2.1.1) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.2.1.2 |Topo-Trn- |yes |Note-MTU |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Translator | |Note-SEC |
|rfc7667#section-3.2.1.2) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.2.1.3 |Topo-Media- |yes |Note-MTU |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Translator | | |
|rfc7667#section-3.2.1.3) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.2.2 |Topo-Back- |yes |Note-SEC |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|To-Back | |Note-MTU |
|rfc7667#section-3.2.2) | | |Note-MCast|
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.3.1 |Topo-ASM |no |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/| | | |
|rfc7667#section-3.3.1) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.3.2 |Topo-SSM |partly |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/| | |Note- |
|rfc7667#section-3.3.2) | | |UCast- |
| | | |MCast |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.3.3 |Topo-SSM- |partly |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|RAMS | |Note- |
|rfc7667#section-3.3.3) | | |MCast- |
| | | |UCast |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.4 |Topo-Mesh |yes |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/| | | |
|rfc7667#section-3.4) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.5.1 |Topo-PtM- |possibly|Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Trn- | |Note-MTU |
|rfc7667#section-3.5.1) |Translator | |Note-Topo-|
| | | |PtM-Trn- |
| | | |Translator|
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.6 |Topo-Mixer |possibly|Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/| | |Note-Topo-|
|rfc7667#section-3.6) | | |Mixer |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.6.1 |Media- |partly |Note-Topo-|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Mixing-Mixer| |Mixer |
|rfc7667#section-3.6.1) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.6.2 |Media- |partly |Note-Topo-|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Switching- | |Mixer |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
|rfc7667#section-3.6.2) |Mixer | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.7 |Selective |yes |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Forwarding | |Note-Topo-|
|rfc7667#section-3.7) |Middlebox | |Mixer |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.8 |Topo-Video- |yes |Note-MTU |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|switch-MCU | |Note-MCast|
|rfc7667#section-3.8) | | |Note-Topo-|
| | | |Mixer |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.9 |Topo-RTCP- |yes |Note-MTU |
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|terminating-| |Note-MCast|
|rfc7667#section-3.9) |MCU | |Note-Topo-|
| | | |Mixer |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.10 |Topo-Split- |yes |Note-MCast|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Terminal | | |
|rfc7667#section-3.10) | | | |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
|3.11 |Topo- |Possibly|Note-Warn,|
|(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/|Asymmetric | |Note- |
|rfc7667#section-3.11) | | |MCast, |
| | | |Note-MTU |
+---------------------------------------+------------+--------+----------+
Table 1
Note-NAT: QUIC [RFC9000] doesn't support NAT traversal.
Note-MTU: Supported, but may require MTU adaptation.
Note-Sec: Note that RoQ provides mandatory security, and other RTP
transports do not. Section 12 describes strategies to prevent the
inadvertent disclosure of RTP sessions to unintended third
parties.
Note-MCast: QUIC [RFC9000] cannot be used for multicast paths.
Note-UCast-MCast: The topology refers to a _Distribution Source_,
which receives and relays RTP from a number of different media
senders via unicast before relaying it to the receivers via
multicast. QUIC can be used between the senders and the
_Distribution Source_.
Note-MCast-UCast: The topology refers to a _Burst Source_ or
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
_Retransmission Source_, which retransmits RTP to receivers via
unicast. QUIC can be used between the _Retransmission Source_ and
the receivers.
Note-Topo-PtM-Trn-Translator: Supports unicast paths between RTP
sources and translators.
Note-Topo-Mixer: Supports unicast paths between RTP senders and
mixers.
Note-Warn: Quote from [RFC7667]: _This topology is so problematic
and it is so easy to get the RTCP processing wrong, that it is NOT
RECOMMENDED to implement this topology._
4. Connection Establishment and ALPN
QUIC requires the use of ALPN [RFC7301] tokens during connection
setup. RoQ uses "rtp-mux-quic" as ALPN token in the TLS handshake
(see also Section 13).
Note that the use of a given RTP profile is not reflected in the ALPN
token even though it could be considered part of the application
usage. This is simply because different RTP sessions, which may use
different RTP profiles, may be carried within the same QUIC
connection.
*Editor's note:* "rtp-mux-quic" indicates that RTP and other
protocols may be multiplexed on the same QUIC connection using a
flow identifier as described in Section 5. Applications are
responsible for negotiation of protocols in use by appropriate use
of a signaling protocol such as SDP.
*Editor's note:* This implies that applications cannot use RoQ as
specified in this document over WebTransport.
4.1. Draft version identification
*RFC Editor's note:* Please remove this section prior to
publication of a final version of this document.
RoQ uses the token "rtp-mux-quic" to identify itself in ALPN.
Only implementations of the final, published RFC can identify
themselves as "rtp-mux-quic". Until such an RFC exists,
implementations MUST NOT identify themselves using this string.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST add the string
"-" and the corresponding draft number to the identifier. For
example, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-04 is identified using the
string "rtp-mux-quic-04".
Non-compatible experiments that are based on these draft versions
MUST append the string "-" and an experiment name to the identifier.
5. Encapsulation
This section describes the encapsulation of RTP/RTCP packets in QUIC.
QUIC supports two transport methods: streams [RFC9000] and datagrams
[RFC9221]. This document specifies mappings of RTP to both of the
transport modes. Senders MAY combine both modes by sending some RTP/
RTCP packets over the same or different QUIC streams and others in
QUIC datagrams.
Section 5.1 introduces a multiplexing mechanism that supports
multiplexing RTP, RTCP, and, with some constraints, other non-RTP
protocols. Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 explain the specifics of
mapping RTP to QUIC streams and QUIC datagrams, respectively.
5.1. Multiplexing
RoQ uses flow identifiers to multiplex different RTP, RTCP, and non-
RTP data streams on a single QUIC connection. A flow identifier is a
QUIC variable-length integer as described in Section 16 of [RFC9000].
Each flow identifier is associated with a stream of RTP packets, RTCP
packets, or a data stream of a non-RTP protocol.
In a QUIC connection using the ALPN token defined in Section 4, every
QUIC datagram and every QUIC stream MUST start with a flow
identifier. A peer MUST NOT send any data in a datagram or stream
that is not associated with the flow identifier which started the
datagram or stream.
RTP and RTCP packets of different RTP sessions MUST use distinct flow
identifiers. If peers wish to send multiple types of media in a
single RTP session, they MAY do so by following [RFC8860].
A single RTP session MAY be associated with one or two flow
identifiers. Thus, it is possible to send RTP and RTCP packets
belonging to the same session using different flow identifiers. RTP
and RTCP packets of a single RTP session MAY use the same flow
identifier (following the procedures defined in [RFC5761]), or they
MAY use different flow identifiers.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
The association between flow identifiers and data streams MUST be
negotiated using appropriate signaling. Applications MAY send data
using flow identifiers not associated with any RTP or RTCP stream.
If a receiver cannot associate a flow identifier with any RTP/RTCP or
non-RTP flow, it MAY drop the data flow. If the data flow was sent
on a QUIC stream, the receiver SHOULD send a STOP_SENDING frame with
the application error code set to ROQ_UNKNOWN_FLOW_ID.
There are different use cases for sharing the same QUIC connection
between RTP and non-RTP data streams. Peers might use the same
connection to exchange signaling messages or exchange data while
sending and receiving media streams. The semantics of non-RTP
datagrams or streams are not in the scope of this document. Peers
MAY use any protocol on top of the encapsulation described in this
document.
Flow identifiers introduce some overhead in addition to the header
overhead of RTP/RTCP and QUIC. QUIC variable-length integers require
between one and eight bytes depending on the number expressed. Thus,
it is advisable to use low numbers first and only use higher ones if
necessary due to an increased number of flows.
5.2. QUIC Streams
To send RTP/RTCP packets over QUIC streams, a sender MUST open at
least one new unidirectional QUIC stream. RoQ uses unidirectional
streams, because there is no synchronous relationship between sent
and received RTP/RTCP packets. A peer that receives a bidirectional
stream with a flow identifier that is associated with an RTP or RTCP
stream, SHOULD stop reading from the stream and send a STOP_SENDING
frame with the application protocol error code set to
ROQ_STREAM_CREATION_ERROR.
A RoQ sender MAY open new QUIC streams for different packets using
the same flow identifier, for example, to avoid head-of-line
blocking.
Because a sender can continue sending on a lower stream number after
starting packet transmission on a higher stream number, a RoQ
receiver MUST be prepared to receive RoQ packets on any number of
QUIC streams (subject to its limit on parallel open streams) and MUST
not make assumptions about which RTP sequence numbers are carried in
which streams.
5.2.1. Stream Encapsulation
Figure 1 shows the encapsulation format for RoQ Streams.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Payload {
Flow Identifier (i),
RTP/RTCP Payload(..) ...,
}
Figure 1: RoQ Streams Payload Format
Flow Identifier: Flow identifier to demultiplex different data flows
on the same QUIC connection.
RTP/RTCP Payload: Contains the RTP/RTCP payload; see Figure 2
The payload in a QUIC stream starts with the flow identifier followed
by one or more RTP/RTCP payloads. All RTP/RTCP payloads sent on a
stream MUST belong to the RTP session with the same flow identifier.
Each payload begins with a length field indicating the length of the
RTP/RTCP packet, followed by the packet itself, see Figure 2.
RTP/RTCP Payload {
Length(i),
RTP/RTCP Packet(..),
}
Figure 2: RTP/RTCP payload for QUIC streams
Length: A QUIC variable length integer (see Section 16 of [RFC9000])
describing the length of the following RTP/RTCP packets in bytes.
RTP/RTCP Packet: The RTP/RTCP packet to transmit.
5.2.2. Media Frame Cancellation
QUIC uses RESET_STREAM and STOP_SENDING frames to terminate the
sending part of a stream and to request termination of an incoming
stream by the sending peer respectively.
A RoQ sender MAY use RESET_STREAM if it knows that a packet, which
was not yet successfully and completely transmitted, is no longer
needed.
A RoQ receiver that is no longer interested in reading a certain
partition of the media stream MAY signal this to the sending peer
using a STOP_SENDING frame.
In both cases, the error code of the RESET_STREAM frame or the
STOP_SENDING frame MUST be set to ROQ_FRAME_CANCELLED.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
STOP_SENDING is not a request to the sender to stop sending the RTP
media stream, only an indication that a receiver stopped reading the
QUIC stream being used. A sender with additional media frames to
send SHOULD continue sending them on another QUIC stream.
Alternatively, new media frames can be sent as QUIC datagrams (see
Section 5.3).
Any media frame that has already been sent on the QUIC stream that
received the STOP_SENDING frame, MUST NOT be sent again on the new
QUIC stream(s) or datagrams.
Note that an RTP receiver cannot request a reset of only a particular
media frame because the sending QUIC implementation might already
have sent data for the following frame on the same stream. In that
case, STOP_SENDING and the following RESET_STREAM would also drop the
following media frame and thus lead to unintentionally skipping one
or more frames.
*Editor's note:* A receiver cannot cancel a certain frame but
still receive retransmissions for a frame the was following on the
same stream using STOP_SENDING, because STOP_SENDING does not
include an offset which would allow signaling where
retransmissions should continue.
A translator that translates between two endpoints, both connected
via QUIC, MUST forward RESET_STREAM frames received from one end to
the other unless it forwards the RTP packets on QUIC datagrams.
Large RTP packets sent on a stream will be fragmented into smaller
QUIC frames. The QUIC frames are transmitted reliably and in order
such that a receiving application can read a complete RTP packet from
the stream as long as the stream is not closed with a RESET_STREAM
frame. No retransmission has to be implemented by the application
since QUIC frames lost in transit are retransmitted by QUIC.
5.2.3. Flow control and MAX_STREAMS
In order to permit QUIC streams to open, a RoQ sender SHOULD
configure non-zero minimum values for the number of permitted streams
and the initial stream flow-control window, based on the number of
parallel, or simultaneously active, RTP/RTCP flows. Endpoints that
excessively restrict the number of streams or the flow-control window
of these streams will increase the chance that the remote peer
reaches the limit early and becomes blocked.
Opening new streams for new packets MAY implicitly limit the number
of packets concurrently in transit because the QUIC receiver provides
an upper bound of parallel streams, which it can update using QUIC
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
MAX_STREAMS frames. The number of packets that have to be
transmitted concurrently depends on several factors, such as the
number of RTP streams within a QUIC connection, the bitrate of the
media streams, and the maximum acceptable transmission delay of a
given packet. Receivers are responsible for providing senders enough
credit to open new streams for new packets anytime.
As an example, consider a conference scenario with 20 participants.
Each participant receives audio and video streams of every other
participant from a central server. If the sender opens a new QUIC
stream for every frame at 30 frames per second video and 50 frames
per second audio, it will open 1520 new QUIC streams per second. A
receiver must provide at least that many credits for opening new
unidirectional streams to the server every second.
In addition, the receiver should also consider the requirements of
protocols into account that are multiplexed with RTP, including RTCP
and data streams. These considerations may also be relevant when
implementing signaling since it may be necessary to inform the
receiver about how fast and how many stream credits it will have to
provide to the media-sending peer.
5.3. QUIC Datagrams
Senders can also transmit RTP packets in QUIC datagrams. QUIC
datagrams are an extension to QUIC described in [RFC9221]. QUIC
datagrams can only be used if the use of the datagram extension was
successfully negotiated during the QUIC handshake. If the QUIC
extension was signaled using a signaling protocol, but that extension
was not negotiated during the QUIC handshake, a peer MAY close the
connection with the ROQ_EXPECTATION_UNMET error code.
QUIC datagrams preserve frame boundaries. Thus, a single RTP packet
can be mapped to a single QUIC datagram without additional framing.
Senders SHOULD consider the header overhead associated with QUIC
datagrams and ensure that the RTP/RTCP packets, including their
payloads, flow identifier, QUIC, and IP headers, will fit into path
MTU.
Figure 3 shows the encapsulation format for RoQ Datagrams.
Payload {
Flow Identifier (i),
RTP/RTCP Packet (..),
}
Figure 3: RoQ Datagram Payload Format
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Flow Identifier: Flow identifier to demultiplex different data flows
on the same QUIC connection.
RTP/RTCP Packet: The RTP/RTCP packet to transmit.
RoQ senders need to be aware that QUIC uses the concept of QUIC
frames. Different kinds of QUIC frames are used for different
application and control data types. A single QUIC packet can contain
more than one QUIC frame, including, for example, QUIC stream or
datagram frames carrying application data and acknowledgement frames
carrying QUIC acknowledgements, as long as the overall size fits into
the MTU. One implication is that the number of packets a QUIC stack
transmits depends on whether it can fit acknowledgement and datagram
frames in the same QUIC packet. Suppose the application creates many
datagram frames that fill up the QUIC packet. In that case, the QUIC
stack might have to create additional packets for acknowledgement-
(and possibly other control-) frames. The additional overhead could,
in some cases, be reduced if the application creates smaller RTP
packets, such that the resulting datagram frame can fit into a QUIC
packet that can also carry acknowledgement frames.
Since QUIC datagrams are not retransmitted on loss (see also
Section 8.4 for loss signaling), if an application wishes to
retransmit lost RTP packets, the retransmission has to be implemented
by the application. RTP retransmissions can be done in the same RTP
session or a separate RTP session [RFC4588] and the flow identifier
MUST be set to the flow identifier of the RTP session in which the
retransmission happens.
6. Connection Shutdown
Either peers MAY close the connection for variety of reasons. If one
of the peers wants to close the RoQ connection, the peer can use a
QUIC CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with one of the error codes defined in
Section 9.
7. Congestion Control and Rate Adaptation
Like any other application on the internet, RoQ applications need a
mechanism to perform congestion control to avoid overloading the
network. QUIC is a congestion-controlled transport protocol. RTP
does not mandate a single congestion control mechanism. RTP suggests
that the RTP profile defines congestion control according to the
expected properties of the application's environment.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
This document discusses aspects of transport level congestion control
in Section 7.1 and application layer rate control in Section 7.2. It
does not mandate any specific congestion control algorithm for QUIC
or rate adaptation algorithm for RTP.
This document also gives guidance about avoiding problems with
_nested_ congestion controllers in Section 7.2.
This document also discusses congestion control implications of using
shared or multiple separate QUIC connections to send and receive
multiple independent data streams in Section 7.3.
7.1. Congestion Control at the Transport Layer
QUIC is a congestion-controlled transport protocol. Senders are
required to employ some form of congestion control. The default
congestion control specified for QUIC in [RFC9002] is similar to TCP
NewReno [RFC6582], but senders are free to choose any congestion
control algorithm as long as they follow the guidelines specified in
Section 3 of [RFC8085], and QUIC implementors make use of this
freedom.
It is RECOMMENDED that the QUIC implementation use a congestion
controller that seeks to minimize queueing delays. Further
recommendations on the transport of RTP and RTCP are contained in
Section 3.1.
A wide variety of congestion control algorithms for real-time media
have been developed (for example, "Google Congestion Controller"
[I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc]). The IETF has defined two such
algorithms in Experimental RFCs (SCReAM [RFC8298] and NADA
[RFC8698]). These algorithms for RTP are specifically tailored for
real-time transmissions at low latencies, but this section would
apply to any congestion control algorithm that meets the requirements
described in "Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-
Time Media" [RFC8836].
Some low latency congestion control algorithms depend on detailed
arrival time feedback to estimate the current one-way delay between
sender and receiver, which is unavailable in QUIC [RFC9000] without
extensions. The QUIC implementations of the sender and receiver can
use an extension to add this information to QUIC as described in
Appendix A. An alternative to these dedicated real-time media
congestion-control algorithms that QUIC implementations could support
without the need for a protocol extension is the Low Latency, Low
Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service [RFC9330].
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
The application needs a mechanism to query the available bandwidth to
adapt media codec configurations. If the employed congestion
controller of the QUIC connection keeps an estimate of the available
bandwidth, it could expose an API to the application to query the
current estimate. If the congestion controller cannot provide a
current bandwidth estimate to the application, the sender can
implement an alternative bandwidth estimation at the application
layer as described in Section 7.2.
It is assumed that the congestion controller in use provides a pacing
mechanism to determine when a packet can be sent to avoid bursts and
minimize variation in inter-packet arrival times. The currently
proposed congestion control algorithms for real-time communications
(e.g., SCReAM and NADA) provide such pacing mechanisms, and QUIC
recommends pacing for senders based on the congestion control
algorithm.
7.2. Rate Adaptation at the Application Layer
RTP itself does not specify a congestion control algorithm, but
[RFC8888] defines an RTCP feedback message intended to enable rate
adaptation for interactive real-time traffic using RTP, and
successful rate adaptation will accomplish congestion control as
well.
If an application cannot access a bandwidth estimation from the QUIC
layer, the application can alternatively implement a bandwidth
estimation algorithm at the application layer. Congestion control
algorithms for real-time media such as GCC
[I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc], NADA [RFC8698], and SCReAM [RFC8298]
expose a target_bitrate to dynamically reconfigure media codecs to
produce media at the rate of the observed available bandwidth.
Applications can use the same bandwidth estimation to adapt their
rate when using QUIC. However, running an additional congestion
control algorithm at the application layer can have unintended
effects due to the interaction of two _nested_ congestion
controllers.
If the application transmits media that does not saturate path
bandwidth and paces its transmission, more heavy-handed congestion
control mechanisms (drastic reductions in the sending rate when loss
is detected, with much slower increases when losses are no longer
being detected) should rarely come into play. If the application
chooses RoQ as its transport, sends enough media to saturate the path
bandwidth, and does not adapt its sending rate, drastic measures will
be required to avoid sustained or oscillating congestion along the
path.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Thus, applications are advised to only use the bandwidth estimation
without running the complete congestion control algorithm at the
application layer before passing data to the QUIC layer.
The bandwidth estimation algorithm typically needs some feedback on
the transmission performance. This feedback can be collected via
RTCP or following the guidelines in Section 8 and Section 10.
7.3. Sharing QUIC connections
Two endpoints may establish channels in order to exchange more than
one type of data simultaneously. The channels can be intended to
carry real-time RTP data or other non-real-time data. This can be
realized in different ways.
* One straightforward solution is to establish multiple QUIC
connections, one for each channel, whether the channel is used for
real-time media or non-real-time data. This is a straightforward
solution, but has the disadvantage that transport ports are more
quickly exhausted and these are limited by the 16-bit UDP source
and destination port number sizes [RFC768].
* Alternatively, all real-time channels are mapped to one QUIC
connection, while a separate QUIC connection is created for the
non-real-time channels.
In both cases, the congestion controllers can be chosen to match the
demands of the respective channels and the different QUIC connections
will compete for the same resources in the network. No local
prioritization of data across the different (types of) channels would
be necessary.
Although it is possible to multiplex (all or a subset of) real-time
and non-real-time channels onto a single, shared QUIC connection,
which can be done by using the flow identifier described in
Section 5.1, the underlying QUIC implementation will likely use the
same congestion controller for all channels in the shared QUIC
connection. For this reason, applications multiplexing multiple
streams in one connection SHOULD implement some form of stream
prioritization or bandwidth allocation.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
8. Replacing RTCP and RTP Header Extensions with QUIC Feedback
Because RTP has so often used UDP as its underlying transport
protocol, and receiving little or no feedback from UDP, RTP
implementations rely on feedback from the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
so that RTP senders and receivers can exchange control information to
monitor connection statistics and to identify and synchronize
streams.
Because QUIC provides transport-level feedback, it can replace at
least some RTP transport-level feedback with current QUIC feedback
[RFC9000]. In addition, RTP-level feedback that is not available in
QUIC by default can potentially be replaced with generally useful
QUIC extensions in the future as described in Appendix B.6.
When statistics contained in RTCP packets are also available from
QUIC or can be derived from statistics available from QUIC, it is
desirable to provide these statistics at only one protocol layer.
This avoids consumption of bandwidth to deliver equivalent control
information at more than one level of the protocol stack. QUIC and
RTCP both have rules describing when certain signals have to be sent.
This document does not change any of the rules described by either
protocol, but specifies a baseline for replacing some of the RTCP
packet types by mapping the contents to QUIC connection statistics,
and reducing the transmission frequency and bandwidth requirements
for some RTCP packet types that must be transmitted periodically.
Future documents can extend this mapping for other RTCP format types,
and can make use of new QUIC extensions that become available over
time. The mechanisms described in this section can enhance the
statistics provided by RTCP and reduce the bandwidth overhead
required by certain RTCP packets. Applications using RoQ need to
adhere to the rules for RTCP feedback given by [RFC3550] and the RTP
profiles in use.
Most statements about "QUIC" in Section 8 are applicable to both RTP
encapsulated in QUIC streams and RTP encapsulated in QUIC datagrams.
The differences are described in Section 8.1 and Section 8.2.
*Editor's Note:* Additional discussion of bandwidth minimization
could go in this section, or in an earlier proposed section on
motivations for defining and deploying RoQ.
While RoQ places no restrictions on applications sending RTCP, this
document assumes that the reason an implementor chooses to support
RoQ is to obtain benefits beyond what's available when RTP uses UDP
as its underlying transport layer. It is RECOMMENDED to expose
relevant information from the QUIC layer to the application instead
of exchanging additional RTCP packets, where applicable.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Section 8.4 discusses what information can be exposed from the QUIC
connection layer to reduce the RTCP overhead.
8.1. RoQ Datagrams
QUIC Datagrams are ack-eliciting packets, which means that an
acknowledgment is triggered when a datagram frame is received. Thus,
a sender can assume that an RTP packet arrived at the receiver or was
lost in transit, using the QUIC acknowledgments of QUIC Datagram
frames. In the following, an RTP packet is regarded as acknowledged
when the QUIC Datagram frame that carried the RTP packet was
acknowledged.
8.2. RoQ Streams
For RTP packets that are sent over QUIC streams, an RTP packet is
considered acknowledged after all frames that carried fragments of
the RTP packet were acknowledged.
When QUIC Streams are used, the application should be aware that the
direct mapping proposed below may not reflect the real
characteristics of the network. RTP packet loss can seem lower than
actual packet loss due to QUIC's automatic retransmissions.
Similarly, timing information might be incorrect due to
retransmissions.
8.3. Multihop Topologies
In some topologies, RoQ may be used on only some of the links between
multiple session participants. Other links may be using RTP over
UDP, or over some other supported RTP encapsulation protocol, and
some participants might be using implementations that don't support
RoQ at all. These participants will not be able to infer feedback
from QUIC, and they may receive less RTCP feedback than expected. On
the other hand, participants using RoQ might not be aware that other
participants are not using RoQ and send as little RTCP as possible
since they assume their RoQ peer will be able to infer statistics
from QUIC. There are two ways to solve this problem: if the
middlebox translating between RoQ and RTP over other RTP transport
protocols such as UDP or TCP provides Back-to-Back RTP sessions as
described in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC7667], this middlebox can add RTCP
packets for the participants not using RoQ by using the statistics
the middlebox gets from QUIC and the mappings described in the
following sections. If the middlebox does not provide Back-to-Back
RTP sessions, participants may use additional signalling to let the
RoQ participants know what RTCP is required.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
8.4. Feedback Mappings
This section explains how some of the RTCP packet types that are used
to signal reception statistics can be replaced by equivalent
statistics that are already collected by QUIC. The following list
explains how this mapping can be achieved for the individual fields
of different RTCP packet types.
The list of RTCP packets in this section is not exhaustive, and
similar considerations SHOULD be taken into account before exchanging
any other type of RTCP control packets using RoQ.
A more thorough analysis of RTCP Control Packet Types (in
Appendix B.1), Generic RTP Feedback (RTPFB) (in Appendix B.3),
Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB) (in Appendix B.4), Extended
Reports (in Appendix B.2), and RTP Header Extensions (in
Appendix B.5), including the information that cannot be mapped from
QUIC.
8.4.1. Negative Acknowledgments ("NACK")
Generic _Negative Acknowledgments_ (PT=205, FMT=1, Name=Generic NACK,
[RFC4585]) contain information about RTP packets which the receiver
considered lost. Section 6.2.1. of [RFC4585] recommends using this
feature only if the underlying protocol cannot provide similar
feedback. QUIC does not provide negative acknowledgments but can
detect lost packets based on the Gap numbers contained in QUIC ACK
frames (Section 6 of [RFC9002]).
8.4.2. ECN Feedback ("ECN")
_ECN Feedback_ (PT=205, FMT=8, Name=RTCP-ECN-FB, [RFC6679]) packets
report the count of observed ECN-CE marks. [RFC6679] defines two
RTCP reports, one packet type (with PT=205 and FMT=8), and a new
report block for the extended reports, which are listed above. QUIC
supports ECN reporting through acknowledgments. If the QUIC
connection supports ECN, the reporting of ECN counts SHOULD be done
using QUIC acknowledgments rather than RTCP ECN feedback reports.
8.4.3. Goodbye Packets ("BYE")
RTP session participants can use _Goodbye_ RTCP packets (PT=203,
Name=BYE, [RFC3550]), to indicate that a source is no longer active.
If the participant is also going to close the QUIC connection, the
_BYE_ packet can be replaced by a QUIC CONNECTION_CLOSE frame. In
this case, the reason for leaving can be transmitted in QUIC's
CONNECTION_CLOSE _Reason Phrase_. However, if the participant wishes
to use this QUIC connection for any other multiplexed traffic, the
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
participant has to use the BYE packet because the QUIC
CONNECTION_CLOSE would close the entire QUIC connection for all other
QUIC streams and datagrams.
9. Error Handling
The following error codes are defined for use when abruptly
terminating streams, aborting reading of streams, or immediately
closing RoQ connections.
ROQ_NO_ERROR (0x00): No error. This is used when the connection or
stream needs to be closed, but there is no error to signal.
ROQ_GENERAL_ERROR (0x01): An error that does not match a more
specific error code occured.
ROQ_INTERNAL_ERROR (0x02): An internal error has occured in the RoQ
stack.
ROQ_PACKET_ERROR (0x03): Invalid payload format, e.g., length does
not match packet, invalid flow id encoding, non-RTP on RTP-flow
ID, etc.
ROQ_STREAM_CREATION_ERROR (0x04): The endpoint detected that its
peer created a stream that violates the ROQ protocol.
ROQ_FRAME_CANCELLED (0x05): A receiving endpoint is using
STOP_SENDING on the current stream to request new frames be sent
on new streams. Similarly, a sender notifies a receiver that
retransmissions of a frame were stopped using RESET_STREAM and new
frames will be sent on new streams.
ROQ_UNKNOWN_FLOW_ID (0x06): An endpoint was unable to handle a flow
identifier, e.g., because it was not signalled or because the
endpoint does not support multiplexing using arbitrary flow
identifiers.
ROQ_EXPECTATION_UNMET (0x07): Expectiations of the QUIC transport
set by RoQ out-of-band signalling were not met by the QUIC
connection.
10. API Considerations
The mapping described in the previous sections poses some interface
requirements for the QUIC implementation. Although RoQ works without
these requirements, some optimizations regarding rate adaptation and
RTCP mapping require certain functionalities to be exposed to the
application.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Each item in the following list can be considered individually. Any
exposed information or function can be used by RoQ regardless of
whether the other items are available. Thus, RoQ does not depend on
the availability of all of the listed features but can apply
different optimizations depending on the functionality exposed by the
QUIC implementation.
* _Maximum Datagram Size_: The maximum datagram size that the QUIC
connection can transmit on the network path to the QUIC receiver.
If a RoQ sender using datagrams does not know the maximum datagram
size for the path to the RoQ receiver, there are only two choices
- either use heuristics to limit the size of RoQ messages, or be
prepared to lose RoQ messages that were too large to be carried
through the network path and delivered to the RoQ receiver.
* _Datagram Acknowledgment and Loss_: Section 5.2 of [RFC9221]
allows QUIC implementations to notify the application that a QUIC
Datagram was acknowledged or that it believes a datagram was lost.
Given the datagram acknowledgments and losses, the application can
deduce which RTP packets arrived at the receiver and which were
lost (see also Section 8.1).
* _Stream States_: The stream states include which parts of the data
sent on a stream were successfully delivered and which are still
outstanding to be sent or retransmitted. If an application keeps
track of the RTP packets sent on a stream, their respective sizes,
and in which order they were transmitted, it can infer which RTP
packets were acknowledged according to the definition in
Section 8.2.
* _Arrival timestamps_: If the QUIC connection uses a timestamp
extension like [I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts] or
[I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts], the arrival timestamps or one-way
delays can support the application as described in Section 8 and
Section 7.
* _Bandwidth Estimation_: If a bandwidth estimation is available in
the QUIC implementation, exposing it avoids the implementation of
an additional bandwidth estimation algorithm in the application.
* _ECN_: If ECN marks are available, they can support the bandwidth
estimation of the application if necessary.
11. Discussion
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
11.1. Impact of Connection Migration
RTP sessions are characterized by a continuous flow of packets into
either or both directions. A connection migration may lead to
pausing media transmission until reachability of the peer under the
new address is validated. This may lead to short breaks in media
delivery in the order of RTT and, if RTCP is used for RTT
measurements, may cause spikes in observed delays. Application layer
congestion control mechanisms (and also packet repair schemes such as
retransmissions) need to be prepared to cope with such spikes.
If a QUIC connection is established via a signaling channel, this
signaling may have involved Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) exchanges to determine and choose suitable (IP address, port
number) pairs for the QUIC connection. Subsequent address change
events may be noticed by QUIC via its connection migration handling
and/or at the ICE or other application layer, e.g., by noticing
changing IP addresses at the network interface. This may imply that
the two signaling and data "layers" get (temporarily) out of sync.
*Editor's Note:* It may be desirable that the API provides an
indication of connection migration event for either case.
11.2. 0-RTT considerations
For repeated connections between peers, the initiator of a QUIC
connection can use 0-RTT data for both QUIC streams and datagrams.
As such packets are subject to replay attacks, applications shall
carefully specify which data types and operations are allowed. 0-RTT
data may be beneficial for use with RoQ to reduce the risk of media
clipping, e.g., at the beginning of a conversation.
This specification defines carrying RTP on top of QUIC and thus does
not finally define what the actual application data are going to be.
RTP typically carries ephemeral media contents that is rendered and
possibly recorded but otherwise causes no side effects. Moreover,
the amount of data that can be carried as 0-RTT data is rather
limited. But it is the responsibility of the respective application
to determine if 0-RTT data is permissible.
*Editor's Note:* Since the QUIC connection will often be created
in the context of an existing signaling relationship (e.g., using
WebRTC or SIP), specific 0-RTT keying material could be exchanged
to prevent replays across sessions. Within the same connection,
replayed media packets would be discarded as duplicates by the
receiver.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
12. Security Considerations
RoQ is subject to the security considerations of RTP described in
Section 9 of [RFC3550] and the security considerations of any RTP
profile in use.
The security considerations for the QUIC protocol and datagram
extension described in Section 21 of [RFC9000], Section 9 of
[RFC9001], Section 8 of [RFC9002] and Section 6 of [RFC9221] also
apply to RoQ.
Note that RoQ provides mandatory security, and other RTP transports
do not. In order to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of RTP
sessions to unintended third parties, RTP topologies described in
Section 3.2 that include middleboxes supporting both RoQ and non-RoQ
paths MUST forward RTP packets on non-RoQ paths using a secure AVP
profile ([RFC3711], [RFC4585], or another AVP profile providing
equivalent RTP-level security), whether or not RoQ senders are using
a secure AVP profile for those RTP packets.
13. IANA Considerations
This document registers a new ALPN protocol ID (in Section 13.1) and
creates a new registry that manages the assignment of error code
points in RoQ (in Section 13.2).
13.1. Registration of a RoQ Identification String
This document creates a new registration for the identification of
RoQ in the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)
Protocol IDs" registry [RFC7301].
The "rtp-mux-quic" string identifies RoQ:
Protocol: RTP over QUIC (RoQ)
Identification Sequence: 0x72 0x74 0x70 0x2D 0x6F 0x76 0x65 0x72
0x2D 0x71 0x75 0x69 0x63 ("rtp-mux-quic")
Specification: This document
13.2. RoQ Error Codes Registry
This document establishes a registry for RoQ error codes. The "RTP
over QUIC (RoQ) Error Codes" registry manages a 62-bit space and is
listed under the "Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters"
heading.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
The new error codes registry created in this document operates under
the QUIC registration policy documented in Section 22.1 of [RFC9000].
This registry includes the common set of fields listed in
Section 22.1.1 of [RFC9000].
Permanent registrations in this registry are assigned using the
Specification Required policy ([RFC8126]), except for values between
0x00 and 0x3f (in hexadecimal; inclusive), which are assigned using
Standards Action or IESG Approval as defined in Sections 4.9 and 4.10
of [RFC8126].
Registrations for error codes are required to include a description
of the error code. An expert reviewer is advised to examine new
registrations for possible duplication or interaction with existing
error codes.
In addition to common fields as described in Section Section 22.1 of
[RFC9000], this registry includes two additional fields. Permanent
registrations in this registry MUST include the following fields:
Name: A name for the error code.
Description: A brief description of the error code semantics, which
MAY be a summary if a specification reference is provided.
The initial allocations in this registry are all assigned permanent
status and list a change controller of the IETF and a contact of the
AVTCORE working group (avt@ietf.org).
The entries in Table 2 are registered by this document.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
+=======+===========================+=============+===============+
| Value | Name | Description | Specification |
+=======+===========================+=============+===============+
| 0x00 | ROQ_NO_ERROR | No Error | Section 9 |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x01 | ROQ_GENERAL_ERROR | General | Section 9 |
| | | error | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x02 | ROQ_INTERNAL_ERROR | Internal | Section 9 |
| | | Error | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x03 | ROQ_PACKET_ERROR | Invalid | Section 9 |
| | | payload | |
| | | format | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x04 | ROQ_STREAM_CREATION_ERROR | Invalid | Section 9 |
| | | stream type | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x05 | ROQ_FRAME_CANCELLED | Frame | Section 9 |
| | | cancelled | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x06 | ROQ_UNKNOWN_FLOW_ID | Unknown | Section 9 |
| | | Flow ID | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x07 | ROQ_EXPECTATION_UNMET | Externally | Section 9 |
| | | signalled | |
| | | requirement | |
| | | unmet | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 2: Initial RoQ Error Codes
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[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,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3550>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3551>.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed.,
"RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)",
RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3611>.
[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, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4585>.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4588>.
[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, August
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6679>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7301>.
[RFC7667] Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7667, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7667>.
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
[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, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC8298] Johansson, I. and Z. Sarker, "Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation
for Multimedia", RFC 8298, DOI 10.17487/RFC8298, December
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8298>.
[RFC8698] Zhu, X., Pan, R., Ramalho, M., and S. Mena, "Network-
Assisted Dynamic Adaptation (NADA): A Unified Congestion
Control Scheme for Real-Time Media", RFC 8698,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8698, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8698>.
[RFC8836] Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, Ed., "Congestion Control
Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media", RFC 8836,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8836, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8836>.
[RFC8888] Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control",
RFC 8888, DOI 10.17487/RFC8888, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8888>.
[RFC8999] Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC",
RFC 8999, DOI 10.17487/RFC8999, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8999>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001>.
[RFC9002] Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.
[RFC9221] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.
14.2. Informative References
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[I-D.draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic]
Dawkins, S., "SDP Offer/Answer for RTP using QUIC as
Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic-00, 28 January 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dawkins-
avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic-00>.
[I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts]
Huitema, C., "Quic Timestamps For Measuring One-Way
Delays", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-huitema-
quic-ts-08, 28 August 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-huitema-quic-
ts-08>.
[I-D.draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling]
Hurst, S., "QRT: QUIC RTP Tunnelling", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling-01, 28
January 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling-01>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata]
He, Y., Herglotz, C., and E. Francois, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Messages for Temporal-Spatial Resolution",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-
green-metadata-02, 12 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-
rtcp-green-metadata-02>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07]
Lennox, J., Hong, D., Uberti, J., Holmer, S., and M.
Flodman, "The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback
Message", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
avtext-lrr-07, 2 July 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtext-
lrr-07>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram]
Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
Capsule Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-11, 17 June 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-11>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency]
Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and M. Kühlewind, "QUIC
Acknowledgement Frequency", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-07, 27 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
ack-frequency-07>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-multipath]
Liu, Y., Ma, Y., De Coninck, Q., Bonaventure, O., Huitema,
C., and M. Kühlewind, "Multipath Extension for QUIC", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-multipath-06,
23 October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-quic-multipath-06>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-reliable-stream-reset]
Seemann, M. and K. Oku, "Reliable QUIC Stream Resets",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-
reliable-stream-reset-05, 23 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
reliable-stream-reset-05>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc]
Holmer, S., Lundin, H., Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., and S.
Mascolo, "A Google Congestion Control Algorithm for Real-
Time Communication", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc-02, 8 July 2016,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-
gcc-02>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]
Murillo, S. G. and A. Gouaillard, "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-wish-whip-13, 7 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-wish-
whip-13>.
[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts]
Smith, C. and I. Swett, "QUIC Extension for Reporting
Packet Receive Timestamps", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-smith-quic-receive-ts-00, 25 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smith-quic-
receive-ts-00>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[I-D.draft-thomson-quic-enough]
Thomson, M., "Signaling That a QUIC Receiver Has Enough
Stream Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
thomson-quic-enough-00, 30 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-quic-
enough-00>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1122>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3168>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261>.
[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, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3711>.
[RFC5093] Hunt, G., "BT's eXtended Network Quality RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR XNQ)", RFC 5093,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5093, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5093>.
[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,
February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5104>.
[RFC5450] Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "Transmission Time Offsets in
RTP Streams", RFC 5450, DOI 10.17487/RFC5450, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5450>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC5484] Singer, D., "Associating Time-Codes with RTP Streams",
RFC 5484, DOI 10.17487/RFC5484, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5484>.
[RFC5725] Begen, A., Hsu, D., and M. Lague, "Post-Repair Loss RLE
Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", RFC 5725, DOI 10.17487/RFC5725, February
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5725>.
[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, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5760>.
[RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5761>.
[RFC6051] Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP
Flows", RFC 6051, DOI 10.17487/RFC6051, November 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6051>.
[RFC6284] Begen, A., Wing, D., and T. Van Caenegem, "Port Mapping
between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions", RFC 6284,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6284, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6285>.
[RFC6332] Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "Multicast Acquisition Report
Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Reports (XRs)", RFC 6332, DOI 10.17487/RFC6332, July 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6332>.
[RFC6464] Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6464, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6464>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC6465] Ivov, E., Ed., Marocco, E., Ed., and J. Lennox, "A Real-
time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-
to-Client Audio Level Indication", RFC 6465,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6465, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6465>.
[RFC6582] Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The
NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm",
RFC 6582, DOI 10.17487/RFC6582, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6582>.
[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, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6642>.
[RFC6776] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information
Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an
RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6776>.
[RFC6798] Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended
Report (XR) Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric
Reporting", RFC 6798, DOI 10.17487/RFC6798, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6798>.
[RFC6843] Clark, A., Gross, K., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Delay Metric
Reporting", RFC 6843, DOI 10.17487/RFC6843, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6843>.
[RFC6904] Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6904>.
[RFC6958] Clark, A., Zhang, S., Zhao, J., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for
Burst/Gap Loss Metric Reporting", RFC 6958,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6958, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6958>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC6990] Huang, R., Wu, Q., Asaeda, H., and G. Zorn, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG-2
Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI)
Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting",
RFC 6990, DOI 10.17487/RFC6990, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6990>.
[RFC7002] Clark, A., Zorn, G., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count Metric
Reporting", RFC 7002, DOI 10.17487/RFC7002, September
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7002>.
[RFC7003] Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap
Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7003>.
[RFC7004] Zorn, G., Schott, R., Wu, Q., Ed., and R. Huang, "RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for
Summary Statistics Metrics Reporting", RFC 7004,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7004, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7004>.
[RFC7005] Clark, A., Singh, V., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for De-Jitter Buffer
Metric Reporting", RFC 7005, DOI 10.17487/RFC7005,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7005>.
[RFC7097] Ott, J., Singh, V., Ed., and I. Curcio, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) for RLE of Discarded
Packets", RFC 7097, DOI 10.17487/RFC7097, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7097>.
[RFC7243] Singh, V., Ed., Ott, J., and I. Curcio, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for the Bytes
Discarded Metric", RFC 7243, DOI 10.17487/RFC7243, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7243>.
[RFC7244] Asaeda, H., Wu, Q., and R. Huang, "RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Synchronization
Delay and Offset Metrics Reporting", RFC 7244,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7244, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7244>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[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, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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,
June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7272>.
[RFC7294] Clark, A., Zorn, G., Bi, C., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for
Concealment Metrics Reporting on Audio Applications",
RFC 7294, DOI 10.17487/RFC7294, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7294>.
[RFC7380] Tong, J., Bi, C., Ed., Even, R., Wu, Q., Ed., and R.
Huang, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific
Information (PSI) Decodability Statistics Metrics
Reporting", RFC 7380, DOI 10.17487/RFC7380, November 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7380>.
[RFC7509] Huang, R. and V. Singh, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Extended Report (XR) for Post-Repair Loss Count Metrics",
RFC 7509, DOI 10.17487/RFC7509, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7509>.
[RFC7728] Burman, B., Akram, A., Even, R., and M. Westerlund, "RTP
Stream Pause and Resume", RFC 7728, DOI 10.17487/RFC7728,
February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7728>.
[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, December
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7826>.
[RFC7867] Huang, R., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) Block for Loss Concealment Metrics for Video
Applications", RFC 7867, DOI 10.17487/RFC7867, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7867>.
[RFC7941] Westerlund, M., Burman, B., Even, R., and M. Zanaty, "RTP
Header Extension for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)
Source Description Items", RFC 7941, DOI 10.17487/RFC7941,
August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7941>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC8015] Singh, V., Perkins, C., Clark, A., and R. Huang, "RTP
Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for
Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metrics",
RFC 8015, DOI 10.17487/RFC8015, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8015>.
[RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8083>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8085>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8201>.
[RFC8286] Xia, J., Even, R., Huang, R., and L. Deng, "RTP/RTCP
Extension for RTP Splicing Notification", RFC 8286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8286, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8286>.
[RFC8825] Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real-Time Protocols for
Browser-Based Applications", RFC 8825,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8825, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8825>.
[RFC8849] Even, R. and J. Lennox, "Mapping RTP Streams to
Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE) Media
Captures", RFC 8849, DOI 10.17487/RFC8849, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8849>.
[RFC8852] Roach, A.B., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream
Identifier Source Description (SDES)", RFC 8852,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8852, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8852>.
[RFC8860] Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and J. Lennox, "Sending
Multiple Types of Media in a Single RTP Session",
RFC 8860, DOI 10.17487/RFC8860, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8860>.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
[RFC8861] Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, Q., and C. Perkins,
"Sending Multiple RTP Streams in a Single RTP Session:
Grouping RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Reception Statistics
and Other Feedback", RFC 8861, DOI 10.17487/RFC8861,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8861>.
[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899>.
[RFC9114] Bishop, M., Ed., "HTTP/3", RFC 9114, DOI 10.17487/RFC9114,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114>.
[RFC9143] Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 9143,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9143, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9143>.
[RFC9308] Kühlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Applicability of the QUIC
Transport Protocol", RFC 9308, DOI 10.17487/RFC9308,
September 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9308>.
[RFC9330] Briscoe, B., Ed., De Schepper, K., Bagnulo, M., and G.
White, "Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput
(L4S) Internet Service: Architecture", RFC 9330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9330, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9330>.
[RFC9335] Uberti, J., Jennings, C., and S. Murillo, "Completely
Encrypting RTP Header Extensions and Contributing
Sources", RFC 9335, DOI 10.17487/RFC9335, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9335>.
[VJMK88] "Congestion Avoidance and Control", November 1988,
<https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf>.
[_3GPP-TS-26.114]
"IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia telephony;
Media handling and interaction", 5 January 2023,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
specificationId=1404>.
Appendix A. List of optional QUIC Extensions
The following is a list of QUIC protocol extensions that might be
beneficial for RoQ, but are not required by RoQ.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
* _An Unreliable Datagram Extension to QUIC_ [RFC9221]. Without
support for unreliable datagrams, RoQ cannot use the encapsulation
specified in Section 5.3, but can still use QUIC streams as
specified in Section 5.2.
* A version of QUIC receive timestamps can be helpful for improved
jitter calculations and congestion control. If the QUIC
connection uses a timestamp extension like, the arrival timestamps
or one-way delays could be exposed to the application for improved
bandwidth estimation or RTCP mappings as described in Section 8
and Appendix B.
- _Quic Timestamps For Measuring One-Way Delays_
[I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts]
- _QUIC Extension for Reporting Packet Receive Timestamps_
[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts]
* _QUIC Acknowledgement Frequency_
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency] can be used by a sender to
optimize the acknowledgement behaviour of the receiver, e.g., to
optimize congestion control.
* _Signaling That a QUIC Receiver Has Enough Stream Data_
[I-D.draft-thomson-quic-enough] and _Reliable QUIC Stream Resets_
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-reliable-stream-reset] would allow RoQ
senders and receivers to use versions of CLOSE_STREAM and
STOP_SENDING that contain offsets. The offset could be used to
reliably retransmit all frames up to a certain frame that should
be cancelled before resuming transmission of further frames on new
QUIC streams.
Appendix B. Considered RTCP Packet Types and RTP Header Extensions
This section lists all the RTCP packet types and RTP header
extensions that were considered in the analysis described in
Section 8.
Several but not all of these control packets and their attributes can
be mapped from QUIC, as described in Section 8.4. _Mappable from
QUIC_ has one of four values: _yes_, _partly_, _QUIC extension
needed_, and _no_. _Partly_ is used for packet types for which some
fields can be mapped from QUIC, but not all. _QUIC extension needed_
describes packet types which could be mapped with help from one or
more QUIC extensions.
Examples of how certain packet types could be mapped with the help of
QUIC extensions follow in Appendix B.6.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
B.1. RTCP Control Packet Types
+==============+========+===+===========+===========+===============+
| Name |Shortcut|PT | Defining | Mappable | Comments |
| | | | Document | from QUIC | |
+==============+========+===+===========+===========+===============+
| SMPTE time- |SMPTETC |194| [RFC5484] | no | |
| code mapping | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Extended |IJ |195| [RFC5450] | no | Would |
| inter- | | | | | require |
| arrival | | | | | send- |
| jitter | | | | | timestamps, |
| report | | | | | which are |
| | | | | | not provided |
| | | | | | by any QUIC |
| | | | | | extension |
| | | | | | today |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Sender |SR |200| [RFC3550] | QUIC | see Appendix |
| Reports | | | | extension | B.6.4 and |
| | | | | needed / | Appendix |
| | | | | partly | B.6.1 |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Receiver |RR |201| [RFC3550] | QUIC | see Appendix |
| Reports | | | | extension | B.6.1 |
| | | | | needed | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Source |SDES |202| [RFC3550] | no | |
| description | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Goodbye |BYE |203| [RFC3550] | partly | see Section |
| | | | | | 8.4.3 |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Application- |APP |204| [RFC3550] | no | |
| defined | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Generic RTP |RTPFB |205| [RFC4585] | partly | see |
| Feedback | | | | | Appendix B.3 |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Payload- |PSFB |205| [RFC4585] | partly | see |
| specific | | | | | Appendix B.4 |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| extended |XR |207| [RFC3611] | partly | see |
| report | | | | | Appendix B.2 |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| AVB RTCP |AVB | | | | |
| packet | | | | | |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Receiver |RSI |209| [RFC5760] | | |
| Summary | | | | | |
| Information | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Port Mapping |TOKEN |210| [RFC6284] | no | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| IDMS |IDMS |211| [RFC7272] | no | |
| Settings | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Reporting |RGRS |212| [RFC8861] | | |
| Group | | | | | |
| Reporting | | | | | |
| Sources | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Splicing |SNM |213| [RFC8286] | no | |
| Notification | | | | | |
| Message | | | | | |
+--------------+--------+---+-----------+-----------+---------------+
Table 3
B.2. Extended Reports (XR)
+===============+==========+=========+==================================+
|Name |Document |Mappable |Comments |
| | |from QUIC| |
+===============+==========+=========+==================================+
|Loss RLE Report|[RFC3611] |yes |If only used for acknowledgment, |
|Block | | |could be replaced by QUIC |
| | | |acknowledgments, see Section 8.1 |
| | | |and Section 8.2 |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Duplicate RLE |[RFC3611] |no | |
|Report Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Packet Receipt |[RFC3611] |QUIC |QUIC could provide packet receive |
|Times Report | |extension|timestamps when using a timestamp |
|Block | |needed / |extension that reports timestamp |
| | |partly |for every received packet, such as|
| | | |[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts].|
| | | |However, QUIC does not provide |
| | | |feedback in RTP timestamp format. |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Receiver |[RFC3611] |QUIC |Used together with DLRR Report |
|Reference Time | |extension|Blocks to calculate RTTs of non- |
|Report Block | |needed |senders. RTT measurements can |
| | | |natively be provided by QUIC. |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|DLRR Report |[RFC3611] |QUIC |Used together with Receiver |
|Block | |extension|Reference Time Report Blocks to |
| | |needed |calculate RTTs of non-senders. |
| | | |RTT can natively be provided by |
| | | |QUIC. |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Statistics |[RFC3611] |QUIC |Packet loss and jitter can be |
|Summary Report | |extension|inferred from QUIC |
|Block | |needed / |acknowledgments, if a timestamp |
| | |partly |extension is used (see |
| | | |[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts] |
| | | |or [I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts]). |
| | | |The remaining fields cannot be |
| | | |mapped to QUIC. |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|VoIP Metrics |[RFC3611] |no |as in other reports above, only |
|Report Block | | |loss and RTT available |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|RTCP XR |[RFC5093] |no | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Texas | | | |
|Instruments | | | |
|Extended VoIP | | | |
|Quality Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Post-repair |[RFC5725] |no | |
|Loss RLE Report| | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Multicast |[RFC6332] |no | |
|Acquisition | | | |
|Report Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|IDMS Report |[RFC7272] |no | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|ECN Summary |[RFC6679] |partly |see Section 8.4.2 |
|Report | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Measurement |[RFC6776] |no | |
|Information | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Packet Delay |[RFC6798] |no |QUIC timestamps may be used to |
|Variation | | |achieve the same goal? |
|Metrics Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
|Delay Metrics |[RFC6843] |no |QUIC has RTT and can provide |
|Block | | |timestamps for one-way delay, but |
| | | |no way of informing peers about |
| | | |end-to-end statistics when QUIC is|
| | | |only used on one segment of the |
| | | |path. |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Burst/Gap Loss |[RFC7004] | |QUIC ACKs? |
|Summary | | | |
|Statistics | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Burst/Gap |[RFC7004] |no | |
|Discard Summary| | | |
|Statistics | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Frame |[RFC7004] |no | |
|Impairment | | | |
|Statistics | | | |
|Summary | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Burst/Gap Loss |[RFC6958] | |QUIC ACKs? |
|Metrics Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Burst/Gap |[RFC7003] |no | |
|Discard Metrics| | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|MPEG2 Transport|[RFC6990] |no | |
|Stream PSI- | | | |
|Independent | | | |
|Decodability | | | |
|Statistics | | | |
|Metrics Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|De-Jitter |[RFC7005] |no | |
|Buffer Metrics | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Discard Count |[RFC7002] |no | |
|Metrics Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|DRLE (Discard |[RFC7097] |no | |
|RLE Report) | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|BDR (Bytes |[RFC7243] |no | |
|Discarded | | | |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
|Report) | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|RFISD (RTP |[RFC7244] |no | |
|Flows Initial | | | |
|Synchronization| | | |
|Delay) | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|RFSO (RTP Flows|[RFC7244] |no | |
|Synchronization| | | |
|Offset Metrics | | | |
|Block) | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|MOS Metrics |[RFC7266] |no | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|LCB (Loss |[RFC7294],|no | |
|Concealment |Section | | |
|Metrics Block) |4.1 | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|CSB (Concealed |[RFC7294],|no | |
|Seconds Metrics|Section | | |
|Block) |4.1 | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|MPEG2 Transport|[RFC7380] |no | |
|Stream PSI | | | |
|Decodability | | | |
|Statistics | | | |
|Metrics Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Post-Repair |[RFC7509] |no | |
|Loss Count | | | |
|Metrics Report | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Video Loss |[RFC7867] |no | |
|Concealment | | | |
|Metric Report | | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
|Independent |[RFC8015] |no | |
|Burst/Gap | | | |
|Discard Metrics| | | |
|Block | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------------------------------+
Table 4: Extended Report Blocks
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
B.3. Generic RTP Feedback (RTPFB)
+=======+=================+=================+=========+================+
|Name |Long Name |Document |Mappable |Comments |
| | | |from QUIC| |
+=======+=================+=================+=========+================+
|Generic|Generic negative |[RFC4585] |partly |see |
|NACK |acknowledgement | | |Section 8.4.1 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|TMMBR |Temporary Maximum|[RFC5104] |no | |
| |Media Stream Bit | | | |
| |Rate Request | | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|TMMBN |Temporary Maximum|[RFC5104] |no | |
| |Media Stream Bit | | | |
| |Rate Notification| | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|RTCP- |RTCP Rapid |[RFC6051] |no | |
|SR-REQ |Resynchronisation| | | |
| |Request | | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|RAMS |Rapid Acquisition|[RFC6285] |no | |
| |of Multicast | | | |
| |Sessions | | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|TLLEI |Transport-Layer |[RFC6642] |no? |no way of |
| |Third-Party Loss | | |telling QUIC |
| |Early Indication | | |peer "don't ask |
| | | | |for |
| | | | |retransmission",|
| | | | |but QUIC would |
| | | | |not ask that |
| | | | |anyway, only |
| | | | |RTCP NACK? |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|RTCP- |RTCP ECN Feedback|[RFC6679] |partly |see |
|ECN-FB | | | |Section 8.4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|PAUSE- |Media Pause/ |[RFC7728] |no | |
|RESUME |Resume | | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|DBI |Delay Budget |[_3GPP-TS-26.114]| | |
| |Information (DBI)| | | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
|CCFB |RTP Congestion |[RFC8888] |QUIC |see |
| |Control Feedback | |extension|Appendix B.6.2 |
| | | |needed | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+----------------+
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Table 5
B.4. Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB)
Because QUIC is a generic transport protocol, QUIC feedback cannot
replace the following Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB) feedback.
+=====+============+==============================================+
|Name |Long Name | Document |
+=====+============+==============================================+
|PLI |Picture Loss| [RFC4585] |
| |Indication | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|SLI |Slice Loss | [RFC4585] |
| |Indication | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|RPSI |Reference | [RFC4585] |
| |Picture | |
| |Selection | |
| |Indication | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|FIR |Full Intra | [RFC5104] |
| |Request | |
| |Command | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|TSTR |Temporal- | [RFC5104] |
| |Spatial | |
| |Trade-off | |
| |Request | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|TSTN |Temporal- | [RFC5104] |
| |Spatial | |
| |Trade-off | |
| |Notification| |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|VBCM |Video Back | [RFC5104] |
| |Channel | |
| |Message | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|PSLEI|Payload- | [RFC6642] |
| |Specific | |
| |Third-Party | |
| |Loss Early | |
| |Indication | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|ROI |Video | [_3GPP-TS-26.114] |
| |region-of- | |
| |interest | |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
| |(ROI) | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|LRR |Layer | [I-D.draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07] |
| |Refresh | |
| |Request | |
| |Command | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|VP |Viewport | [_3GPP-TS-26.114] |
| |(VP) | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|AFB |Application | [RFC4585] |
| |Layer | |
| |Feedback | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|TSRR |Temporal- | [I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata] |
| |Spatial | |
| |Resolution | |
| |Request | |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|TSRN |Temporal- | [I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata] |
| |Spatial | |
| |Resolution | |
| |Notification| |
+-----+------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 6
B.5. RTP Header extensions
Like the payload-specific feedback packets, QUIC cannot directly
replace the control information in the following header extensions.
RoQ does not place restrictions on sending any RTP header extensions.
However, some extensions, such as Transmission Time offsets [RFC5450]
are used to improve network jitter calculation, which can be done in
QUIC if a timestamp extension is used.
B.5.1. Compact Header Extensions
+====================+================+=================+===========+
|Extension URI |Description |Reference |Mappable |
| | | |from QUIC |
+====================+================+=================+===========+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Transmission |[RFC5450] |no |
|hdrext:toffset |Time offsets | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Audio Level |[RFC6464] |no |
|hdrext:ssrc-audio- | | | |
|level | | | |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Splicing |[RFC8286] |no |
|hdrext:splicing- |Interval | | |
|interval | | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|SMPTE time-code |[RFC5484] |no |
|hdrext:smpte-tc |mapping | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Reserved as |[RFC7941] |no |
|hdrext:sdes |base URN for | | |
| |RTCP SDES items | | |
| |that are also | | |
| |defined as RTP | | |
| |compact header | | |
| |extensions. | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Synchronisation |[RFC6051] |no |
|hdrext:ntp-64 |metadata: | | |
| |64-bit | | |
| |timestamp | | |
| |format | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Synchronisation |[RFC6051] |no |
|hdrext:ntp-56 |metadata: | | |
| |56-bit | | |
| |timestamp | | |
| |format | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Encrypted |[RFC6904] |no, but |
|hdrext:encrypt |extension | |maybe |
| |header element | |irrelevant?|
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:ietf:params:rtp-|Mixer-to-client |[RFC6465] |no |
|hdrext:csrc-audio- |audio level | | |
|level |indicators | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:3gpp:video- |Higher |[_3GPP-TS-26.114]|probably |
|orientation:6 |granularity | |not(?) |
| |(6-bit) | | |
| |coordination of | | |
| |video | | |
| |orientation | | |
| |(CVO) feature, | | |
| |see clause | | |
| |6.2.3 | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:3gpp:video- |Coordination of |[_3GPP-TS-26.114]|probably |
|orientation |video | |not(?) |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
| |orientation | | |
| |(CVO) feature, | | |
| |see clause | | |
| |6.2.3 | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:3gpp:roi-sent |Signalling of |[_3GPP-TS-26.114]|probably |
| |the arbitrary | |not(?) |
| |region-of- | | |
| |interest (ROI) | | |
| |information for | | |
| |the sent video, | | |
| |see clause | | |
| |6.2.3.4 | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
|urn:3gpp:predefined-|Signalling of |[_3GPP-TS-26.114]|probably |
|roi-sent |the predefined | |not(?) |
| |region-of- | | |
| |interest (ROI) | | |
| |information for | | |
| |the sent video, | | |
| |see clause | | |
| |6.2.3.4 | | |
+--------------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+
Table 7
B.5.2. SDES Compact Header Extensions
+=======================+==================+===========+==========+
| Extension URI | Description | Reference | Mappable |
| | | | from |
| | | | QUIC |
+=======================+==================+===========+==========+
| urn:ietf:params:rtp- | Source | [RFC7941] | no |
| hdrext:sdes:cname | Description: | | |
| | Canonical End- | | |
| | Point Identifier | | |
| | (SDES CNAME) | | |
+-----------------------+------------------+-----------+----------+
| urn:ietf:params:rtp- | RTP Stream | [RFC8852] | no |
| hdrext:sdes:rtp- | Identifier | | |
| stream-id | | | |
+-----------------------+------------------+-----------+----------+
| urn:ietf:params:rtp- | RTP Repaired | [RFC8852] | no |
| hdrext:sdes:repaired- | Stream | | |
| rtp-stream-id | Identifier | | |
+-----------------------+------------------+-----------+----------+
| urn:ietf:params:rtp- | CLUE CaptId | [RFC8849] | no |
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
| hdrext:sdes:CaptId | | | |
+-----------------------+------------------+-----------+----------+
| urn:ietf:params:rtp- | Media | [RFC9143] | no |
| hdrext:sdes:mid | identification | | |
+-----------------------+------------------+-----------+----------+
Table 8
B.6. Examples
B.6.1. Mapping QUIC Feedback to RTCP Receiver Reports ("RR")
Considerations for mapping QUIC feedback into _Receiver Reports_
(PT=201, Name=RR, [RFC3550]) are:
* _Fraction lost_: When RTP packets are carried in QUIC datagrams,
the fraction of lost packets can be directly inferred from QUIC's
acknowledgments. The calculation SHOULD include all packets up to
the acknowledged RTP packet with the highest RTP sequence number.
Later packets SHOULD be ignored since they may still be in flight
unless other QUIC packets that were sent after the RTP packet were
already acknowledged.
* _Cumulative lost_: Similar to the fraction of lost packets, the
cumulative loss can be inferred from QUIC's acknowledgments,
including all packets up to the latest acknowledged packet.
* _Highest Sequence Number received_: In RTCP, this field is a
32-bit field that contains the highest sequence number a receiver
received in an RTP packet and the count of sequence number cycles
the receiver has observed. A sender sends RTP packets in QUIC
packets and receives acknowledgments for the QUIC packets. By
keeping a mapping from a QUIC packet to the RTP packets
encapsulated in that QUIC packet, the sender can infer the highest
sequence number and number of cycles seen by the receiver from
QUIC acknowledgments.
* _Interarrival jitter_: If QUIC acknowledgments carry timestamps as
described in [I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts], senders can infer
the interarrival jitter from the arrival timestamps in QUIC
acknowledgments.
* _Last SR_: Similar to lost packets, the NTP timestamp of the last
received sender report can be inferred from QUIC acknowledgments.
* _Delay since last SR_: This field is not required when the
receiver reports are entirely replaced by QUIC feedback.
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
B.6.2. Congestion Control Feedback ("CCFB")
RTP _Congestion Control Feedback_ (PT=205, FMT=11, Name=CCFB,
[RFC8888]) contains acknowledgments, arrival timestamps, and ECN
notifications for each received packet. Acknowledgments and ECNs can
be inferred from QUIC as described above. Arrival timestamps can be
added through extended acknowledgment frames as described in
[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts] or [I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts].
B.6.3. Extended Report ("XR")
_Extended Reports_ (PT=207, Name=XR, [RFC3611]) offer an extensible
framework for a variety of different control messages. Some of the
statistics that are defined as extended report blocks can be derived
from QUIC, too. Other report blocks need to be evaluated
individually to determine whether the contained information can be
transmitted using QUIC instead. Table 4 in Appendix B.2 lists
considerations for mapping QUIC feedback to some of the _Extended
Reports_.
B.6.4. Application Layer Repair and other Control Messages
While Appendix B.6.1 presented some RTCP packets that can be replaced
by QUIC features, QUIC cannot replace all of the defined RTCP packet
types. This mostly affects RTCP packet types, which carry control
information that is to be interpreted by the RTP application layer
rather than the underlying transport protocol itself.
* _Sender Reports_ (PT=200, Name=SR, [RFC3550]) are similar to
_Receiver Reports_, as described in Appendix B.6.1. They are sent
by media senders and additionally contain an NTP and an RTP
timestamp and the number of packets and octets transmitted by the
sender. The timestamps can be used by a receiver to synchronize
streams. QUIC cannot provide similar control information since it
does not know about RTP timestamps. A QUIC receiver cannot
calculate the packet or octet counts since it does not know about
lost datagrams. Thus, sender reports are required in RoQ to
synchronize streams at the receiver. The sender reports SHOULD
not contain any receiver report blocks if the information can be
inferred from the QUIC transport as explained in Appendix B.6.1.
In addition to carrying transmission statistics, RTCP packets can
contain application layer control information that cannot directly be
mapped to QUIC. Examples of this information may include:
* _Source Description_ (PT=202, Name=SDES) and _Application_
(PT=204, Name=APP) packet types from [RFC3550], or
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
* many of the payload-specific feedback messages (PT=206) defined in
[RFC4585], used to control the codec behavior of the sender.
Since QUIC does not provide any kind of application layer control
messaging, QUIC feedback cannot be mapped into these RTCP packet
types. If the RTP application needs this information, the RTCP
packet types are used in the same way as they would be used over any
other transport protocol.
Appendix C. Experimental Results
An experimental implementation of the mapping described in this
document can be found on Github (https://github.com/mengelbart/rtp-
over-quic). The application implements the RoQ Datagrams mapping and
implements SCReAM congestion control at the application layer. It
can optionally disable the builtin QUIC congestion control (NewReno).
The endpoints only use RTCP for congestion control feedback, which
can optionally be disabled and replaced by the QUIC connection
statistics as described in Section 8.4.
Experimental results of the implementation can be found on Github
(https://github.com/mengelbart/rtp-over-quic-mininet), too.
Acknowledgments
Early versions of this document were similar in spirit to
[I-D.draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling], although many details differ.
The authors would like to thank Sam Hurst for providing his thoughts
about how QUIC could be used to carry RTP.
The guidance in Section 5.2 about configuring the number of parallel
unidirectional QUIC streams is based on Section 6.2 of [RFC9114],
with obvious substitutions for RTP/RTCP.
The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, David Schinazi, Lucas
Pardue, Sergio Garcia Murillo, Spencer Dawkins, and Vidhi Goel for
their valuable comments and suggestions contributing to this
document.
Authors' Addresses
Jörg Ott
Technical University Munich
Email: ott@in.tum.de
Mathis Engelbart
Technical University Munich
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft RTP over QUIC (RoQ) February 2024
Email: mathis.engelbart@gmail.com
Spencer Dawkins
Tencent America LLC
Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Ott, et al. Expires 15 August 2024 [Page 62]