💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4040.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 19:01:35.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group R. Kreuter
Request for Comments: 4040 Siemens AG
Category: Standards Track April 2005
RTP Payload Format for a 64 kbit/s Transparent Call
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes how to carry 64 kbit/s channel data
transparently in RTP packets, using a pseudo-codec called
"Clearmode". It also serves as registration for a related MIME type
called "audio/clearmode".
"Clearmode" is a basic feature of VoIP Media Gateways.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document............................. 2
3. 64 kbit/s Data Stream Handling and RTP Header Parameters...... 3
4. IANA Considerations........................................... 3
5. Mapping to Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters...... 5
6. Security Considerations....................................... 5
7. References.................................................... 6
7.1. Normative References..................................... 6
7.2. Informative References................................... 6
8. Acknowledgements.............................................. 7
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
1. Introduction
Voice over IP (VoIP) Media Gateways need to carry all possible data
streams generated by analog terminals or integrated services digital
network (ISDN) terminals via an IP network. Within this document a
VoIP Media Gateway is a device that converts a (digital or analog)
linear data stream to a digital packetized data stream or vice versa.
Refer to RFC 2719 [10] for an introduction into the basic
architecture of a Media Gateway based network.
Usually a VoIP Media Gateway does some processing on the data it
converts besides packetization or depacketization; i.e. echo
cancellation or dual tone multifrequency (DTMF) detection, and
especially a coding/decoding. But there is a class of data streams
that does not rely on or allow any data processing within the VoIP
Media Gateway except for packetization or depacketization. ISDN data
terminals i.e. will produce data streams that are not compatible with
a non-linear encoding as used for voice.
For such applications, there is a necessity for a transparent relay
of 64 kbit/s data streams in real-time transport protocol (RTP) [4]
packets. This mode is often referred to as "clear-channel data" or
"64 kbit/s unrestricted". No encoder/decoder is needed in that case,
but a unique RTP payload type is necessary and a related MIME type is
to be registered for signaling purposes.
Clearmode is not restricted to the examples described above. It can
be used by any application, that does not need a special
encoding/decoding for transfer via a RTP connection.
This payload format document describes a pseudo-codec called
"Clearmode", for sample oriented 64 kbit/s data streams with 8 bits
per sample. It is in accordance with RFC 2736 [1], which provides a
guideline for the specification of new RTP payload formats.
Examples for the current use of Clearmode are the transfer of "ISDN 7
kHz voice" and "ISDN data" in VoIP Media Gateways.
This document also serves as the MIME type registration according to
RFC 2045 [2] and RFC 2048 [3], which defines procedures for
registration of new MIME types within the IETF tree.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [8].
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
3. 64 kbit/s Data Stream Handling and RTP Header Parameters
Clearmode does not use any encoding or decoding. It just provides
packetization.
Clearmode assumes that the data to be handled is sample oriented with
one octet (8bits) per sample. There is no restriction on the number
of samples per packet other than the 64 kbyte limit imposed by the IP
protocol. The number of samples SHOULD be less than the path maximum
transmission unit (MTU) minus combined packet header length. If the
environment is expected to have tunnels or security encapsulation as
part of operation, the number of samples SHOULD be reduced to allow
for the extra header space.
The payload packetization/depacketization for Clearmode is similar to
the Pulse Code Modulation (PCMU or PCMA) handling described in RFC
3551 [5]. Each Clearmode octet SHALL be octet-aligned in an RTP
packet. The sign bit of each octet SHALL correspond to the most
significant bit of the octet in the RTP packet.
A sample rate of 8000 Hz MUST be used.
This calculates to a 64 kbit/s transmission rate per channel.
The Timestamp SHALL be set as described in RFC 3550 [4].
The marker bit is always zero. Silence suppression is not applicable
for Clearmode data streams.
The payload type is dynamically assigned and is not presented in this
document.
RTP header fields not mentioned here SHALL be used as specified in
RFC 3550 [4] and any applicable profile.
This document specifies the use of RTP over unicast and multicast UDP
as well as TCP. (This does not preclude the use of this definition
when RTP is carried by other lower-layer protocols.)
4. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following MIME subtype: audio/clearmode.
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of MIME media type audio/clearmode
MIME media type name: audio
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
MIME subtype name: clearmode
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: ptime, maxptime
"ptime" gives the length of time in milliseconds
represented by the media in a packet, as described in RFC
2327 [6].
"maxptime" represents the maximum amount of media, which
can be encapsulated in each packet, expressed as time in
milliseconds, as described in RFC 3267 [9].
Encoding considerations:
This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [4].
Security considerations:
See Section 6 of RFC 4040
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification: RFC 4040
Applications, which use this media type:
Voice over IP Media Gateways, transferring "ISDN 64 kb/s
data", "ISDN 7 kHz voice", or other 64 kbit/s data streams
via an RTP connection
Note: the choice of the "audio" top-level MIME type was
made because the dominant uses of this pseudo-codec are
expected to telephony and voice-gateway-related. The
"audio" type allows the use of sharing of the port in the
SDP "m=" line with codecs such as audio/g711 [6], [7], for
one example. This sharing is an important application and
would not be possible otherwise.
Additional information: none
Intended usage: COMMON
Author/Change controller:
IETF Audio/Video transport working group
delegated from the IESG
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
5. Mapping to Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters
Parameters are mapped to SDP [6] in a standard way.
o The MIME type (audio) goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
o The MIME subtype (clearmode) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the
encoding name.
o The optional parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP
"a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.
An example mapping is as follows:
audio/clearmode; ptime=10
m=audio 12345 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 CLEARMODE/8000
a=ptime:10
Note that the payload format (encoding) names defined in the RTP
Profile are commonly shown in upper case. MIME subtypes are commonly
shown in lower case. These names are case-insensitive in both
places.
6. Security Considerations
Implementations using the payload format defined in this
specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in
the RFC 3550 [4]. The payload format described in this document does
not specify any different security services. The primary function of
this payload format is to add a transparent transport for a 64 kbit/s
data stream.
Confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption, for
example by application of the Secure RTP profile [11].
As with any IP-based protocol, in some circumstances a receiver may
be overloaded simply by the receipt of too many packets, either
desired or undesired. Network-layer authentication MAY be used to
discard packets from undesired sources, but the processing cost of
the authentication itself may be too high. Overload can also occur,
if the sender chooses to use a smaller packetization period, than the
receiver can process. The ptime parameter can be used to negotiate
an appropriate packetization during session setup.
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
In general RTP is not an appropriate transfer protocol for reliable
octet streams. TCP is better in those cases. Besides that, packet
loss due to congestion is as much an issue for clearmode, as for
other payload formats. Refer to RFC 3551 [5], section 2, for a
discussion of this issue.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP
Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, December 1999.
[2] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[3] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP
13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[4] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[5] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.
[6] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[7] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[9] Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie, "Real-
Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage
Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate
Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 3267, June 2002.
7.2. Informative References
[10] Ong, L., Rytina, I., Garcia, M., Schwarzbauer, H., Coene, L.,
Lin, H., Juhasz, I., Holdrege, M., and C. Sharp, "Framework
Architecture for Signaling Transport", RFC 2719, October 1999.
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
[11] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC
3711, March 2004.
8. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to acknowledge the help of the IETF AVT Working
Group and, in particular the help of Colin Perkins and Magnus
Westerlund for their intensive reviews and comments.
Author's Address
Ruediger Kreuter
Siemens AG
81730 Munich, Germany
EMail: ruediger.kreuter@siemens.com
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4040 64 kbit/s Voice Band Data Call April 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kreuter Standards Track [Page 8]