RFC 7007 PROPOSED STANDARD RTP · AUDIO · CODECS

Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)

Removes DVI4 from the minimum codec recommendation in the RTP/AVP profile.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
August 2013
AUTHORS
T. Terriberry
STREAM
IETF
BUILDS ON
RFC 3551 — RTP/AVP
REMAINING MINIMUM CODEC
Payload type 0 (PCMU)
REMOVED FROM MINIMUM RECOMMENDATION
Payload type 5 (DVI4)
DOI
10.17487/RFC7007

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     T. Terriberry
Request for Comments: 7007                           Mozilla Corporation
Updates: 3551                                                August 2013
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721


 Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile
     for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)

Abstract

   The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
   (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
   Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
   (RTP/AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based
   Feedback (RTP/SAVPF).  This document updates RFC 3551, the RTP/AVP
   profile (and by extension, the profiles that build upon it), to
   reflect changes in audio codec usage since that document was
   originally published.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................2
   3. Updates to RFC 3551 .............................................3
      3.1. Updates to Section 6 of RFC 3551 ...........................3
   4. Security Considerations .........................................3
   5. Acknowledgments .................................................3
   6. References ......................................................4
      6.1. Normative References .......................................4
      6.2. Informative References .....................................4

1.  Introduction

   [RFC3551] says that audio applications operating under the RTP/AVP
   profile SHOULD be able to send and receive PCMU and DVI4.  However,
   in practice, many RTP deployments do not support DVI4, and there is
   little reason to use it when much more modern codecs are available.
   This document updates the recommended audio codec selection for the
   RTP/AVP profile and removes the SHOULD for DVI4.  By extension, this
   also updates the profiles that build on RTP/AVP, including RTP/SAVP
   [RFC3711], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], and RTP/SAVPF [RFC5124].

2.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  Updates to RFC 3551

   The following text of [RFC3551] is hereby updated as set forth in
   Section 3.1:

      Audio applications operating under this profile SHOULD, at a
      minimum, be able to send and/or receive payload types 0 (PCMU)
      and 5 (DVI4).  This allows interoperability without format
      negotiation and ensures successful negotiation with a conference
      control protocol.

3.1.  Updates to Section 6 of RFC 3551

   This document updates the final paragraph of Section 6 of RFC 3551 by
   replacing "payload types 0 (PCMU) and 5 (DVI4)" with "payload
   type 0 (PCMU)".  We also add a final sentence to that paragraph that
   states, "Some environments necessitate support for PCMU".  This
   results in the following paragraph:

      Audio applications operating under this profile SHOULD, at a
      minimum, be able to send and/or receive payload type 0 (PCMU).
      This allows interoperability without format negotiation and
      ensures successful negotiation with a conference control protocol.
      Some environments necessitate support for PCMU.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations for
   [RFC3551].

5.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Colin Perkins for suggesting this update.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              July 2003.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [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, July
              2006.

   [RFC5124]  Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
              Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
              (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.

Author's Address

   Timothy B. Terriberry
   Mozilla Corporation
   650 Castro Street
   Mountain View, CA  94041
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 903-0800
   EMail: tterribe@xiph.org

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMMany RTP deployments did not support DVI4, despite RFC 3551 recommending it as a minimum audio codec.
MECHANISMThe update removes payload type 5 (DVI4) from the recommendation and retains payload type 0 (PCMU).
WHY IT MATTERSThe change updates RFC 3551 and profiles that build on RTP/AVP.

§1Why the Codec Recommendation Changes

RFC 3551 said RTP/AVP audio applications SHOULD be able to send and receive PCMU and DVI4. The RFC notes that many deployments did not support DVI4 and that more modern codecs were available.

Because other RTP profiles build on RTP/AVP, the update also applies to those profiles by extension.

The earlier recommendation included a codec that many deployments did not support. This RFC removes that recommendation.

§2The Updated Minimum

The update changes the final paragraph of Section 6 of RFC 3551. It replaces the recommendation for payload types 0 (PCMU) and 5 (DVI4) with a recommendation for payload type 0 (PCMU) only.

The revised text says audio applications SHOULD be able to send and/or receive PCMU. It adds that some environments necessitate support for PCMU.

PCMU remains the minimum codec recommended by the profile. DVI4 is removed from that minimum recommendation.

§3Security Considerations

The RFC says this change does not introduce new security considerations for RFC 3551.

It updates RFC 3551, which is the basis for RTP/AVP and the profiles named in the abstract.

The codec recommendation changes, but the RFC adds no security considerations.

§4References