draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-10.txt   draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-11.txt 
Network Working Group J. Spittka Network Working Group J. Spittka
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track K. Vos Intended status: Standards Track K. Vos
Expires: October 12, 2015 vocTone Expires: October 16, 2015 vocTone
JM. Valin JM. Valin
Mozilla Mozilla
April 10, 2015 April 14, 2015
RTP Payload Format for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec RTP Payload Format for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-10 draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-11
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and audio data format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and audio data
necessary to integrate the codec in the most compatible way. It also necessary to integrate the codec in the most compatible way. It also
provides an applicability statement for the use of Opus over RTP. provides an applicability statement for the use of Opus over RTP.
Further, it describes media type registrations for the RTP payload Further, it describes media type registrations for the RTP payload
format. format.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 31
allowing efficient congestion control. Furthermore, the amount of allowing efficient congestion control. Furthermore, the amount of
encoded speech or audio data encoded in a single packet can be used encoded speech or audio data encoded in a single packet can be used
for congestion control, since the transmission rate is inversely for congestion control, since the transmission rate is inversely
proportional to the packet duration. A lower packet transmission proportional to the packet duration. A lower packet transmission
rate reduces the amount of header overhead, but at the same time rate reduces the amount of header overhead, but at the same time
increases latency and loss sensitivity, so it ought to be used with increases latency and loss sensitivity, so it ought to be used with
care. care.
Since UDP does not provide congestion control, applications that use Since UDP does not provide congestion control, applications that use
RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
UDP layer. [draft-ietf-rmcat-app-interaction-01] describes the UDP layer [RFC5405]. Work in the rmcat working group [rmcat]
interactions and conceptual interfaces necessary between the describes the interactions and conceptual interfaces necessary
application components that relate to congestion control, including between the application components that relate to congestion control,
the RTP layer, the higher-level media codec control layer, and the including the RTP layer, the higher-level media codec control layer,
lower-level transport interface, as well as components dedicated to and the lower-level transport interface, as well as components
congestion control functions. dedicated to congestion control functions.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
One media subtype (audio/opus) has been defined and registered as One media subtype (audio/opus) has been defined and registered as
described in the following section. described in the following section.
6.1. Opus Media Type Registration 6.1. Opus Media Type Registration
Media type registration is done according to [RFC6838] and [RFC4855]. Media type registration is done according to [RFC6838] and [RFC4855].
skipping to change at page 17, line 34 skipping to change at page 17, line 34
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, [RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July
2006. 2006.
[RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for [RFC5124] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008. (RTP/SAVPF)", RFC 5124, February 2008.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November
2008.
[RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP [RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
Security Solution", RFC 7202, April 2014. Security Solution", RFC 7202, April 2014.
[draft-ietf-rmcat-app-interaction-01] [rmcat] "rmcat documents", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/
Zanaty, M., Singh, V., Nandakumar, S., and Z. Sarker, "RTP documents/>.
Application Interaction with Congestion Control", draft-
ietf-rmcat-app-interaction-01 (work in progress), October
2014, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-rmcat-app-interaction-01>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Julian Spittka Julian Spittka
Email: jspittka@gmail.com Email: jspittka@gmail.com
Koen Vos Koen Vos
vocTone vocTone
Email: koenvos74@gmail.com Email: koenvos74@gmail.com
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/