Network Working Group                                   Stephan Wenger
INTERNET-DRAFT                                           Umesh Chandra
Expires: May 2007                                                Nokia
                                                     Magnus Westerlund
                                                             Bo Burman
                                                     November 30, 2006
                                                         March 5, 2007

                        Codec Control Messages in the
                RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). IETF Trust (2007).


   This document specifies a few extensions to the messages defined in
   the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF).  They are helpful
   primarily in conversational multimedia scenarios where centralized
   multipoint functionalities are in use. However some are also usable
   in smaller multicast environments and point-to-point calls. The
   extensions discussed are messages related to the ITU-T H.271 video back channel, Video
   Back Channel, Full Intra Request, Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Stream Bit-
   rate and Temporal Spatial Trade-
   off. Trade-off.


1. Introduction....................................................5
2. Definitions.....................................................7
   2.1. Glossary...................................................7
   2.2. Terminology................................................8
   2.3. Topologies.................................................9
3. Motivation (Informative)........................................9 (Informative).......................................10
   3.1. Use Cases.................................................10
   3.2. Using the Media Path......................................12
   3.3. Using AVPF................................................12 AVPF................................................13
      3.3.1. Reliability..........................................12 Reliability..........................................13
   3.4. Multicast.................................................13
   3.5. Feedback Messages.........................................13
      3.5.1. Full Intra Request Command...........................13 Reliability.....................................14
      3.5.2. Temporal Spatial Trade-off Request and Announcement..15 Point-to-point..................................15 Point-to-point..................................16 Point-to-Multipoint using Multicast or Translators16 Point-to-Multipoint using RTP Mixer.............16 Mixer.............17 Reliability.....................................16 Reliability.....................................17
      3.5.3. H.271 Video Back Channel Message conforming to ITU-T Rec.
      H.271.......................................................17 Reliability.....................................20
      3.5.4. Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Request.............20 MCU based Multi-point operation.................21 operation.................25 Point-to-Multipoint using Multicast or Translators22 Translators27 Point-to-point operation........................22 operation........................27 Reliability.....................................23 Reliability.....................................28
4. RTCP Receiver Report Extensions................................24 Extensions................................29
   4.1. Design Principles of the Extension Mechanism..............24 Mechanism..............29
   4.2. Transport Layer Feedback Messages.........................25 Messages.........................30
      4.2.1. Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Request (TMMBR).....25 (TMMBR).....30 Semantics.......................................25 Semantics.......................................31 Message Format..................................27 Format..................................33 Timing Rules....................................28 Rules....................................34
      4.2.2. Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Notification (TMMBN) 28 35 Semantics.......................................28 Semantics.......................................35 Message Format..................................29 Format..................................36 Timing Rules....................................30 Rules....................................36
   4.3. Payload Specific Feedback Messages........................30 Messages........................37
      4.3.1. Full Intra Request (FIR) command.....................30 command.....................37 Semantics.......................................30 Semantics.......................................37 Message Format..................................32 Format..................................39 Timing Rules....................................33 Rules....................................40 Remarks.........................................33 Remarks.........................................40
      4.3.2. Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR)............34 (TSTR)............41 Semantics.......................................34 Semantics.......................................41 Message Format..................................34 Format..................................41 Timing Rules....................................35 Rules....................................42 Remarks.........................................35 Remarks.........................................42
      4.3.3. Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Announcement (TSTA).......36 (TSTA).......43 Semantics.......................................36 Semantics.......................................43 Message Format..................................36 Format..................................44 Timing Rules....................................37 Rules....................................44 Remarks.........................................37 Remarks.........................................45
      4.3.4. H.271 VideoBackChannelMessage (VBCM).................37 (VBCM).................45
5. Congestion Control.............................................40 Control.............................................48
6. Security Considerations........................................41 Considerations........................................48
7. SDP Definitions................................................41 Definitions................................................49
   7.1. Extension of rtcp-fb attribute............................42 attribute............................49
   7.2. Offer-Answer..............................................43 Offer-Answer..............................................51
   7.3. Examples..................................................43 Examples..................................................51
8. IANA Considerations............................................46 Considerations............................................54
9. Acknowledgements...............................................47 Acknowledgements...............................................54
10. References....................................................48 References....................................................56
   10.1. Normative references.....................................48 references.....................................56
   10.2. Informative references...................................48 references...................................56
11. Authors' Addresses............................................49 Addresses............................................57
12. List of Changes relative to previous drafts...................49 draftsError! Bookmark not defined.

1.   Introduction

   When the Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF) [RFC4585] was
   developed, the main emphasis lied lay in the efficient support of point-
   to-point and small multipoint scenarios without centralized
   multipoint control.  However, in practice, many small multipoint
   conferences operate utilizing devices known as Multipoint Control
   Units (MCUs).  Long standing experience of the conversational video
   conferencing industry suggests that there is a need for a few
   additional feedback messages, to efficiently support MCU-based centralized
   multipoint conferencing.  Some of the messages have applications
   beyond centralized multipoint, and this is indicated in the
   description of the message.  This is especially true for the message
   intended to carry ITU-T Rec. H.271 [H.271] bitstrings for video back
   channel Video Back
   Channel messages.

   In RTP [RFC3550] terminology, MCUs comprise mixers and translators.
   Most MCUs also include signalling signaling support.  During the development of
   this memo, it was noticed that there is considerable confusion in the
   community related to the use of terms such as mixer, translator, and
   MCU.  In response to these concerns, a number of topologies have been
   identified that are of practical relevance to the industry, but were
   not envisioned (or at least not
   documented in sufficient detail) detail in RTP.  These topologies are
   documented in [Topologies], and understanding this memo requires
   previous or parallel study of [Topologies].

   Some of the messages defined here are forward only, in that they do
   not require an explicit acknowledgement. notification to the message emitter
   indicating their reception and/or the message receiver's actions.
   Other messages require
   acknowledgement, notification, leading to a two way
   communication model that could suggest to some to be useful for
   control purposes.  It is not the intention of this memo to open up
   RTCP to a generalized control protocol.  All mentioned messages have
   relatively strict real-time constraints -- in the sense that their
   value diminishes with increased delay.  This makes the use of more
   traditional control protocol means, such as SIP re-invites, re-invites [RFC3261],
   undesirable.  Furthermore, all messages are of a very simple format
   that can be easily processed by an RTP/RTCP sender/receiver.
   Finally, all messages infer only to the RTP stream they are related
   to, and not to any other property of a communication system.

   The Full Intra Request (FIR) Command requires the receiver of the message
   (and sender of the stream) to immediately insert a decoder refresh
   point.  In video coding, one commonly used form of a decoder refresh
   point is an IDR or Intra picture. picture, depending on the video compression
   technology in use.  Other codecs may have other forms of decoder
   refresh points.  In order to fulfil fulfill congestion control constraints,
   sending a decoder refresh point may imply a significant drop in frame
   rate, as they are commonly much larger than regular predicted
   content.  The use of this message is restricted to cases where no
   other means of decoder refresh can be employed, e.g. during the join-phase join-
   phase of a new participant in a multipoint conference.  It is
   explicitly disallowed to use the FIR command for error resilience
   purposes, and instead it is referred to AVPF's [RFC4585] PLI message,
   which reports lost pictures and has been included in AVPF for
   precisely that purpose.  The message does not require an acknowledgement, a reception
   notification, as the presence of a decoder refresh point can be
   easily derived from the media bit stream.  Today, the FIR message
   appears to be useful primarily with video streams, but in the future
   it may become helpful also prove helpful in conjunction with other media codecs that
   support prediction across RTP packets.

   The Temporary Maximum Media Bandwidth Stream Bitrate Request (TMMBR) Message allows to
   signal, from media receiver to media sender, the current maximum
   media stream bit-rate for a given media stream.  Once  The maximum media
   stream bit-rate is defined as a bandwidth
   limitation tuple. The first value is established by the bit-
   rate available for the packet stream at the layer reported on. The
   second value is the measured header sizes between the start of the
   header for the layer reported on and the beginning of the RTP
   payload.    Once, the media sender, that sender has received the TMMBR request on
   the bitrate limitation, it notifies the initiator of the request, and
   all other session participants, by sending a Temporal Maximum Media
   Stream Bitrate Notification (TMMBN).  The TMMBN notification message. contains a list of
   the current applicable restrictions to help the participants to
   suppress TMMBR requests that wouldn't result in further restrictions
   for the sender.  One usage scenarios scenario can be seen as limiting media
   senders in multiparty conferencing to the slowest receiver's maximum media bandwidth Maximum
   Media Stream bitrate reception/handling capability.  Such a use is
   helpful, for example, because the receiver's situation may have
   changed due to computational load, or because the receiver has just
   joined the conference conference, and considers it is helpful to inform media
   sender(s) about its constraints, without waiting for congestion
   induced bandwidth bitrate reduction.  Another application involves graceful bandwidth
   bitrate adaptation in scenarios where the upper limit connection bandwidth
   bitrate to a receiver changes, but is known in the interval between
   these dynamic changes.  The TMMBR message is TMMBR/TMMBN messages are useful for all
   media types that are not inherently of constant bit rate.  However,
   TMMBR is not a congestion control mechanism and can't replace the
   need to implement one.

   The Video back channel message Back Channel Message (VBCM) allows conveying bit streams
   conforming to ITU-T Rec. H.271 [H.271], from a video receiver to
   video sender.  This ITU-T Recommendation defines codepoints for a
   number of video-specific feedback messages.  Examples include
   messages to signal:
   - the corruption of reference pictures or parts thereof,
   - the corruption of decoder state information, e.g. parameter sets,
   - the suggestion of using a reference picture other than the one
      typically used, e.g. to support the NEWPRED algorithm [NEWPRED].
   The ITU-T plans has the authority to add codepoints to H.271 every time a
   need arises, e.g. with the introduction of new video codecs or new
   tools into existing video codecs.

   There exists some overlap between H.271 VBCM messages and "native" native messages
   specified in this memo and in AVPF.  Examples include the PLI message
   of [RFC4585] and the FIR message specified herein.  As a general
   rule, the "native" native messages should be prefered preferred over the sending of
   VBCM messages when all senders and receivers implement this memo.
   However, if gateways are in the picture, it may be more advisable to
   utilize VBCM.  Similarly, for feedback message types that exist in
   H.271 but do not exist in this memo or AVPF, there is no other choice
   but using VBCM.

   Video feedback channel messages Back Channel Messages according to H.271 do not require
   acknowledgements a
   notification on a protocol level, because the appropriate reaction of
   the video encoder and sender can be derived from the forward video
   bit stream.

   Finally, the Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR) Message enables a
   video receiver to signal to the video sender its preference for
   spatial quality or high temporal resolution (frame rate).  The  Typically,
   the receiver of the video stream generates this signal typically based on input
   from its user interface, so to react in reaction to explicit requests of the
   user.  However, some implicit use forms are also known.  For example,
   the trade-offs commonly used for live video and document camera
   content are different.  Obviously, this indication is relevant only
   with respect to video transmission.  The message is acknowledged by an announcement a
   notification message indicating the newly chosen tradeoff, so to
   allow immediate user feedback.

2.   Definitions

2.1.     Glossary

   AMID   - Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease
   ASM    - Asynchronous Multicast
   AVPF   - The Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
   FEC    - Forward Error Correction
   FIR    - Full Intra Request
   MCU    - Multipoint Control Unit
   MPEG   - Moving Picture Experts Group
   PtM    - Point to Multipoint
   PtP    - Point to Point
   TMMBN  - Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Stream Bitrate Notification
   TMMBR  - Temporary Maximum Media Bit-rate Stream Bitrate Request
   PLI    - Picture Loss Indication
   TSTN   - Temporal Spatial Trade-off Announcement Notification
   TSTR   - Temporal Spatial Trade-off Request
   VBCM   - Video Back Channel Message indication.

2.2.     Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

          Codepoint defined by this specification, of one of the
          following types:

              Message that requires Acknowledgement

             Message that answers a Request

              Message that forces the receiver to an action

              Message that reports a situation

             See Indication.

            Note that, with the exception of "Notification", ''Notification'', this
            terminology is in alignment with ITU-T Rec. H.245.

     Decoder Refresh Point:
            A bit string, packetised in one or more RTP packets, which
            completely resets the decoder to a known state. Typical
            examples of Decoder Refresh Points are H.261 Intra pictures
            and H.264 IDR pictures. However, there are also much more
            complex decoder refresh points.

           Typical examples points, as discussed below.

            Examples for "hard" decoder refresh points are Intra pictures
            in H.261, H.263, MPEG 1, MPEG 2, and MPEG-4 part 2, and IDR
            pictures in H.264.  "Gradual" decoder refresh points may also
            be used; see for example [AVC].  While both "hard" and
            "gradual" decoder refresh points are acceptable in the scope
            of this specification, in most cases the user experience will
            benefit from using a "hard" decoder refresh point.

            A decoder refresh point also contains all header information
            above the picture layer (or equivalent, depending on the
            video compression standard) that is conveyed in-band.  In
            H.264, for example, a decoder refresh point contains
            parameter set NAL units that generate parameter sets
            necessary for the decoding of the following slice/data
            partition NAL units (and that are not conveyed out of band).
           To the best of the author's knowledge, the term "Decoder
           Refresh Point" has been formally defined only in H.264; hence
           we are referring here to this video compression standard.

           The operation

            The operation of reconstructing the media stream.

            The operation of presenting (parts of) the reconstructed
            media stream to the user.

   Stream thinning:
           The operation of removing some of the packets from a media
            stream.  Stream thinning, preferably, is performed media
           aware, media-aware,
            implying that media packets are removed in the order of their
            relevance to the reproductive quality. However even when
            employing media-aware stream thinning, most media streams
            quickly lose quality when subject to increasing levels of
            thinning.  Media-unaware stream thinning leads to even worse
            quality degradation.  In contrast to transcoding, stream
            thinning is typically seen as a computationally lightweight

   Media:   Often used (sometimes in conjunction with terms like
            bitrate, stream, sender, ...) to identify the content of the
            forward RTP packet stream carrying the codec data to which
            the codec control message applies to.

   Media Stream: The stream of packets carrying the media (and in some
            case also repair information such as retransmission or
            Forward Error Correction (FEC) information). We further
            include within this specification the RTP packetization and
            the usage of additional protocol headers on these packets to
            carry them from sender to receiver.

2.3.     Topologies
   Please refer to [Topologies] for an in depth discussion.  the
   topologies referred to throughout this memo are labeled (consistent
   with [Topologies] as follows:

   Topo-Point-to-Point . . . . . point-to-point communication
   Topo-Multicast  . . . . . . . multicast communication as in RFC 3550
   Topo-Translator . . . . . . . translator based as in RFC 3550
   Topo-Mixer  . . . . . . . . . mixer based as in RFC 3550
   Topo-Video-switch-MCU . . . . video switching MCU,
   Topo-RTCP-terminating-MCU . . mixer but terminating RTCP

3.   Motivation (Informative)

   This section discusses the motivation and usage of the different
   video and media control messages. The video control messages have
   been under discussion for a long time, and a requirement draft was
   drawn up [Basso]. This draft has expired; however we do quote
   relevant sections of it to provide motivation and requirements.

3.1.     Use Cases

   There are a number of possible usages for the proposed feedback
   messages. Let's begin with looking through the use cases Basso et al.
   [Basso] proposed. Some of the use cases have been reformulated and

   1. An RTP video mixer composes multiple encoded video sources into a
      single encoded video stream. Each time a video source is added,
      the RTP mixer needs to request a decoder refresh point from the
      video source, so as to start an uncorrupted prediction chain on
      the spatial area of the mixed picture occupied by the data from
      the new video source.

   2. An RTP video mixer that receives multiple encoded RTP video
      streams from conference participants, and dynamically selects one
      of the streams to be included in its output RTP stream.  At the
      time of a bit stream change (determined through means such as
      voice activation or the user interface), the mixer requests a
      decoder refresh point from the remote source, in order to avoid
      using unrelated content as reference data for inter picture
      prediction.  After requesting the decoder refresh point, the video
      mixer stops the delivery of the current RTP stream and monitors
      the RTP stream from the new source until it detects data belonging
      to the decoder refresh point.  At that time, the RTP mixer starts
      forwarding the newly selected stream to the receiver(s).

   3. An application needs to signal to the remote encoder a request of
      change of the desired trade-off in temporal/spatial resolution.
      For example, one user may prefer a higher frame rate and a lower
      spatial quality, and another use user may prefer the opposite.  This
      choice is also highly content dependent.  Many current video
      conferencing systems offer in the user interface a mechanism to
      make this selection, usually in the form of a slider.  The
      mechanism is helpful in point-to-point, centralized multipoint and
      non-centralized multipoint uses.

   4. Use case 4 of the Basso draft applies only to AVPF's PLI [RFC4585]
      and is not reproduced here.

   5. Use case 5 of the Basso draft relates to a mechanism known as
      "freeze picture request".  Sending freeze picture requests
      over a non-reliable forward RTCP channel has been identified as
      problematic.  Therefore, no freeze picture request has been
      included in this memo, and the use case discussion is not
      reproduced here.

   6. A video mixer dynamically selects one of the received video
      streams to be sent out to participants and tries to provide the
      highest bit rate possible to all participants, while minimizing
      stream transrating. One way of achieving this is to setup sessions
      with endpoints using the maximum bit rate accepted by that
      endpoint, and by the call admission method used by the mixer. By
      means of commands that allow reducing the maximum media Maximum Media Stream
      bitrate beyond what has been negotiated during session setup, the
      mixer can then reduce the maximum bit rate sent by endpoints to
      the lowest common denominator of all received streams. As the
      lowest common denominator changes due to endpoints joining,
      leaving, or network congestion, the mixer can adjust the limits to
      which endpoints can send their streams to match the new limit. The
      mixer then would request a new maximum bit rate, which is equal or
      less than the maximum bit-rate negotiated at session setup, for a
      specific media stream, and the remote endpoint can respond with
      the actual bit-rate that it can support.

   The picture Basso, et al draws up covers most applications we
   foresee. However we would like to extend the list with two additional
   use cases:

   7. The used congestion control algorithms (AMID and TFRC) TFRC [RFC3448])
      probe for more bandwidth available capacity as long as there is something to
      send. With congestion control using packet-loss as the indication
      for congestion, this probing does generally result in reduced
      media quality (often to a point where the distortion is large
      enough to make the media unusable), due to packet loss and
      increased delay. In a number of deployment scenarios, especially
      cellular ones, the bottleneck link is often the last hop link.
      That cellular link also commonly has some type of QoS negotiation
      enabling the cellular device to learn the maximal bit-rate
      available over this last hop. Thus Thus, indicating the maximum
      available bit-rate to the transmitting part can be beneficial to
      prevent it from even trying to exceed the known hard limit that
      exists. For cellular or other mobile devices the available known
      bit-rate can also quickly change due to handover to another
      transmission technology, QoS renegotiation due to congestion, etc.
      To enable minimal disruption of service a possibility for quick convergence, especially in
      cases of reduced bandwidth, a convergence is
      necessary, and therefore media path signalling method signaling is
      desired. desirable.

    8. The use of reference picture selection (RPS) as an error
       resilience tool has been introduced in 1997 as NEWPRED [NEWPRED],
       and is now widely deployed.  It operates  When RPS is in use, simplisticly put,
       the receiver sending can send a feedback message to the sender, indicating
       a reference picture that should be used for future prediction.
       ([NEWPRED] mentions other forms of feedback as well.)  AVPF
       contains a mechanism for conveying such a message, but did not
       specify for which codec and according to which syntax the message
       conforms to.  Recently, the ITU-T finalized Rec. H.271 which
       (among other message types) also includes a feedback message.  It
       is expected that this feedback message will enjoy wide support and
       fairly quickly.  Therefore, a mechanism to convey feedback
       messages according to H.271 appears to be desirable.

3.2.     Using the Media Path

   There are multiple reasons why we propose to use the media path for the codec
   control messages.

   First, systems employing MCUs are often separating the control and
   media processing parts. As these messages are intended or generated
   by the media part rather than the
   signalling signaling part of the MCU, having
   them on the media path avoids interfaces and unnecessary control
   traffic between signalling signaling and processing.  If the MCU is physically
   decomposite, the use of the media path avoids the need for media
   control protocol extensions (e.g. in MEGACO [RFC3525]).

   Secondly, the signalling signaling path quite commonly contains several
   signaling entities, e.g. SIP-proxies and application servers.
   Avoiding signalling going through signaling entities avoids delay for several
   reasons. Proxies have less stringent delay requirements than media
   processing and due to their complex and more generic nature may
   result in significant processing delay. The topological locations of
   signalling signaling entities are also commonly not optimized for minimal
   delay, but rather towards other architectural goals. Thus the signalling
   signaling path can be significantly longer in both geographical and
   delay sense.

3.3.     Using AVPF

   The AVPF feedback message framework [RFC4585] provides a simple way
   of implementing the new messages.  Furthermore, AVPF implements rules
   controlling the timing of feedback messages so to avoid congestion
   through network flooding. flooding by RTCP traffic.  We re-use these rules by
   referencing to AVPF.

   The signalling signaling setup for AVPF allows each individual type of function
   to be configured or negotiated on a RTP session basis.

3.3.1.       Reliability

   The use of RTCP messages implies that each message transfer is
   unreliable, unless the lower layer transport provides reliability.
   The different messages proposed in this specification have different
   requirements in terms of reliability. However, in all cases, the
   reaction to an (occasional) loss of a feedback message is specified.

3.4.     Multicast

   The media related requests codec control messages might be used with multicast. The RTCP
   timing rules specified in [RFC3550] and [RFC4585] ensure that the
   messages do not cause overload of the RTCP connection.  The use of
   multicast may result in the reception of messages with inconsistent
   semantics.   The reaction to inconsistencies depends on the message
   type, and is discussed for each message type separately.

3.5.     Feedback Messages

   This section describes the semantics of the different feedback
   messages and how they apply to the different use cases.

3.5.1.       Full Intra Request Command

   A Full Intra Request (FIR) command, Command, when received by the designated
   media sender, requires that the media sender sends a "decoder refresh
   point" Decoder Refresh
   Point (see 2.2) at the earliest opportunity. The evaluation of such
   opportunity includes the current encoder coding strategy and the
   current available network resources.

   FIR is also known as an "instantaneous ''instantaneous decoder refresh request" request''
   "video ''video fast update request". request''.

   Using a decoder refresh point implies refraining from using any
   picture sent prior to that point as a reference for the encoding
   process of any subsequent picture sent in the stream.  For predictive
   media types that are not video, the analogue applies.  For example,
   if in MPEG-4 systems scene updates are used, the decoder refresh
   point consists of the full representation of the scene and is not
   delta-coded relative to previous updates.

   Decoder Refresh points, Points, especially Intra or IDR pictures, are in
   general several times larger in size than predicted pictures.  Thus,
   in scenarios in which the available bandwidth bit-rate is small, the use of a
   decoder refresh point
   Decoder Refresh Point implies a delay that is significantly longer
   than the typical picture duration.

   Usage in multicast is possible; however aggregation of the commands
   is recommended. A receiver that receives a request closely (within 2
   times the longest Round Trip Time (RTT) known) after sending a
   decoder refresh point
   Decoder Refresh Point should await a second request message to ensure
   that the media receiver has not been served by the previously
   delivered decoder refresh point. Decoder Refresh Point. The reason for delaying 2 times the
   longest known RTT is to avoid sending unnecessary decoder refresh
   points. Decoder Refresh
   Points. A session participant may have sent its own request while
   another participants participant's request was in-flight to them. Thus suppressing Suppressing
   those requests that may have been sent without knowledge about the
   other request avoids this issue.

   Full Intra Request is applicable in use-case 1, 2, and 5.         Reliability

   The FIR message results in the delivery of a decoder refresh point, Decoder Refresh Point,
   unless the message is lost. Decoder refresh points Refresh Points are easily
   identifiable from the bit stream. Therefore, there is no need for
   protocol-level acknowledgement, notification, and a simple command repetition
   mechanism is sufficient for ensuring the level of reliability
   required. However, the potential use of repetition does require a
   mechanism to prevent the recipient from responding to messages
   already received and responded to.

   To ensure the best possible reliability, a sender of FIR may repeat
   the FIR request until a response has been received. The repetition
   interval is determined by the RTCP timing rules applicable to the session operates
   session. Upon reception of a complete decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point or the
   detection of an attempt to send a decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point (which got
   damaged due to a packet loss) loss), the repetition of the FIR must stop.
   If another FIR is necessary, the request sequence number must be
   increased. To combat loss of the decoder refresh points Decoder Refresh Points sent, the
   sender that receives repetitions of the FIR 2*RTT after the
   transmission of the decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point shall send a new decoder
   refresh point. Decoder
   Refresh Point. Two round trip times allow time for the request to
   arrive at the media sender and the decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point to arrive
   back to the requestor.  A FIR sender shall not have more than one FIR
   request (different request sequence number) outstanding at any time
   per media sender in the session.

   An RTP Mixer that receives an FIR from a media receiver is
   responsible to ensure that a decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point is delivered to
   the requesting receiver.  It may be necessary for the mixer to
   generate FIR commands
   by the MCU. commands.  The two legs (FIR-requesting endpoint to MCU,
   mixer, and MCU mixer to
   decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point generating MCU) endpoint) are
   handled independently from each other from a reliability perspective.

3.5.2.       Temporal Spatial Trade-off Request and Announcement Notification

   The Temporal Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR) instructs the video
   encoder to change its trade-off between temporal and spatial
   resolution.  Index values from 0 to 31 indicate monotonically a
   desire for higher frame rate.  That is, a requester asking for an
   index of 0 prefers a high quality and is willing to accept a low
   frame rate, whereas a requester asking for 31 wishes a high frame
   rate, potentially at the cost of low spatial quality.

   In general the encoder reaction time may be significantly longer than
   the typical picture duration.  See use case 3 for an example.  The
   encoder decides if the request results in a change of the trade off.  An acknowledgement process
   The Temporal Spatial Trade-Off Notification message (TSTN) has been
   defined to provide feedback of the trade-off that is used henceforth.

      Informative note: TSTR and TSTA TSTN have been introduced primarily
      because it is believed that control protocol mechanisms, e.g. a SIP
      re-invite, are too heavyweight, and too slow to allow for a
      reasonable user experience.  Consider, for example, a user
      interface where the remote user selects the temporal/spatial trade-
      off with a slider (as it is common in state-of-the-art video
      conferencing systems).  An immediate feedback to any slider
      movement is required for a reasonable user experience.  A SIP re-
      invite [RFC3261] would require at least 2 round-trips more
      (compared to the
     TSTR/TSTA TSTR/TSTN mechanism) and may involve proxies and
      other complex mechanisms.  Even in a well-designed system, it may
      take a second or so until finally the new trade-off is selected.
      Furthermore the use of RTCP solves very efficiently the multicast
      use case.

   The use of TSTR and TSTA TSTN in multipoint scenarios is a non-trivial
   subject, and can be solved in many implementation specific implementation-specific ways.
   Problems are stemming from the fact that TSTRs will typically arrive
   unsynchronized, and may request different trade-off values for the
   same stream and/or endpoint encoder.  This memo does not specify a
   translator, mixer or endpoint's reaction to the reception of a
   suggested trade-
   off trade-off as conveyed in the TSTR -- we only require the
   receiver of a TSTR message to reply to it by sending a TSTA, TSTN, carrying
   the new trade-off chosen by its own criteria (which may or may not be
   based on the trade-off conveyed by TSTR).  In other words, the trade-off trade-
   off sent in TSTR is a non-binding recommendation; nothing more.

   With respect to TSTR/TSTA, TSTR/TSTN, four scenarios based on the topologies
   described in [Topologies] need to be distinguished. The scenarios are
   described in the following sub-clauses.         Point-to-point

   In this most trivial case (Topo-Point-to-Point), the media sender
   typically adjusts its temporal/spatial trade-off based on the
   requested value in TSTR, and within its capabilities.  The TSTA TSTN
   message conveys back the new trade-off value (which may be identical
   to the old one if, for example, the sender is not capable to adjust of
   adjusting its trade-off).         Point-to-Multipoint using Multicast or Translators

   RTCP Multicast is used either with media multicast according to Topo-
   Multicast, or following RFC 3550's translator model according to
   Topo-Translator.  In these cases, TSTR messages from different
   receivers may be received unsynchronized, and possibly with different
   requested trade-offs (because of different user preferences).  This
   memo does not specify how the media sender tunes its trade-off.
   Possible strategies include selecting the mean, or median, of all
   trade-off requests received, prioritize certain participants, or
   continue using the previously selected trade-off (e.g. when the
   sender is not capable of adjusting it).  Again, all TSTR messages
   need to be acknowledged by TSTA, TSTN, and the value conveyed back has to
   reflect the decision made.         Point-to-Multipoint using RTP Mixer

   In this scenario (Topo-Mixer) the RTP Mixer receives all TSTR
   messages, and has the opportunity to act on them based on its own
   criteria.  In most cases, the MCU Mixer should form a "consensus" ''consensus'' of
   potentially conflicting TSTR messages arriving from different
   participants, and initiate its own TSTR message(s) to the media
   sender(s).  The strategy of forming this "consensus" ''consensus'' is open for
   the implementation, and can, for example, encompass averaging the
   participants request values, prioritizing certain participants, or
   use session default values. If the Mixer changes its trade-off, it
   needs to request from the media sender(s) the use of the new value,
   by creating a TSTR of its own. Upon reaching a decision on the used
   trade-off it includes that value in the acknowledgement.

   Even if a Mixer or Translator performs transcoding, it is very
   difficult to deliver media with the requested trade-off, unless the
   content the MCU Mixer or Translator receives is already close to that
   trade-off. Only in cases where the original source has substantially
   higher quality (and bit-rate), it is likely that transcoding can
   result in the requested trade-off.         Reliability

   A request and reception acknowledgement mechanism is specified. The
   Temporal Spatial Trade-off Announcement (TSTA) Notification (TSTN) message informs the
   request-sender that its request has been received, and what trade-off
   is used henceforth. This acknowledgment mechanism is desirable for at
   least the following reasons:

   o A change in the trade-off cannot be directly identified from the
     media bit stream,
   o User feedback cannot be implemented without information of the
     chosen trade-off value, according to the media sender's
   o Repetitive sending of messages requesting an unimplementable trade-
     off can be avoided.

3.5.3.       H.271 Video Back Channel Message

   ITU-T Rec. H.271 defines syntax, semantics, and suggested encoder
   reaction to a video back channel message.  The codepoint defined in
   this memo is used to transparently convey such a message from media
   receiver to media sender.  In this memo, we refrain from an in-depth
   discussion of the available codepoints within H.271 for a number of reasons.  The perhaps most
   important reason is that we expect backward-compatible additions of
   codepoints to H.271 outside the update/maturity cycle of this memo.
   Another reason lies in the complexity of the H.271 specification: it
   is a dense document with currently 16 pages of content.   It does not
   make any sense to try to summarize its content in a few sentences of
   IETF lingo -- oversimplification and misguidance would be inevitable.
   Finally, please note that H.271 contains many statements of
   applicability and interpretation of its various messages in
   conjunction with specific video compression standards.  This type of
   discussion would overload the present memo.

   In so far, this memo follows refer to the guidance of a decade of RTP payload
   specification work -- the details of the media format carried
   is normally not described in any significant detail. text instead [H.271].

   However, we note that some H.271 messages bear similarities with
   native messages of AVPF and this memo.  Furthermore, we note that
   some H.271 message are known to require caution in multicast
   environments -- or are plainly not usable in multicast or multipoint
   scenarios.  Table 1 provides a brief, oversimplifying overview of the
   messages currenty currently defined in H.271, their similar AVPF or CCM
   messages (the latter as specified in this memo), and an indication of
   our current knowledge of their multicast safety.

   H.271 msg type       AVPF/CCM msg type    multicast-safe
   0 (when used for
     reference picture
      selection)        AVPF RPSI        No (positive ACK of pictures)
   1                    AVPF PLI         Yes
   2                    AVPF SLI         Yes
   3                    N/A              Yes (no required sender action)
   4                    N/A              Yes (no required sender action)

   Table 1: H.271 messages and their AVPF/CCM equivalents

          Note: H.271 message type 0 is not a strict equivalent to
          AVPF's RPSI; it is an indication of known-as-correct reference
          picture(s) at the decoder.  It does not command an encoder to
          use a defined reference picture (the form of control
          information envisioned to be carried in RPSI).  However, it is
          believed and intended that H.271 message type 0 will be used
          for the same purpose as AVPF's RPSI -- although other use
          forms are also possible.

   In response to the opaqueness of the H.271 messages especially with
   respect to the multicast safety, the following guidelines MUST be
   followed when an implementation wishes to employ the H.271 video back
   channel message:

   1. Implementations utilizing the H.271 feedback message MUST stay in
      compliance with congestion control principles, as outlined in
      section 5. 5              ..
   2. An implementation SHOULD utilize the native messages as defined in
      [RFC4585] and in this memo instead of similar messages defined in
      [H.271].  Our current understanding of similar messages is
      documented in Table 1 above.  One good reason to divert from the
      SHOULD statement above would be if it is clearly understood that,
      for a given application and video compression standard, the
      aforementioned "similarity" ''similarity'' is not given, in contrast to what
      the table indicates.

   3. It has been observed that some of the H.271 codepoints currently
      in existence are not multicast-safe.  Therefore, the sensible
      thing to do is not to use the H.271 feedback message type in
      multicast environments.  It MAY be used only when all the issues
      mentioned later are fully understood by the implementer, and
      properly taken into account by all endpoints.  In all other cases,
      the H.271 message type MUST NOT be used in conjunction with
   4. It has been observed that even in centralized multipoint
      environments, where the mixer should theoretically be able to
      resolve issues as documented below, the implementation of such a
      mixer and cooperative endpoints is a very difficult and tedious
      task.  Therefore, H.271 message MUST NOT be used in centralized
      multipoint scenarios, unless all the issues mentioned below are
      fully understood by the implementer, and properly taken into
      account by both mixer and endpoints.

   Issues to be taken into account when considering the use of H.271 in
   multipoint environments:

   1. Different state on different receivers.  In many environments it
      cannot be guarantied that the decoder state of all media receivers
      is identical at any given point in time.  The most obvious reason
      for such a possible misalignment of state is a loss that occurs on
      the link to only one of many media receivers.  However, there are
      other not so obvious reasons, such as recent joins to the
      multipoint conference (be it by joining the multicast group or
      through additional mixer output).  Different states can lead the
      media receivers to issue potentially contradicting H.271 messages
      (or one media receiver issuing an H.271 message that, when
      observed by the media sender, is not helpful for the other media
      receivers).  A naive reaction of the media sender to these
      contradicting messages can lead to unpredictable and annoying
   2. Combining messages from different media receivers in a media
      sender is a non-trivial task.  As reasons, we note that these
      messages may be contradicting each other, and that their transport
      is unreliable (there may well be other reasons).  In case of many
      H.271 messages (i.e. types 0, 2, 3, and 4), the algorithm for
      combining must be both aware of the network/protocol environment
      (i.e. with respect to congestion) and of the media codec employed,
      as H.271 messages of a given type can have different semantics for
      different media codecs.
   3. The suppression of requests may need to go beyond the basic
      mechanism described in AVPF (which are driven exclusively by
      timing and transport considerations on the protocol level).  For
      example, a receiver is often required to refrain from (or delay)
      generating requests, based on information it receives from the
      media stream.  For instance, it makes no sense for a receiver to
      issue a FIR when a transmission of an Intra/IDR picture is
   4. When using the not multicast save non-multicast-safe messages (e.g. H.271 type 0
      positive ACK of received pictures/slices) in larger multicast
      groups, the media receiver will likely be forced to delay or even
      omit sending these messages.  For the media sender this looks like
      data has not been properly received (although it was received
      properly), and a naively implemented media sender reacts to these
      perceived problems where it shouldn't.         Reliability

   H.271 video back channel Video Back Channel messages do not require reliable
   transmission, and the reception of a message can be derived from the
   forward video bit stream.  Therefore, no specific reception
   acknowledgement is specified.

   With respect to re-sending rules, clause applies.

3.5.4.       Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Request and Notification

   A receiver, translator or mixer uses the Temporary Maximum Media Bit-
   Stream Bit-rate Request (TMMBR, "timber") to request a sender to
   limit the maximum bit-rate for a media stream to, or below, the
   provided value.  The Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate
   Notification (TMMBN) advises the media receiver(s) of the changed
   bitrate it is not going to exceed henceforth.  The primary usage for
   this is a scenario with a MCU or Mixer (use case 6), corresponding to
   Topo-Translator or Topo-Mixer, but also Topo-Point-
   to-Point. Topo-Point-to-Point.

   The temporary maximum limitation on the media stream is expressed as a tuple;
   one value limiting the bit-rate messages are generic messages
   that can be applied to at the layer for which the overhead
   is calculated to. A second value provides the per packet header
   overhead between the layer for which bit-rate is reported and the
   start of the RTP payload. By having both values the media stream
   sender can determine the effect of changing the packet rate for the
   media stream in an environment which contains translators or mixers
   that affect the amount of per packet overhead. For example a gateway
   that convert between IPv4 and IPv6 would affect the per packet
   overhead commonly with 20 bytes. There exist also other mechanisms,
   like tunnels, that change the amount of headers that are present at a
   particular bottleneck for which the TMMBR sending entity has
   knowledge about. The problem with varying overhead is also discussed
   in [RFC3890].

   The above way of measuring allows for one to provide bit-rate and
   overhead values for different protocol layers, for example on IP
   level, out part of a tunnel protocol, or the link layer.  The level a
   peer report on, is fully dependent on the level of integration the
   peer has, as it needs to be able to extract the information from that
   level. It is expected that peers will be able to report values at
   least for the IP layer, but in certain implementations link layer may
   be available to allow for more precise information.

   The temporary maximum media stream bit-rate messages are generic
   messages that can be applied to any media. RTP packet stream.  This
   separates it a bit from the other codec control messages defined in
   this specification that applies only to specific media types or
   payload formats. The TMMBR functionality applies to the transport and
   the requirements it places on the media encoding.

   The reasoning below assumes that the participants have negotiated a
   session maximum bit-rate, using the signalling a signaling protocol. This value can
   be global, for example in case of point-to-point, multicast, or
   translators.  It may also be local between the participant and the
   peer or mixer. In both cases, the bit-rate negotiated in signalling signaling is
   the one that the participant guarantees to be able to handle (encode
   and decode).  In practice, the connectivity of the participant also
   bears an influence to the negotiated value -- it does not necessarily
   make much sense to negotiate a media bit rate that one's network
   interface does not support.

   An already established temporary bit-rate value may be changed at any
   time (subject to the timing

   It is also beneficial to have negotiated a maximum packet rate for
   the session or sender. RFC 3890 provides such a SDP [RFC4566]
   attribute, however that is not usable in RTP sessions established
   using offer/answer [RFC3264].  Therefore a max packet rate signaling
   parameter is specified.

   An already established temporary limit may be changed at any time
   (subject to the timing rules of the feedback message sending), and to
   any value values between zero and the session maximum, as negotiated during signalling.
   session establishment signaling. Even if a sender has received a
   TMMBR message
   increasing allowing an increase in the bit-rate, all increases
   must be governed by a congestion control algorithm. mechanism. TMMBR only
   indicates known limitations, usually in the local environment, and
   does not provide any
   guarantees. guarantees about the full path.

   If it is likely that the new value  indicated by TMMBR will be valid
   for the remainder of the session, the TMMBR sender can perform a
   renegotiation of the session upper limit using the session signaling
   protocol.         Behavior for media receivers using TMMBR

   In multipart scenarios, different receivers likely have different
   limits for receiving bitrate.  Therefore, an algorithm to identify
   the most restrictive TMMBR requests is specified in section 4                                                               ..2.2.1.
   The general behavior is explaind in this section and the gist of the
   algorithm to determine the most restrictive values are explained
   informally in the next section.

   Immediately after session setup, the bitrate limit is set to the
   session limit as established by the session setup signaling (or
   equivalent).  The overhead value is set to 0.  When the session setup
   signaling does not specify a limit, then unlimited bitrate is
   assumed.  Note that many codecs specify their own limits, e.g.
   through H.264's level concept.

   At any given time, a media receiver can send a TMMBR with a limit
   that is lower than the current limit.  The media receiver use the
   algorithm outlined in the below Section to determine if its
   limit is stricter than already existing ones.  The media sender upon
   receiving the TMMBR request will also excersie the algorithm to
   determine the set of most restrictive limitations and then send a
   TMMBN containg that set. Once the media sender has sent the TMMBN
   message, the receivers indicated in that message becomes ''owners''
   of the limitations.  Most likely, the owner is the original sender of
   the TMMBR -- for the handling of corner-cases (i.e. concurrent TMMBRs
   from different receivers, lost TMMBRs and sender side optimisations)
   please see the formal specification.  ''Owners'' and limits are
   usually known session wide, as both TMMBR and TMMBN are forwarded to
   all in the session unless a Mixer or Translator separate the session
   from RTCP handling point of view.

   Only a ''owner'' is allowed to raise the bitrate limit to a value
   higher than the session has been notified of, but not higher than the
   session limit negotiated by the session setup signaling (see above).
   A ''owner'' does not need to take into account TMMBR messages sent by
   anyone else (although that may well be a desirable optimization).  If
   a ''owner'' sets a new session limit that is too high for someone
   else's liking, other media receivers can react to the situation by
   emmitting their own TMMBR message (and, in the process, become a
   ''owner'').  Limitations belonging to ''owners'' timing out from the
   session are removed by the media sender who notifies the session
   about the event by sending a TMMBN.

   Obviously, when there is only one media receiver, this receiver
   becomes ''owner'' once it receives the first TMMBN in response to its
   own TMMBR, and stays ''owner'' for the rest of the session.
   Therefore, when it is known that there will always be only a single
   media receiver, the above algorithm is not required.  Media receivers
   that are aware they are the only ones in a session can send TMMBR
   messages with bitrate limits both higher and lower than the
   previously notified limit at any time (subject to AVPF's RTCP RR send
   timing rules).  However, it may be difficult for a session
   participant to determine if it is the only receiver in the session.
   Due to that any one implementing TMMBR are required to implement this
   algorithm.         Algorithm for exstablishing current limitations

   First it is important to consider the implications of using a tuple
   for limiting the media sender's behavior. The bit-rate and the
   overhead value results in a 2-dimensional solution space for possible
   media streams. Fortunately the two variables are linked. The bit-rate
   available for RTP payloads will be equal to the TMMBR reported bit-
   rate minus the packet rate used times the TMMBR reported overhead.
   This has the result in a session with two different participants
   having set limitations, the used packet rate will determine which of
   the two that applies.


   Receiver A: TMMBR_BR = 35 kbps, TMMBR_OH = 40
   Receiver B: TMMBR_BR = 40 kbps, TMMBR_OH = 60

   For a given packet rate (PR) the bit-rate available for media
   payloads in RTP will be:

   Max_media_BR_A = TMMBR_BR_A - PR * TMMBR_OH_A * 8
   Max_media_BR_B = TMMBR_BR_B - PR * TMMBR_OH_B * 8

   For a PR = 20 these calculations will yield a Max_media_BR_A = 28600
   bps and Max_media_BR_B = 30400 bps, which shows that receiver A is
   the limiting one for this packet rate. However there will be a PR
   when the difference in bit-rate restriction will be equal to the
   difference in packet overheads. This can be found by setting
   Max_media_BR_A equal to Max_media_BR_B and breaking out PR:

         TMMBR_BR_A - TMMBR_BR_B
   PR = ---------------------------
        8*(TMMBR_OH_A - TMMBR_OH_B)

   Which, for the numbers above yields 31.25 as the intersection point
   between the two limits. The implications of this have to be
   considered by application implementors that are going to control
   media encoding and its packetization. Because, as exemplified above,
   there might be multiple TMMBR limits that applies to the trade-off
   between media bit-rate and packet rate. Which limitation that applies
   depends on the packet rate considered to be used.

   This also has implications for how the TMMBR mechanism needs to work.
   First, there is the possibility that multiple TMMBR tuples are
   providing limitations on the media sender. Secondly there is a need
   for any session participant (meda sender and receivers) to be able to
   determine if a given tuple will become a limitation upon the media
   sender, or if the set of already given limitations are stricter than
   the given values. Otherwise the suppression of TMMBR requests would
   not work.

   Thus any session participant needs to be able from a given set X of
   tuples determine which is the minimal set need to express the
   limitations for all packet rates from 0 to highest possible. Where
   the highest possible either is application limited and indicated
   trough session setup signaling or as a result of the given
   limitations when the available bit-rate is fully consumed by headers.

   First determine what the highest possible bit-rate given all the
   limitations is. If there is provided a session maximum packet rate
   (SMAXPR) then this can be used. In addition one needs to calculate
   for each tuple in the set what its maximum is by calculating bit-rate
   (BR) divided by overhead (OH) per packet converted to bits.

   For i=1 to size(X) {
      tmp_pr = X(i).BR / 8*X(i).OH;
      If (tmp_pr < MaxPR) then MaxPR = tmp_pr

   For a zero packet rate the TMMBR signaled bit-rate will be the only
   limiting factor, thus the tuple with the smallest available bit-rate
   is a limitation at this point of the range and function as a start
   value in the algorithm.

   Start by finding the element X(l) in X with the lowest bit-rate value
   and the highest overhead if there are multiple on the same bit-rate.
   The set Y that is the minimal set of tuples that provide restrictions
   initially contain only X(l). Then for each other tuple X(i) calculate
   if there exist an intersection between the currently selected tuple
   X(s) (initially s=l) and which of the tuples within the set that has
   this intersection at the lowest packet rate. Having found the lowest
   packet rate, compare it with the sessions maximum packet rate. If
   lower than that limit this tuple provide a session limit and the
   tuple is added to Y. Update the value of s to the found tuple and
   repeat search for the tuple that has the intersection at the lowest
   packet rate, but still higher than the previous intersection.
   Algorithm has finished when it can't find any new tuple with an
   intersection at a packet rate lower than the session maximum.

   // Find the element with the lowest bit-rate indicated by TMMBR will be
   valid in X
   for (i=1:size(X)){
     if (X(i).BR <= X(l).BR) & (X(i).OH > X(l).OH) then

   tuple_index = l; // The lowest bit-rate tuple
   Y = X(l);     // Initilize Y to X(l)
   start_pr = 0;    // Start from zero bit-rate
   do {
      current_low = MaxPr; //Reset packet-rate
      current_index = tuple_index; // To allow for no intersection
      For i=each element in X
           pr = (X(i).BR - X(tuple_index).BR) /
                (X(i).OH - X(tuple_index).OH)
                // Calculate packet rate compared to element i
           If (pr < current_low && pr > start_pr) then {
           // Update lowest intersection packet rate
              current_low = pr;
              current_index = i;
        If (current_index != tuple_index) {
          // A tuple intersecting below maxpacket rate
          Y(size(Y)+1) = X(current_index) // Add to Y
          tuple_index = current_index;   // Update which to compare with
          start_pr = current_low;   // Update packet rate to seek from.
   } while (current_low < MaxPr)

   The above algorithm yields the remainder set of applicable restriction Y.         Use of the session, the TMMBR sender can perform in a renegotiation of the session upper limit using the session
   signalling protocol.        MCU Mixer based Multi-point operation

   Assume a small mixer-based multiparty conference is ongoing, as
   depicted in Topo-Mixer of [Topologies]. All participants (A-D) have
   negotiated a common maximum bit-rate that this session can use. The
   conference operates over a number of unicast links paths between the
   participants and the MCU. mixer.  The congestion situation on each of
   links paths can easily be monitored by the participant in question and by
   the MCU, mixer, utilizing, for example, RTCP Receiver Reports. Reports or the
   transport protocol, e.g. DCCP [RFC4340].  However, any given
   participant has no knowledge of the congestion situation of the
   connections to the other participants.  Worse, without mechanisms
   similar to the ones discussed in this draft, the MCU mixer (who is aware
   of the congestion situation on all connections it manages) has no
   standardized means to inform participants media senders to slow down, short of
   forging its own receiver reports (which is undesirable).  In
   principle, an MCU a mixer confronted with such a situation is obliged to
   thin or transcode streams intended for connections that detected

   In practice, media-aware stream thinning - if performed media aware - is unfortunately a very
   difficult and cumbersome operation and adds undesirable delay.  If done media unaware,
   media-unaware, it leads very quickly to unacceptable reproduced media
   quality.  Hence, means to slow down senders even in the absence of
   congestion on their connections to the
   MCU mixer are desirable.

   To allow the MCU mixer to perform congestion control on the individual
   links, without performing transcoding, there is a need for a
   mechanism that enables the MCU mixer to request the participant's media
   encoders to limit their maximum media Maximum Media Stream bit-rate currently used.
   MCU mixer handles the detection of a congestion state between itself
   and a participant as follows:
   1. Start thinning the media traffic to the supported bit-rate.
   2. Use the TMMBR to request the media sender(s) to reduce the media
      bit-rate sent by them to the MCU, mixer, to a value that is in
      compliance with congestion control principles for the slowest
      link.  Slow refers here to the available bandwidth
      bandwidth/bitrate/capacity and packet rate after congestion
   3. As soon as the bit-rate has been reduced by the sending part, the
      mixer stops stream thinning implicitly, because there is no need
      for it any more as the stream is in compliance with congestion

   Above algorithms may suggest to some that there is no need for the
   TMMBR - it should be sufficient to solely rely on stream thinning.
   As much as this is desirable from a network protocol designer's
   viewpoint, it has the disadvantage that it doesn't work very
   well - the reproduced media quality quickly becomes unusable.

   It appears to be a reasonable compromise to rely on stream thinning
   as an immediate reaction tool to combat congestions, and have a quick
   control mechanism that instructs the original sender to reduce its

   Note also that the standard RTCP receiver report cannot serve for the
   purpose mentioned.  In an environment with RTP Mixers, mixers, the RTCP RR is
   being sent between the RTP receiver in the endpoint and the RTP
   sender in the Mixer mixer only - as there is no multicast transmission.
   The stream that needs to be bandwidth-reduced, bitrate-reduced, however, is the one
   between the original sending endpoint and the Mixer. mixer.  This endpoint
   doesn't see the aforementioned RTCP RRs, and hence needs to be
   explicitly informed about desired bandwidth bitrate adjustments.

   In this topology it is the Mixer's mixer's responsibility to collect, and
   consider jointly, the different bit-rates which the different links
   may support, into the bit rate requested. This aggregation may also
   take into account that the Mixer mixer may contain certain transcoding
   capabilities (as discussed in under Topo-Mixer in [Topologies]),
   which can be employed for those few of the session participants that
   have the lowest available bit-rates.         Use of TMMBR in Point-to-Multipoint using Multicast or

   In these topologies, corresponding to Topo-Multicast or Topo-
   Translator RTCP RRs are transmitted globally which allows for the
   detection of transmission problems such as congestion, on a medium
   timescale.  As all media senders are aware of the congestion
   situation of all media receivers, the rationale of the use of TMMBR
   of section does not apply.  However, even in this case the
   congestion control response can be improved when the unicast links
   are employing congestion controlled transport protocols (such as TCP
   or DCCP). A peer may also report local limitation to the media
   sender.         Use of TMMBR in Point-to-point operation

   In use case 7 it is possible to use TMMBR to improve the performance
   at times of changes in the known upper limit of the bit-rate.  In
   this use case the signalling signaling protocol has established an upper limit
   for the session and media bit-rates.  However  However, at the time of
   transport link bit-rate reduction, a receiver could avoid serious
   congestion by sending a TMMBR to the sending side. Thus TMMBR is
   useful for putting restrictions on the application and thus placing
   the congestion control mechanism in the right ballpark. However TMMBR
   is usually unable to have continuously quick feedback loop required
   for real congestion control. Its semantics is also not a match for
   congestion control due to its different purpose. Because of these
   reasons TMMBR SHALL NOT be used for congestion control.         Reliability

   The reaction of a media sender to the reception of a TMMBR message is
   not immediately identifiable through inspection of the media stream.
   Therefore, a more explicit mechanism is needed to avoid unnecessary
   re-sending of TMMBR messages. Using a statistically based
   retransmission scheme would only provide statistical guarantees of
   the request being received. It would also not avoid the
   retransmission of already received messages. In addition addition, it does not
   allow for easy suppression of other participants requests. For the
   reasons mentioned, a mechanism based on explicit notification is
   used, as discussed already in section

   Upon the reception of a request a media sender sends a notification
   containing the current applicable limitation of the bit-rate, and
   which session participants that own that limit. That In multicast
   scenarios, that allows all other participants to suppress any request
   they may have, with limitation
   value equal or higher to values less strict than the current one.
   ones. The identity of the owner owners allows for small message sizes and
   media sender states. A media sender only keeps state for the SSRC SSRCs of
   the current owner owners of the
   limitation; limitations; all other requests and their
   sources are not saved. Only the participant with the lowest value is owners are allowed to remove or
   change its limitation. Otherwise Otherwise, anyone that ever set a limitation
   would need to remove it to allow the maximum bit-rate to be raised
   beyond that value.

4.   RTCP Receiver Report Extensions

   This memo specifies six new feedback messages. The Full Intra Request
   (FIR), Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR), Temporal-Spatial
   Trade-off Announcement (TSTA), Notification (TSTN), and Video Back Channel Message (VBCM)
   are "Payload Specific Feedback Messages" as defined in the sense of section Section 6.3 of
   AVPF [RFC4585].  The Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Request
   (TMMBR) and Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Notification
   (TMMBN) are "Transport Layer Feedback Messages" as defined in the sense of section Section
   6.2 of AVPF.

   In the following subsections, the new feedback messages are defined,
   following a similar structure as in the AVPF specification's sections
   6.2 and 6.3, respectively.

4.1. Design Principles of the Extension Mechanism

   RTCP was originally introduced as a channel to convey presence,
   reception quality statistics and hints on the desired media coding.
   A limited set of media control mechanisms have been introduced in
   early RTP payload formats for video formats, for example in RFC 2032
   [RFC2032].  However, this specification, for the first time, suggests
   a two-way handshake for one some of its messages.  There is danger that
   this introduction could be misunderstood as the precedence for the
   use of RTCP as an RTP session control protocol. In order to prevent
   these misunderstandings, this subsection attempts to clarify the
   scope of the extensions specified in this memo, and strongly suggests
   that future extensions follow the rationale spelled out here, or
   compellingly explain why they divert from the rationale.

   In this memo, and in AVPF [RFC4585], only such messages have been
   included which

   a) have comparatively strict real-time constraints, which prevent the
      use of mechanisms such as a SIP re-invite in most application
      scenarios.  The real-time constraints are explained separately for
      each message where necessary
   b) are multicast-safe in that the reaction to potentially
      contradicting feedback messages is specified, as necessary for
      each message
   c) are directly related to activities of a certain media codec, class
      of media codecs (e.g. video codecs), or the a given media RTP packet stream.

   In this memo, a two-way handshake is only introduced for such
   messages that
   a) require a notification or acknowledgement due to their nature,
      which is motivated separately for each message
   b) the notification or acknowledgement cannot be easily derived from
      the media bit stream.

   All messages in AVPF [RFC4585] and in this memo follow implement their
   codepoints in a number of
   common simple, fixed binary format.  The reason behind this
   design principles.  In particular:

   a) Media principle lies in that media receivers are do not always implementing implement
   higher control protocol functionalities (SDP, XML parsers and such)
   in their media path.  Therefore, simple binary representations are
   used in the feedback messages and not an (otherwise desirable)
   flexible format such as, for example, XML.

4.2. Transport Layer Feedback Messages

   Transport Layer FB messages are identified by the value RTPFB (205)
   as RTCP packet type. type (see section 6.1 of RFC 4585 [RFC4585].

   In AVPF, one message of this category had been defined.  This memo
   specifies two more messages messages, for a total of three messages of this
   type.  They are identified by means of the FMT parameter as follows:

      0:    unassigned
      1:    Generic NACK (as per AVPF)
      2:    reserved (see note below)
      3:    Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Request
      3: (TMMBR)
      4:    Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Notification
      4-30: (TMMBN)
      5-30: unassigned
      31:   reserved for future expansion of the identifier number space

          Note: early drafts of AVPF [RFC4585] reserved FMT=2 for a
          codepoint that has later been removed.  It has been pointed
          out that there may be implementations in the field using this
          value for according to the expired draft.  As there is
          sufficient numbering space available, we mark FMT=2 as
          reserved so to avoid possible interoperability problems with
          implementations that are standard-incompliant with respect to
          RFC 4585 in this very point.

   The following subsection defines the formats of the FCI field for
   this type of FB message.

4.2.1. Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Request and Notification

   The FCI field of a Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-Rate Request
   (TMMBR) message SHALL contain one or more FCI entries.  Semantics

   TMMBR is used to indicate the transport related limitation in the
   form of a tuple.  The first value is the highest bit-rate per sender
   of a media, which the receiver currently supports in this RTP session
   observed at a particular protocol layer.  The second value is the
   measured header overhead in bytes on the packets received for the
   stream. Counting from the start of the header on the protocol layer
   for which the bit-rate is reported until the RTP payload's start.
   The FCI field measurement of the overhead is a TMMBR Feedback message SHALL contain one or more
   FCI entries.        Semantics

   The TMMBR running averaging that is used
   updated for each packet received for this particular media source
   (SSRC). For each packet received the overhead is calculated (pckt_OH)
   and then added to indicate the highest average overhead (avg_OH) by calculating:
   avg_OH = 15/16*avg_OH + 1/16*pckt_OH.

   The bit-rate per sender of a
   media, which the receiver currently supports values used in this RTP session. formats are averaged out over a
   reasonable timescale. What reasonable timescales are, depends on the
   application. However the goal is be able to ignore any burstiness on
   very short timescales, below for example 100 ms, introduced by
   scheduling or link layer packetization effects.

   The media sender MAY use any combination of packet rate and RTP
   payload bit-rate to produce a lower media stream bit-rate, as it may
   need to address a congestion situation or other limiting factors.
   See section 5               . (congestion control) for more discussion.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   request, and the "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL be
   set to 0. The SSRC of media sender in the FCI field denotes the media
   sender the message applies to. This is useful in the multicast or
   translator topologies where each media sender may be addressed in a
   single TMMBR message using multiple FCIs.

   A TMMBR FCI MAY be repeated in subsequent TMMBR messages if no
   applicable TMMBN Temporal Maximum Media Stream Bit-Rate Notification
   (TMMBN) FCI has been received at the time of transmission of the next
   RTCP packet. A TMMBN is applicable if it either indicate the sender
   of the TMMBR as an owner, or contains limitations that are stricter
   than one sent in the TMMBR message.  The bit-rate value of a TMMBR
   FCI MAY be changed from a previous TMMBR message and the next,
   regardless of the eventual reception of an applicable TMMBN FCI.

   Please note that a The
   overhead measurement SHALL be updated to the current value of avg_OH.

   A TMMBN message SHALL be sent by the media sender at the earliest
   possible point in time, as a result of any TMMBR messages received
   since the last sending of TMMBN.  The TMMBN message indicates the limit
   limits and the owner owners of that limit those limits at the time of the transmission
   of the message. The limit is limits SHALL be set to the lowest set of the stricts
   limits of the previous
   value limits and all values limits received in TMMBR FCI's
   since the last TMMBN was transmitted.

   A media receiver considering sending a TMMBR, who is not the owner a ''owner''
   of the bandwidth limit when
   planning to send a TMMBR, limitation, SHOULD request a bandwidth lower limitation stricter than their
   knowledge of the currently established bandwidth limit limits for this media sender,
   or suppres suppress their transmission for of the TMMBR.  The exception to the
   above rule is when a receiver either doesn't know the limit or
   are is
   certain that their local representation of the value is set of limitations are
   in error.  All received requests for bandwidth limits greater equally or equal less strict
   compared to the
   one ones currently established are MUST BE ignored, with the
   exception of them resulting in the transmission of a TMMBN. TMMBN containg
   the current set of limitations.  A media receiver who is the owner of the
   a current bandwidth limit, limitation MAY lower the value further, raise the value or
   remove the restriction completely by setting the bandwidth bit-rate part of the
   limit equal to the session bit-rate limit.

   A limitation tuple LT can be determined to be stricter or not
   compared to the current set of limitations if LT is part of the set Y
   produced by the algorithm described in Section

   Once a session participant receives the TMMBN in response to its
   TMMBR, with its own SSRC, it knows that it "owns" the bandwidth bitrate
   limitation.  Only the "owner" of a bandwidth bitrate limitation can raise it or
   reset it to the session limit.

   Note that, due to the unreliable nature of transport of TMMBR and
   TMMBN, the above rules may lead to the sending of TMMBR messages
   disobeying the rules above.  Furthermore, in multicast scenarios it
   can happen that more than one session participants believes it "owns"
   the current bandwidth bitrate limitation.  This is not critical for a number of
   a) If a TMMBR message is lost in transmission, the media sender does
      not learn about the restrictions imposed on it.  However, it also
      does not send a TMMBN message notifying reception of a request it
      has never received.  Therefore, no new limit is established, the
      media receiver sending the a more restrictive TMMBR is not the owner.
      Since this media receiver has not seen a notification
      corresponding to its request, it is free to re-send it.
   b) Similarly, if a TMMBN message gets lost, the media receiver that
      has sent the corresponding TMMBR request does not receive
     acknowledgement. the
      Notification.  In that case, it is also not the "owner" of the
      restriction and is free to re-send the request.
   c) If multiple competing TMMBR messages are sent by different session
      participants, then the resulting TMMBN indicates the lowest
     bandwidth requested; the owner is set to the sender of the most
      restrictive limits requested including its owners.

   d) If more than one session participant incidently send TMMBR
      messages at the same time and with the lowest requested bandwidth value.

   TMMBR feedback SHOULD NOT be used if same limit, the underlying transport
   protocol is capable media
      sender selects one of providing similar feedback information from them and addresses it as the receiver to ''owner''.
      Session-wide, the sender. correct limit is thereby established.

   It is also important to consider the security risks involved with
   faked TMMBRs. See security considerations in Section 6.

   The feedback messages may be used in both multicast and unicast
   sessions of any of the specified topologies.

   For sessions with a larger large number of participants using the lowest
   common denominator, as required by this mechanism, may not be the
   most suitable course of action. Larger Large session may need to consider
   other ways to support adapted bit-rate to participants, such as
   partitioning the session in different quality tiers, or use some
   other method of achieving bit-rate scalability.

   If the value set by a TMMBR message is expected to be permanent permanent, the
   TMMBR setting party is RECOMMENDED to renegotiate the session
   parameters to reflect that using the session setup signalling. signaling, e.g. a SIP

   An SSRC may time out according to the default rules for RTP session
   participants, i.e. the media sender has not received any RTCP packet
   from the owner for the last five regular reporting intervals. An SSRC
   may also leave the session, indicating this through the transmission
   of an RTCP BYE packet or an external signalling signaling channel. In all of
   these cases the entity is considered to have left the session. In the
   case the "owner" leaves the session, the value limit SHALL be set to the
   session maximum removed and
   the transmission of a TMMBN is scheduled. scheduled indicating the remaining
   limitations.         Message Format

   The Feedback control information Control Information (FCI) consists of one or more TMMBR
   FCI entries with the following syntax:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |                              SSRC                             |
   |            Maximum bit-rate in units of 128 bits/s MMBR Exp  |  MMBR Mantissa                  |Measured Overhead|

   Figure 1 - Syntax for the TMMBR message
     SSRC:   The SSRC value of the target of this specific media sender that is requested to
              obey the new maximum bit-
             rate request. bit-rate).
     MMBR Exp (6 bits): The exponential scaling of the mantissa for the
              Maximum bit-rate: Media Stream bit-rate value. The value is non
              signed integer [0..63].

     MMBR Mantissa (17 bits): The mantissa of the Maximum Media Stream
              Bit-rate value as a non-signed integer.

     Measured Overhead (9 bits): The measured average packet overhead
              value in bytes. The measurement SHALL be done according to
              above description in Section

   The temporary maximum media stream bit-rate (MMBR) value in
             units of 128 bit/s. bits per second is
   calculated from the MMBR exponent (exp) and mantissa in the following

      MMBR = mantissa * 2^exp

   This provides allows for 17 bits of resolution in the range from 0 to
             549755813888 bits/s (~550 Tbit/s) with a granularity of 128
             bits/s. 131072*2^63
   (approximately 1.2*10^24).

   The length of the FB message is be set to 2+2*N where N is the number
   of TMMBR FCI entries.         Timing Rules

   The first transmission of the request message MAY use early message MAY use early or
   immediate feedback in cases when timeliness is desirable. Any
   repetition of a request message SHOULD use regular RTCP mode for its
   transmission timing.          Handling in Translator and Mixers

   Media Translators and Mixers will need to receive and respond to
   TMMBR messages as they are part of the chain that provides a certain
   media stream to the receiver. The mixer or translator may act locally
   on the TMMBR request and thus generate a TMMBN to indicate that it
   has done so. Alternatively it can forward the request in the case of
   a media translator, or
   immediate feedback generate one of itself in cases when timeliness is desirable. Any
   repetition the case of the
   mixer. In case it generates a request message SHOULD use regular RTCP mode for its
   transmission timing. TMMBR, it will need to send a TMMBN
   back to the original requestor to indicate that it is handling the

4.2.2.       Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate Notification (TMMBN)

   The FCI field of the TMMBN Feedback message SHALL may contain zero, one or
   more TMMBN FCI entry.         Semantics

   This feedback message is used to notify the senders of any TMMBR
   message that one or more TMMBR messages have been received. received or that a
   owner has left the session.  It indicates to all participants the set
   of currently employed maximum bit-rate
   value limitations and the "owner" of the current limitation.  The "owner" of a
   limitation is the sender ''owners'' of the last (most restrictive) TMMBR message
   received by the media sender. those.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   notification.  The "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL be
   set to the SSRC of
   the media receiver that currently owns the bit-rate limitation. 0.

   A TMMBN message SHALL be scheduled for transmission after the
   reception of a TMMBR message with a FCI including the session
   participant's SSRC. identifying this media
   sender.  Only a single TMMBN SHALL be sent, even if more than one
   TMMBR messages are received between the scheduling of the
   transmission and the actual transmission of the TMMBN message. The
   TMMBN message indicates the limit limits and the owner of that limit their owners at the time of
   transmitting the message. The limit limits included SHALL be the lowest set of
   most restrictive values in the existing previously established set and all values
   received in TMMBR messages since the last TMMBN was transmitted.

   The one sending that request SHALL become the
   owner of the limit.

   The reception of a TMMBR message with a transmission limit greater equally or
   less restrictive than the set of current limit limits SHALL still result in
   the transmission of a TMMBN message. However the limit limits and owner is their
   owners are not changed, unless it was from the same owner, and the current limit and an owner is
   indicated in of a limit within
   the TMMBN message. current set of limitations.  This procedure allows session
   participants that haven't seen the last TMMBN message to get a
   correct view of this media sender's state.

   When a media media sender determines an ''owner'' of a limitation has left
   the session, then that limitation is removed, and the media sender
   SHALL send a TMMBN message indicating the remaining limitations.  In
   case there are no remaining limitations a TMMBN without any FCI SHALL
   be sent to indicate this.

   In unicast scenarios (i.e. where a single sender determines an "owner" of talks to a limitation has left single
   receiver), the session, then aforementioned algorithm to determine ownership
   degenerates to the current limitation is removed, and media receiver becoming the ''owner'' as soon as
   the media
   sender SHALL send a TMMBN message indicating receiver has issued the maximum session
   bandwidth. first TMMBR message.         Message Format

   The TMMBN Feedback control information Control Information (FCI) entry has consists of zero, one or more
   TMMBN FCI entries with the following syntax:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |            Maximum bit-rate in units of 128 bits/s                              SSRC                             |
   | MMBR Exp  |  MMBR Mantissa                  |Measured Overhead|

   Figure 2 - Syntax for the TMMBN TMMBR message

     SSRC:   The SSRC value of the ''owner'' of this limitation.

     MMBR Exp (6 bits): The exponential scaling of the mantissa for the
              Maximum bit-rate: Media Stream bit-rate value. The current temporary value is non-
              signed integer [0..63].

     MMBR Mantissa (17 bits): The mantissa of the Maximum Media Stream
              Bit-rate value as non-signed integer.

     Measured Overhead (9 bits): The measured average packet overhead
              value in bytes represented as non-signed integer.

   Thus the FCI contains blocks indicating the applicable limitations as
   the owner followed by the applicable maximum media stream bit-rate
             value in units of 128 bit/s.
   and overhead value.

   The length field value of the FB message SHALL is be 3. set to 2+2*N where N is the number
   of TMMBR FCI entries.         Timing Rules

   The acknowledgement SHOULD be sent as soon as allowed by the applied
   timing rules for the session. Immediate or early feedback mode SHOULD
   be used for these messages.         Handling by Translators and Mixers

   As discussed in Section mixer or translators may need to
   issue TMMBN messages as response to TMMBR messages handled by the
   mixer or translator.

4.3.     Payload Specific Feedback Messages

   Payload-Specific FB messages are identified by the value PT=PSFB
   (206) as RTCP packet type. type (see section 6.1 of RFC 4585 [RFC4585]).

   AVPF defines three payload-specific FB messages and one application
   layer FB message.  This memo specifies four additional payload payload-
   specific feedback messages.  All are identified by means of the FMT
   parameter as follows:

     0:     unassigned
     1:     Picture Loss Indication (PLI)
     2:     Slice Lost Indication (SLI)
     3:     Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI)
     4:     Full Intra Request Command (FIR)
     5:     Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR)
     6:     Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Announcement (TSTA) Notification (TSTN)
      7:     Video Back Channel Message (VBCM)
      8-14:  unassigned
     15:    Application layer FB message
     16-30: unassigned
     31:    reserved for future expansion of the number space

   The following subsections define the new FCI formats for the payload-
   specific FB messages.

4.3.1.       Full Intra Request (FIR) command

   The FIR command FB message is identified by PT=PSFB and FMT=4.

   There MUST be one or more FIR entry contained in the FCI field.         Semantics

   Upon reception of a FIR message, an FIR, the encoder MUST send a decoder
   refresh point Decoder Refresh Point
   (see Section 2.2) 2                ..2) as soon as possible.

     Note: Currently, video appears to be the only useful application
     for FIR, as it appears to be the only RTP payloads widely deployed
     that relies heavily on media prediction across RTP packet
     boundaries.  However, use of FIR could also reasonably be
     envisioned for other media types that share essential properties
     with compressed video, namely cross-frame prediction (whatever a
     frame may be for that media type).  One possible example may be the
     dynamic updates of MPEG-4 scene descriptions.  It is suggested that
     payload formats for such media types refer to FIR and other message
     types defined in this specification and in AVPF, instead of
     creating similar mechanisms in the payload specifications.  The
     payload specifications may have to explain how the payload specific payload-specific
     terminologies map to the video-centric terminology used here. herein.

     Note: In environments where the sender has no control over the
     codec (e.g. when streaming pre-recorded and pre-coded content), the
     reaction to this command cannot be specified.  One suitable
     reaction of a sender would be to skip forward in the video bit
     stream to the next decoder refresh point.  In other scenarios, it
     may be preferable not to react to the command at all, e.g. when
     streaming to a large multicast group.  Other reactions may also be
     possible.  When deciding on a strategy, a sender could take into
     account factors such as the size of the receiving group, the
     ''importance'' of the sender of the FIR message (however "importance"
     ''importance'' may be defined in this specific application), the
     frequency of
     decoder refresh points Decoder Refresh Points in the content, and others.
     However a session which predominately handles pre-coded content shouldn't is
     not expected to use
     the FIR at all.

   The sender MUST consider congestion control as outlined in section 5, 5                                                                      .,
   which MAY restrict its ability to send a decoder refresh point

     Note: The relationship between the Picture Loss Indication and FIR
     is as follows. As discussed in section 6.3.1 of AVPF, a Picture
     Loss Indication informs the decoder about the loss of a picture and
     hence the likeliness of misalignment of the reference pictures in
     the encoder and decoder.  Such a scenario is normally related to
     losses in an ongoing connection.  In point-to-point scenarios, and
     without the presence of advanced error resilience tools, one
     possible option of an encoder has is to send consists in sending a decoder refresh point. Decoder Refresh
     Point.  However,
     there are other options including ignoring the PLI, for example if
     only one receiver of many has sent a PLI or when there are other options.  One example is that the
     media sender ignores the PLI, because the embedded stream
     redundancy is likely to clean up the reproduced picture within a
     reasonable amount of time.  The FIR, in contrast, leaves a
     real-time (real-
     time) encoder no choice but to send a decoder refresh point. Decoder Refresh Point.  It
     disallows the encoder to take into account any considerations such
     as the ones mentioned above.

     Note: Mandating a maximum delay for completing the sending of a
     decoder refresh point
     Decoder Refresh Point would be desirable from an application
     viewpoint, but may be problematic from a congestion control point
     of view.  "As  ''As soon as possible" possible'' as mentioned above appears to be
     a reasonable compromise.

   FIR SHALL NOT be sent as a reaction to picture losses - -- it is
   RECOMMENDED to use PLI instead.  FIR SHOULD be used only in such
   situations where not sending a decoder refresh point would render the
   video unusable for the users.

     Note: a A typical example where sending FIR is adequate appropriate is when,
     in a multipoint conference, a new user joins the session and no
     decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point interval is established.  Another
     example would be a video switching MCU that changes streams.  Here,
     normally, the MCU issues a FIR to the new sender so to force it to
     emit a decoder refresh point. Decoder Refresh Point.  The decoder refresh point Decoder Refresh Point includes
     normally a Freeze Picture Release (defined outside this
     specification), which re-starts the rendering process of the
     receivers.  Both techniques mentioned are commonly used in MCU-
     based multipoint conferences.

   Other RTP payload specifications such as RFC 2032 [RFC2032] already
   define a feedback mechanism for certain codecs.  An application
   supporting both schemes MUST use the feedback mechanism defined in
   this specification when sending feedback.  For backward compatibility
   reasons, such an application SHOULD also be capable to receive and
   react to the feedback scheme defined in the respective RTP payload
   format, if this is required by that payload format.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   request, and the "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL be
   set to 0. The SSRC of media sender to which the FIR command applies
   to is in the FCI.            Message Format

   Full Intra Request uses one additional FCI field, the content of
   which is depicted in Figure 3  The length of the FB message MUST be
   set to 2+2*N, where N is the number of FCI entries.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |                              SSRC                             |
   | Seq. nr       |    Reserved                                   |

   Figure 3 - Syntax for the FIR message
     SSRC:   The SSRC value of the media sender of this specific FIR
             command. which is requested to
              send a Decoder Refresh Point.

     Seq. nr: Command sequence number. The sequence number space is
              unique for each tuple consisting of the SSRC of command
              source and the SSRC of the command target. The sequence
              number SHALL be increased by 1 modulo 256 for each new
              command. A repetition SHALL NOT increase the sequence
              number. Initial value is arbitrary.

     Reserved: All bits SHALL be set to 0 and SHALL be ignored on

   The semantics of this FB message is independent of the RTP payload
   type.         Timing Rules

   The timing follows the rules outlined in section 3 of [RFC4585].  FIR
   commands MAY be used with early or immediate feedback.  The FIR
   feedback message MAY be repeated. If using immediate feedback mode
   the repetition SHOULD wait at least onee one RTT before being sent. In
   early or regular RTCP mode the repetition is sent in the next regular
   RTCP packet.         Handling of message in Mixer and Translators

   A media translator or a mixer performing media encoding of the
   content for which the session participant has issued a FIR is
   responsible for acting upon it. A mixer acting upon a FIR SHOULD NOT
   forward the message unaltered, instead it SHOULD issue a FIR itself.         Remarks

   In conjunction with video codecs, FIR messages typically trigger the
   sending of full intra or IDR pictures. Both are several times larger
   then predicted (inter) pictures.  Their size is independent of the
   time they are generated. In most environments, especially when
   employing bandwidth-limited links, the use of an intra picture
   implies an allowed delay that is a significant multitude of the
   typical frame duration.  An example: If the sending frame rate is 10
   fps, and an intra picture is assumed to be 10 times as big as an
   inter picture, then a full second of latency has to be accepted.  In
   such an environment there is no need for a
   particular particularly short delay
   in sending the FIR message.  Hence waiting for the next possible time
   slot allowed by RTCP timing rules as per [RFC4585] may not have an
   overly negative impact on the system performance.

4.3.2.       Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request (TSTR)

   The TSTR FB message is identified by PT=PSFB and FMT=5.

   There MUST be one or more TSTR entry contained in the FCI field.         Semantics

   A decoder can suggest the use of a temporal-spatial trade-off by
   sending a TSTR message to an encoder.  If the encoder is capable of
   adjusting its temporal-spatial trade-off, it SHOULD take into account
   the received TSTR message for future coding of pictures.  A value of
   0 suggests a high spatial quality and a value of 31 suggests a high
   frame rate. The values from 0 to 31 indicate monotonically a desire
   for higher frame rate. Actual values do not correspond to precise
   values of spatial quality or frame rate.

   The reaction to the reception of more than one TSTR message by a
   media sender from different media receivers is left open to the
   implementation.  The selected trade-off SHALL be communicated to the
   media receivers by the means of the TSTA TSTN message.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   request, and the "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL be
   set to 0. The SSRC of media sender to which the TSTR applies to is in
   the FCI entries.

   A TSTR message may contain multiple requests to different media
   senders, using multiple FCI entries.            Message Format

   The Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Request uses one FCI field, the
   content of which is depicted in Figure 4.  The length of the FB
   message MUST be set to 2+2*N, where N is the number of FCI entries

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |                              SSRC                             |
   |  Seq nr.      |  Reserved                           | Index   |

   Figure 4 - Syntax of the TSTR

     SSRC:   The SSRC value of the target (or the media sender) of this
             specific TSTR request. sender which is requested to apply
              the tradeoff value in Index.

     Seq. nr: Request sequence number. The sequence number space is
              unique for each tuple consisting of the SSRC of request
              source and the SSRC of the request target. The sequence
              number SHALL be increased by 1 modulo 256 for each new
              command. A repetition SHALL NOT increase the sequence
              number. Initial value is arbitrary.

     Index:  An integer value between 0 and 31 that indicates the
              relative trade off that is requested. An index value of 0
              index highest possible spatial quality, while 31 indicates
              highest possible temporal resolution.

     Reserved: All bits SHALL be set to 0 and SHALL be ignored on
              reception.         Timing Rules

   The timing follows the rules outlined in section 3 of [RFC4585].
   This request message is not time critical and SHOULD be sent using
   regular RTCP timing. Only if it is known that the user interface
   requires a quick feedback, the message MAY be sent with early or
   immediate feedback timing.         Handling of message in Mixers and Translators

   Mixer or Media translators that encodes content sent to the session
   participant issuing the TSTR SHALL consider the request to determine
   if it can fulfill it by changing its own encoding parameters. A media
   translator unable to fulfill the request MAY forward the request
   unaltered towards the media sender. A Mixer encoding for multiple
   session participants will need to consider the joint needs before
   generating a TSTR for itself towards the media sender.  See also
   discussion in Section .                         3.5.2.         Remarks

   The term "spatial quality" does not necessarily refer to the
   resolution, measured by the number of pixels the reconstructed video
   is using.  In fact, in most scenarios the video resolution stays
   constant during the lifetime of a session.  However, all video
   compression standards have means to adjust the spatial quality at a
   given resolution, often influenced by the Quantizer Parameter or QP.
   A numerically low QP results in a good reconstructed picture quality,
   whereas a numerically high QP yields a coarse picture.  The typical
   reaction of an encoder to this request is to change its rate control
   parameters to use a lower frame rate and a numerically lower (on
   average) QP, or vice versa.  The precise mapping of Index, frame
   rate, and QP is intentionally left open here, as it depends on
   factors such as compression standard employed, spatial resolution,
   content, bit rate, and many more.

4.3.3.       Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Announcement (TSTA) Notification (TSTN)

   The TSTA FB TSTN message is identified by PT=PSFB and FMT=6.

   There SHALL be one or more TSTA TSTN contained in the FCI field.         Semantics

   This feedback message is used to acknowledge the reception of a TSTR.
   A TSTA TSTN entry in a TSTA TSTN feedback message SHALL be sent for each TSTR
   entry targeted to this session participant, i.e. each TSTR received
   that in the SSRC field in the entry has the receiving entities SSRC.
   A single TSTA TSTN message MAY acknowledge multiple requests using
   multiple FCI entries.  The index value included SHALL be the same in
   all FCI's part of the TSTA TSTN message.  Including a FCI for each
   requestor allows each requesting entity to determine that the media
   sender targeted have received the request.  The announcement Notification SHALL be
   sent also for repetitions received. If the request receiver has
   received TSTR with several different sequence numbers from a single
   requestor it SHALL only respond to the request with the highest
   (modulo 256) sequence number.

   The TSTA TSTN SHALL include the Temporal-Spatial Trade-off index that will
   be used as a result of the request. This is not necessarily the same
   index as requested, as media sender may need to aggregate requests
   from several requesting session participants. It may also have some
   other policies or rules that limit the selection.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   Notification, and the "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL
   be set to 0. The SSRC of the requesting entity to which the announcement
   Notification applies to is in the FCI.            Message Format

   The Temporal-Spatial Trade-off Announcement Notification uses one additional FCI
   field, the content of which is depicted in Figure 5.  The length of
   the FB message MUST be set to 2+2*N, where N is the number of FCI

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |                              SSRC                             |
   |  Seq nr.      |  Reserved                           | Index   |

   Figure 5 - Syntax of the TSTA TSTN

     SSRC:   The SSRC of the source of the TSTA TSTR request that is
             acknowledged. which resulted
              in this Notification.

     Seq. nr: The sequence number value from the TSTA TSTN request that is
              being acknowledged.

     Index:  The trade-off value the media sender is using henceforth.

     Reserved: All bits SHALL be set to 0 and SHALL be ignored on

      Informative note: The returned trade-off value (Index) may differ
      from the requested one, for example in cases where a media encoder
      cannot tune its trade-off, or when pre-recorded content is used.         Timing Rules

   The timing follows the rules outlined in section 3 of [RFC4585].
   This acknowledgement message is not extremely time critical and
   SHOULD be sent using regular RTCP timing. sent using regular RTCP timing.         Handling of message in Mixer and Translators

   A Mixer or Translator that act upon a TSTR SHALL also send the
   corresponding TSTN. In cases it needs to forward a TSTR itself the
   notification message MAY need to be delayed until that request has
   been responded to.         Remarks


4.3.4.        H.271 VideoBackChannelMessage Video Back Channel Message (VBCM)

   The VBCM FB message is identified by PT=PSFB and FMT=7.

   There MUST be one or more VBCM entry contained in the FCI field.         Semantics

   The "payload" of VBCM indication carries codec specific, codec-specific, different
   types of feedback information.  The type of feedback information can
   be classified as "status report" such a 'status report' (such as receiving bit stream
   without errors, or loss of a partial or complete picture or block block) or
   "update requests" such
   'update requests' (such as complete refresh of the bit stream. stream).

          Note: There are possible overlap overlaps between the VBCM sub-messages sub-
          messages and CCM/AVPF feedback messages, such FIR.  Please see
         3.5.3 3                  ..5.3 for further discussions.

   The different types of feedback sub-messages carried in the VBCM are
   indicated by the "payloadType" ''payloadType'' as defined in [VBCM]. The different
   sub-message types as defined in [VBCM] are re-produced below for
   convenience.  "payloadType",  ''payloadType'', in ITU-T Rec. H.271 terminology,
   refers to the sub-type of the H.271 message and should not be
   confused with an RTP payload type.

   Payload Type     Message Content
   0      One or more pictures without detected bitstream error mismatch
   1      One or more pictures that are entirely or partially lost
   2      A set of blocks of one picture that is entirely or partially
   3      CRC for one parameter set
   4      CRC for all parameter sets of a certain type
   5      A "reset" request indicating that the sender should completely
          refresh the video bitstream as if no prior bitstream data had
          been received
   > 5    Reserved for future use by ITU-T

   Table 2: H.271 message types

   The bit string or the "payload" of VBCM message is of variable
   length and is self-contained and coded in a variable length, binary
   format. The media sender necessarily has to be able to parse this
   optimized binary format to make use of VBCM messages

   Each of the different types of sub-messages (indicated by
   payloadType) may have different semantic based on the codec used.

   The "SSRC ''SSRC of the packet sender" sender'' field indicates the source of the
   request, and the "SSRC ''SSRC of media source" source'' is not used and SHALL be
   set to 0. The SSRC of the media sender to which the VBCM message
   applies to is in the FCI.         Message Format

   The VBCM indication uses one FCI field and the syntax is depicted in
   Figure 6.

   0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |                              SSRC                             |
   | Seq. nr       |0| Payload Type| Length                        |
   |                    VBCM Octet String....      |    Padding    |

   Figure 6 - Syntax for VBCM Message
   SSRC:  The SSRC value of the media sender that is target of the
          message, i.e. the media sender whose requested to
          instruct its encoder should to react to the VBCM message

   Seq. nr: Command sequence number. The sequence number space is unique
          for each tuple consisting of the SSRC of command source and
          the SSRC of the command target. The sequence number SHALL be
          increased by 1 modulo 256 for each new command. A repetition
          SHALL NOT increase the sequence number. Initial value is

   0: Must be set to 0 and should not be acted upon receiving.

   Payload: The RTP payload type for which the VBCM bit stream must be

   Length: The length of the VBCM octet string in octets exclusive any
          padding octets

   VBCM Octet String: This is the octet string generated by the decoder
          carrying a specific feedback sub-message. It is of variable

   Padding: Bytes set to 0 to make up a 32 bit boundary.         Timing Rules

   The timing follows the rules outlined in section 3 of [RFC4585].  The
   different sub-message types may have different properties in regards
   to the timing of messages that should be used. If several different
   types are included in the same feedback packet then the sub-message
   type with the most stringent requiremnts requirements should be followed.         Handling of message in Mixer or Translator

   The handling of VBCM in a mixer or translator are sub-message type
   dependent.         Remarks

   Please see section 3.5.3 for the applicability of the VBCM message in
   relation to messages in both AVPF and this memo with similar

   Note: There has been some discussion whether the payload type field
   in this message is needed.  It would be needed if there were
   potentially more than one VBCM-capable RTP payload types in the same
   session, and that the semantics of a given VBCM message changes from
   PT to PT.  This appears to be the case.  For example, the picture
   identification mechanism in messages of H.271 type 0 is fundamentally
   different between H.263 and H.264 (although both use the same syntax.
   Therefore, the payload field is justified here.  It was further
   commented that for TSTS and FIR such a need does not exist, because
   the semantics of TSTS and FIR are either loosely enough defined, or
   generic enough, to apply to all video payloads currently in

5.   Congestion Control

   The correct application of the AVPF timing rules prevents the network
   from being flooded by feedback messages. Hence, assuming a correct
   implementation, the RTCP channel cannot break its bit-rate commitment
   and introduce congestion.

   The reception of some of the feedback messages modifies the behaviour
   of the media senders or, more specifically, the media encoders.  All
   of these modifications MUST only be performed within the bandwidth
   limits the applied congestion control provides. For example, when
   reacting to a FIR, the unusually high number of packets that form the
   decoder refresh point have to be paced in compliance with the
   congestion control algorithm, even if the user experience suffers
   from a slowly transmitted decoder refresh point.

   A change of the Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate value can
   only mitigate congestion, but not cause congestion as long as
   congestion control is also employed. An increase of the value by a
   request REQUIRES the media sender to use congestion control when
   increasing its transmission rate to that value. A reduction of the
   value results in a reduced transmission bit-rate thus reducing the
   risk for congestion.

6.   Security Considerations

   The defined messages have certain properties that have security
   implications. These must be addressed and taken into account by users
   of this protocol.

   The defined setup signalling signaling mechanism is sensitive to modification
   attacks that can result in session creation with sub-optimal
   configuration, and, in the worst case, session rejection. To prevent
   this type of attack, authentication and integrity protection of the
   setup signalling signaling is required.

   Spoofed or maliciously created feedback messages of the type defined
   in this specification can have the following implications:
        a. Severely reduced media bit-rate due to false TMMBR messages
           that sets the maximum to a very low value.
        b. The assignment of the ownership of a bit-rate limit with a
           TMMBN message to the wrong participant. Thus potentially
           freezing the mechanism until a correct TMMBN message reached
           the participants.
        c. Sending TSTR that result in a video quality different from
           the user's desire, rendering the session less useful.
        d. Frequent FIR commands will potentially reduce the frame-rate
           making the video jerky due to the frequent usage of decoder
           refresh points.

   To prevent these attacks there is a need to apply authentication and
   integrity protection of the feedback messages. This can be
   accomplished against group external threats external to the current RTP session
   using the RTP profile that combines SRTP [SRTP] and AVPF into SAVPF
   [SAVPF]. In the MCU Mixer cases, separate security contexts and filtering
   can be applied between the MCU Mixer and the participants thus protecting
   other MCU users on the Mixer from a misbehaving participant.

7.   SDP Definitions

   Section 4 of [RFC4585] defines new SDP [RFC2327] [RFC4566] attributes that are
   used for the capability exchange of the AVPF commands and
   indications, such as Reference Picture selection, Picture loss
   indication etc. The defined SDP attribute is known as rtcp-fb and its
   ABNF is described in section 4.2 of [RFC4585]. In this section we
   extend the rtcp-fb attribute to include the commands and indications
   that are described in this document for codec control protocol. We
   also discuss the Offer/Answer implications for the codec control
   commands and indications.

7.1.     Extension of rtcp-fb attribute

   As described in [RFC4585], the rtcp-fb attribute is defined to
   indicate the capability of using RTCP feedback. As defined in AVPF
   the rtcp-fb attribute must only be used as a media level attribute
   and must not be provided at session level.  All the rules described
   in [RFC4585] for rtcp-fb attribute relating to payload type, type and to
   multiple rtcp-fb attributes in a session description
   hold for also apply to
   the new feedback messages for codec control defined in this
   document. memo.

   The ABNF for rtcp-fb attributed as defined in [RFC4585] is

   Rtcp-fb-syntax = "a=rtcp-fb: " rtcp-fb-pt SP rtcp-fb-val CRLF

   Where rtcp-fb-pt is the payload type and rtcp-fb-val defines the type
   of the feedback message such as ack, nack, trr-int and rtcp-fb-id.
   For example to indicate the support of feedback of picture loss
   indication, the sender declares the following in SDP

         o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4
         s=Media with feedback
         t=0 0
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 49170 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 nack pli

   In this document we define a new feedback value type called "ccm"
   which indicates the support of codec control using RTCP feedback
   messages. The "ccm" feedback value should be used with parameters,
   which indicates the support of which codec commands the session may
   use. In this draft we define four parameters, which can be used with
   the ccm feedback value type.

      o  "fir" indicates the support of Full Intra Request
      o  "tmmbr" indicates the support of Temporal Maximum Media Bit-rate Stream
         Bit-rate. It has an optional sub parameter to indicate the
         session maximum packet rate to be used. If not included it
         defaults to infinity.
      o  "tstr" indicates the support of temporal spatial trade-off
      O  "vbcm" indicates the support of H.271 video back channel

   In ABNF for rtcp-fb-val defined in [RFC4585], there is a placeholder
   called rtcp-fb-id to define new feedback types. The ccm is defined as
   a new feedback type in this document and the ABNF for the parameters
   for ccm are defined here (please refer section 4.2 of [RFC4585] for
   complete ABNF syntax).

   Rtcp-fb-param = SP "app" [SP byte-string]
                 / SP rtcp-fb-ccm-param
                 /     ; empty
   rtcp-fb-ccm-param = "ccm" SP ccm-param

   ccm-param  = "fir"   ; Full Intra Request
              / "tmmbr" [SP "smaxpr=" MaxPacketRateValue]
                        ; Temporary max media bit rate
              / "tstr"  ; Temporal Spatial Trade Off
              / "vbcm" 1*[SP *(SP subMessageType] ; H.271 VBCM messages
              / token [SP byte-string]
                         ; for future commands/indications
   subMessageType = 1*[integer]; 1*8DIGIT
   byte-string = <as defined in section 4.2 of [RFC4585] >
   MaxPacketRateValue = 1*15DIGIT

7.2.     Offer-Answer

   The Offer/Answer [RFC3264] implications to codec control protocol
   feedback messages are similar to as those described in [RFC4585]. The
   offerer MAY indicate the capability to support selected codec
   commands and indications. The answerer MUST remove all ccm
   parameters, parameters
   which it does not understand or does not wish to use in this
   particular media session. The answerer MUST NOT add new ccm
   parameters in addition to what has been offered. The answer is
   binding for the media session and both offerer and answerer MUST only
   use feedback messages negotiated in this way.

   The session maximum packet rate parameter part of the TMMBR
   indication is declarative and everyone shall use the highest value
   indicated in a response. If not present in a offer is SHALL NOT be
   included by the answerer.

7.3.     Examples

   Example 1: The following SDP describes a point-to-point video call
   with H.263 with the originator of the call declaring its capability
   to support codec control messages - fir, tstr. The SDP is carried in
   a high level signalling signaling protocol like SIP

         o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4
         s=Point-to-Point call
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 51372 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm tstr
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm fir

   In the above example the sender when it receives a TSTR message from
   the remote party can adjust the trade off as indicated in the RTCP
   TSTN feedback message.

   Example 2: The following SDP describes a SIP end point joining a
   video MCU Mixer that is hosting a multiparty video conferencing session.
   The participant supports only the FIR (Full Intra Request) codec
   control command and it declares it in its session description. The
   video MCU Mixer can send an FIR RTCP feedback message to this end point
   when it needs to send this participants video to other participants
   of the conference.

         o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4
         s=Multiparty Video Call
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 51372 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm fir

   When the video MCU decides to route the video of this participant it
   sends an RTCP FIR feedback message. Upon receiving this feedback
   message the end point is mandated to generate a full intra request.

   Example 3: The following example describes the Offer/Answer
   implications for the codec control messages. The Offerer wishes to
   support "tstr", "fir" and "tmmbr" messages. The offered SDP is

   -------------> Offer
         o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 51372 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm tstr
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm fir
         a=rtcp-fb:* ccm tmmbr smaxpr=120
   The answerer only wishes to support FIR and TSTR message as the codec
   control messages and the answerer SDP is

   <---------------- Answer

         o=alice 3203093520 3203093524 IN IP4
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 47190 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 53273 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm tstr
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm fir

   Example 4: The following example describes the Offer/Answer
   implications for H.271 Video back channel messages (VBCM). The
   Offerer wishes to support VBCM and the submessages of payloadType 1
   (One or more pictures that are entirely or partially lost) and 2 (a
   set of blocks of one picture that is entirely or partially lost).

   -------------> Offer
         o=alice 3203093520 3203093520 IN IP4
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 51372 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm vbcm 1 2

   The answerer only wishes to support sub-messages 1 only

   <---------------- Answer

         o=alice 3203093520 3203093524 IN IP4
         c=IN IP4
         m=audio 47190 RTP/AVP 0
         a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
         m=video 53273 RTP/AVPF 98
         a=rtpmap:98 H263-1998/90000
         a=rtcp-fb:98 ccm vbcm 1

   So in the above example only VBCM indication comprising of only
   "payloadType" 1 will be supported.

8.   IANA Considerations

   The new value of ccm for the rtcp-fb attribute needs to be registered
   with IANA.

   Value name:       ccm
   Long Name:        Codec Control Commands and Indications
   Reference:        RFC XXXX

   For use with "ccm" the following values also needs to be

   Value name:       fir
   Long name:        Full Intra Request Command
   Usable with:      ccm
   Reference:        RFC XXXX

   Value name:       tmmbr
   Long name:        Temporary Maximum Media Stream Bit-rate
   Usable with:      ccm
   Reference:        RFC XXXX

   Value name:       tstr
   Long name:        temporal Spatial Trade Off
   Usable with:      ccm
   Reference:        RFC XXXX

   Value name:       vbcm
   Long name:        H.271 video back channel messages
   Usable with:      ccm
   Reference:        RFC XXXX

9.   Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Andrea Basso, Orit Levin, Nermeen
   Ismail for their work on the requirement and discussion draft

   Drafts of this memo were reviewed and extensively commented by Roni
   Even, Colin Perkins, Randell Jesup, Keith Lantz, Harikishan Desineni,
   Guido Franceschini and others.  The authors appreciate these reviews.

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

10.    References

10.1.       Normative references

   [RFC4585]   Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., Rey, J.,
                "Extended RTP Profile for Real-Time Transport Control
                Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   [RFC3550]   Schulzrinne, H.,  Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
                Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
                Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
   [RFC2327]   Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
                Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
   [RFC3264]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
                with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
   [Topologies] M. Westerlund, and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", draft-
                ietf-avt-topologies-00, work in progress, August 2006

10.2.       Informative references

   [Basso]     A. Basso, et. al., "Requirements for transport of video
                control commands", draft-basso-avt-videoconreq-02.txt,
                expired Internet Draft, October 2004.
   [AVC]       Joint Video Team of ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1, Draft ITU-T
                Recommendation and Final Draft International Standard of
                Joint Video Specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264 | ISO/IEC
                14496-10 AVC), Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG and
                ITU-T VCEG, JVT-G050, March 2003.
   [NEWPRED]   S. Fukunaga, T. Nakai, and H. Inoue, "Error Resilient
                Video Coding by Dynamic Replacing of Reference Pictures,"
                in Proc. Globcom'96, vol. 3, pp. 1503 - 1508, 1996.
   [SRTP]      Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
                Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
                (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.
   [RFC2032]   Turletti, T. and C. Huitema, "RTP Payload Format for
                H.261 Video Streams", RFC 2032, October 1996.
   [SAVPF]     J. Ott, E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
                RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)," draft-ietf-avt-profile-
                savpf-02.txt, July, 2005.
   [RFC3525]   Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor,
                "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June

   [RFC3448]   M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, J. Widmer, "TCP Friendly
                Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC 3448,
   [VBCM]      ITU-T Rec. H.271, "Video Back Channel Messages", June
   [RFC3890]   Westerlund, M., "A Transport Independent Bandwidth
                Modifier for the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC
                3890, September 2004.
   [RFC4340]   Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
                Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March
   [RFC4566]   Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
                Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
   [RFC3261]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
                A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
                Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
                June 2002.

11.    Authors' Addresses

   Stephan Wenger
   Nokia Corporation
   P.O. Box 100
   FIN-33721 Tampere

   Phone: +358-50-486-0637

   Umesh Chandra
   Nokia Research Center
   975, Page Mill Road,
   Palo Alto,CA 94304

   Phone: +1-650-796-7502

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson Research
   Ericsson AB
   SE-164 80 Stockholm, SWEDEN

   Phone: +46 8 7190000

   Bo Burman
   Ericsson Research
   Ericsson AB
   SE-164 80 Stockholm, SWEDEN

   Phone: +46 8 7190000

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). IETF Trust (2007).

   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

Intellectual Property Statement

   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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

RFC Editor Considerations

   The RFC editor is requested to replace all occurrences of XXXX with
   the RFC number this document receives.