draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-05.txt   draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-06.txt 
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
USC/ISI USC/ISI
RTP Interoperability Statement RTP Interoperability Statement
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-05.txt draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-06.txt
Status of this memo Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at line 47 skipping to change at line 47
outlines those features to be tested, as the first stage of an outlines those features to be tested, as the first stage of an
interoperability statement. interoperability statement.
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements
on a standards track protocol specification. In particular, when on a standards track protocol specification. In particular, when
advancing a protocol from proposed standard to draft standard it advancing a protocol from proposed standard to draft standard it
is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and interoperable is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and interoperable
implementations, from different code bases, of all options and features of implementations, from different code bases, of all options and features
that protocol. Further, in cases where one or more options or features of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or more options or
have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
the specification may advance to the draft standard level only if those implementations, the specification may advance to the draft standard
options or features are removed. The Real-time Transport Protocol, RTP, level only if those options or features are removed. The Real-time
was originally specified in RFC1889 as a proposed standard [2]. The Transport Protocol, RTP, was originally specified in RFC1889 as a
revision of this specification for draft standard status is now well proposed standard [2]. The revision of this specification for draft
underway, so it has become necessary to conduct such an interoperability standard status is now well underway, so it has become necessary
demonstration. to conduct such an interoperability demonstration.
This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP specification This memo describes the set of features and options of the RTP specification
which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration. Due to the which need to be tested as a basis for this demonstration. Due to the
nature of RTP there are necessarily two types of test described: those nature of RTP there are necessarily two types of test described: those
which directly affect the interoperability of implementations at a ``bits which directly affect the interoperability of implementations at a ``bits
on the wire level'' and those which affect scalability and safety of the on the wire level'' and those which affect scalability and safety of the
protocol but do not directly affect interoperability. A related memo [4] protocol but do not directly affect interoperability. A related memo [4]
describes a testing framework which may aid with interoperability testing. describes a testing framework which may aid with interoperability testing.
This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard This memo is for information only and does not specify a standard
skipping to change at line 90 skipping to change at line 90
1. Interoperable exchange of data packets using the basic RTP header 1. Interoperable exchange of data packets using the basic RTP header
with no header extension, padding or CSRC list. with no header extension, padding or CSRC list.
o PASS: rat vs vat o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
2. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use padding. 2. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use padding.
o FAIL: need to test IP/TV against Quicktime o PASS: IP/TV vs rat
3. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use a header extension. 3. Interoperable exchange of data packets which use a header extension.
There are three possibilities here: a) if both implementations There are three possibilities here: a) if both implementations
use a header extension in the same manner, it should be verified use a header extension in the same manner, it should be verified
that the receiver correctly receives the information contained that the receiver correctly receives the information contained
in the extension header; b) If the sender uses a header extension in the extension header; b) If the sender uses a header extension
and the receiver does not, it should be verified that the receiver and the receiver does not, it should be verified that the receiver
ignores the extension; c) If neither implementation implements ignores the extension; c) If neither implementation implements
an extended header, this test is considered a failure. an extended header, this test is considered a failure.
o PASS: jrtplib-2.4 vs UCL RTP library v1.2.2 o PASS: jrtplib-2.4 vs UCL RTP library v1.2.2
skipping to change at line 247 skipping to change at line 247
SSRC SSRC
o FAIL: IP/TV sends only one SSRC in BYE, but should accept o FAIL: IP/TV sends only one SSRC in BYE, but should accept
multiple multiple
o FAIL: need to test rat-3.0.x against rtplib o FAIL: need to test rat-3.0.x against rtplib
23. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional 23. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional
reason for leaving text. reason for leaving text.
o FAIL: need to test IP/TV with rtplib (IP/TV will generate o PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates
these when an SSRC collison occurs). and displays them.
24. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional 24. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional
reason for leaving text and multiple SSRCs. reason for leaving text and multiple SSRCs.
o FAIL: does anyone implement both? o FAIL: does anyone implement both?
25. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As 25. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As
with the RTP header extension this test takes two forms: if with the RTP header extension this test takes two forms: if
both implementations implement the same application defined packet both implementations implement the same application defined packet
it should be verified that those packets can be interoperably it should be verified that those packets can be interoperably
skipping to change at line 304 skipping to change at line 304
implementations complete the following demonstrations. implementations complete the following demonstrations.
1. Demonstrate correct implementation of basic RTCP transmission 1. Demonstrate correct implementation of basic RTCP transmission
rules: periodic transmission of RTCP packets at the minimum rules: periodic transmission of RTCP packets at the minimum
(5 second) interval and randomisation of the transmission interval. (5 second) interval and randomisation of the transmission interval.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV o PASS: rat, IP/TV
2. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff 2. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff
algorithm as a receiver. algorithm as a receiver.
o FAIL: rat and rtplib support this but have not been tested o PASS: rat, rtplib
3. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff 3. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP step join backoff
algorithm as a sender. algorithm as a sender.
o FAIL: rat and rtplib support this but have not been tested o PASS: rat, rtplib
4. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval 4. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval
acording to the group size. acording to the group size.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV o PASS: rat, IP/TV
5. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval 5. Demonstrate correct steady state scaling of the RTCP interval
acording to the group size with compensation for the number of acording to the group size with compensation for the number of
senders. senders.
o FAIL: IP/TV works, need results for more implementations o PASS: rat, IP/TV
6. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP reverse reconsideration 6. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP reverse reconsideration
algorithm. algorithm.
o FAIL o FAIL: rat is correct, need another implementation
7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration 7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration
algorithm. algorithm.
o FAIL o FAIL
8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout 8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout
algorithm. algorithm.
o FAIL o FAIL
skipping to change at line 389 skipping to change at line 389
6 References 6 References
[1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'', [1] S. Bradner, ``The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3'',
RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996. RFC2026, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1996.
[2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP: [2] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick and V. Jacobson, ``RTP:
A Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet A Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet
Engineering Task Force, January 1996. Engineering Task Force, January 1996.
[3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences [3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
with Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January 2000.
2000.
[4] C. S. Perkins, J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Testing [4] C. S. Perkins, J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Testing
Strategies'', draft-ietf-avt-rtptest-04.txt, November 2000. Strategies'', draft-ietf-avt-rtptest-04.txt, November 2000.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/