draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-06.txt   draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07.txt 
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
USC/ISI USC/ISI
RTP Interoperability Statement RTP Interoperability Statement
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-06.txt draft-ietf-avt-rtp-interop-07.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
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
material or to cite them other than as work in progress. them other than as work in progress.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the author and/or the
skipping to change at line 228 skipping to change at line 227
o PASS: rat vs vat o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
20. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing 20. Interoperable exchange of source description packets containing
a PRIV item. a PRIV item.
o FAIL: need to test rtplib against rtpdump? o FAIL: need to test rtplib against rtpdump?
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation, Magnus Westerlund
will test against rat.
21. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing a single SSRC. 21. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing a single SSRC.
o PASS: rat vs vat o PASS: rat vs vat
o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic o PASS: IP/TV vs vat/vic
22. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing multiple SSRCs. 22. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing multiple SSRCs.
o FAIL: rat can send these, but vat only accepts the first o FAIL: rat can send these, but vat only accepts the first
SSRC SSRC
skipping to change at line 250 skipping to change at line 252
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 PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates o PASS: tested IP/TV sending to vat. Also rtplib generates
and displays them. and displays them.
24. Interoperable exchange of BYE packets containing the optional 24. Interoperable exchange of application defined RTCP packets. As
reason for leaving text and multiple SSRCs.
o FAIL: does anyone implement both?
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
exchanged. If only one implementation uses application defined exchanged. If only one implementation uses application defined
packets, it should be verified that the other implementation packets, it should be verified that the other implementation
can receive compound RTCP packets containing an APP packet whilst can receive compound RTCP packets containing an APP packet whilst
ignoring the APP packet. If neither implementation implements ignoring the APP packet. If neither implementation implements
APP packets this test is considered a failure. APP packets 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
26. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTP packets using DES encryption 25. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTP packets using DES encryption
in CBC mode. in CBC mode.
o PASS: rat vs vat o PASS: rat vs vat
27. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption 26. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption
in CBC mode. in CBC mode.
o PASS (sort of): rat vs vat (vat gets the padding wrong o PASS (sort of): rat vs vat (vat gets the padding wrong
in some cases, but mostly it works). in some cases, but mostly it works).
28. Interoperable exchange of encrypted RTCP packets using DES encryption
in CBC mode, when those compound RTCP packets have been split
into an encrypted packet and an unencrypted packet.
o FAIL: not tested (rtplib supports this?)
3 Features and options relating to scalability 3 Features and options relating to scalability
In addition to the basic interoperability tests, RTP includes a number In addition to the basic interoperability tests, RTP includes a number of
of features relating to scaling of the protocol to large groups. features relating to scaling of the protocol to large groups. Since these
Since these features are those which have undergone the greatest features are those which have undergone the greatest change in the update
change in the update of the RTP specification, it is considered important of the RTP specification, it is considered important to demonstrate their
to demonstrate their correct implementation. However, since these correct implementation. However, since these changes do not affect the
changes do not affect the bits-on-the-wire behaviour of the protocol, bits-on-the-wire behaviour of the protocol, it is not possible to perform a
it is not possible to perform a traditional interoperability test. traditional interoperability test. As an alternative to such testing we
As an alternative to such testing we require that multiple independent require that multiple independent implementations complete the following
implementations complete the following demonstrations. 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 PASS: rat, rtplib 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 PASS: rat, rtplib 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
skipping to change at line 325 skipping to change at line 316
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 PASS: rat, IP/TV 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: rat is correct, need another implementation o FAIL: rat is correct,
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration 7. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP BYE reconsideration
algorithm. algorithm.
o FAIL o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout 8. Demonstrate correct implementation of the RTCP member timeout
algorithm. algorithm.
o FAIL o PASS: IP/TV, vat, rat
o FAIL: Ericsson have an implementation: Magnus Westerlund
is testing...
9. Demonstrate random choice of SSRC. 9. Demonstrate random choice of SSRC.
o PASS: rat, IP/TV, LiveCaster o PASS: rat, IP/TV, LiveCaster
10. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP sequence number. 10. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP sequence number.
o PASS: rat, LiveCaster o PASS: rat, LiveCaster
11. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP timestamp. 11. Demonstrate random selection of initial RTP timestamp.
skipping to change at line 375 skipping to change at line 372
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute USC Information Sciences Institute
4350 North Fairfax Drive 4350 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 620 Suite 620
Arlington, VA 22203 Arlington, VA 22203
USA USA
Email: csp@isi.edu Email: csp@isi.edu
5 Acknowledgments 5 References
Thanks to Steve Casner, Jonathan Rosenberg and Bill Fenner for their
helpful feedback.
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
A Transport Protocol to Real-Time Applications'', RFC1889, Internet 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 with [3] H. Schulzrinne, ``RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January 2000. Minimal Control'', draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt, January 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/