<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.14 (Ruby 2.7.0) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-deping-avtcore-video-bframe-00" category="std" consensus="true" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.13.1 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="VBF">Video BFrame RTP Header Extension</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-deping-avtcore-video-bframe-00"/>
    <author initials="D." surname="Li" fullname="Deping li">
      <organization>ByteDance</organization>
      <address>
        <email>lideping.byter@bytedance.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2022" month="July" day="26"/>
    <area>ART</area>
    <workgroup>avtcore</workgroup>
    <keyword>RTP,Webrtc,BFrame,Video</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes an RTP header extension used to convey decoding time information about video when Bi-directional predicted frames exist.It adds CompositionTime(CTS) as value so that receiver can decode video with correct sequence.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>As video codec, H264/HEVC is widely used in RTP base system. Those codec support I-Frame, B-Frame, and P-frame . Most RTP systems do not support B-Frame, while B-Frame is widely used in streaming systems, with the rapid deploy of Real Time Communication(RTC) in low  latency streaming scenario, support for Bi-directional predicted frames in RTP base system are necessary.</t>
      <t>Video streams contain a lot of details, including timestamps, so a decoder knows how to handle the content properly. The DTS(DecodingTimeStamp) decides  when a frame has to be decoded, while the PTS(PresentationTimeStamp) describes when a frame has to be presented.This difference becomes important when using B-frames, which are frames that can have references to frames in the past, but also to frames in the future. Given that, there will be frames in the  future, which a decoder needs to decode first in order to use them as reference. 
Therefore, decoder needs DTS when B-frames exist, while, the RTP timestamp reflects the presentation time(PTS) only. This document specifies an RTP extension header that allows video rtp senders deliver CTS(CompositionTime) to rtp receiver .</t>
      <t>The CTS value is PTS  minus DTS. Therefore , the rtp receiver gets DTS value via RTP timestamp adding CTS value.</t>
      <t>This new header extension uses the general mechanism for RTP header extensions as described in (<xref target="RFC5285"/>)]. Rtp sender only needs to add CTS to the first rtp packet when the video frame contains several packets, which reduces overhead.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>RTP: Real-time Transport Protocol (RFC 3550)</li>
        <li>RTCP: RTP Control Protocol (RFC 3550)</li>
        <li>RTCP RR: RTCP Receiver Report</li>
        <li>RTCP SR:  RTCP Sender Report</li>
        <li>SDP: Session Description Protocol (RFC 4566)</li>
        <li>Clock Rate: The multiplier used to convert from a wallclock value
                in seconds to an equivalent RTP timestamp value
                (without the fixed random offset).  Note that RFC 3550
                uses various terms like "clock frequency", "media
                clock rate", "timestamp unit", "timestamp frequency",
                and "RTP timestamp clock rate" as synonymous to clock
                rate.</li>
        <li>RTP Sender: A logical network element that sends RTP packets,
                sends RTCP SR packets, and receives RTCP reception
                report blocks.</li>
        <li>RTP Receiver: A logical network element that receives RTP packets,
                receives RTCP SR packets, and sends RTCP reception
                report blocks.</li>
        <li>RTC: Real Time Communication</li>
        <li>PTS: Video Presentation TimeStamp</li>
        <li>DTS: Video Decoding TimeStamp</li>
        <li>CTS: Video CompositionTime</li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="rtp-header-extension-format">
      <name>RTP header extension format</name>
      <t>The general RTP payload format follows the RTP header format (<xref target="RFC3550"/>) and generic RTP header extensions (<xref target="RFC8285"/>), RTP header extension <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> encoded using the one-byte header or two-byte header as described in (<xref target="RFC8285"/>). The two-byte header format is used as an 
example in this memo.</t>
      <t>The following RTP header extension is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>. The ID is assigned per (<xref target="RFC8285"/>), and format is shown below.</t>
      <figure>
        <name>extension format</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                  
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | Len=2 |              cts              |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>ID: extension id.</t>
      <t>cts: PTS minus DTS and divide by 90 (Video Clock Rate)</t>
      <section anchor="video-rtp-sender">
        <name>Video rtp sender</name>
        <t>The video sender here <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be video client or middle box perform RTP switch.
Video client <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> encode video with B-frame, it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> add this rtp header extension 
in the rtp packetization module . Only adding in the first rtp packet is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> 
when the video frame contains multi rtp packets, which will reduce overhead.
The middle box <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> perform  RTMP or other streaming video protocols translate to 
rtp streams work, it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> add this header extension when streaming video contains B-frame.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="video-rtp-receiver">
        <name>Video rtp receiver</name>
        <t>The video rtp receiver here is a client which decodes video . It <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> extract cts value when this extension exists , 
and calculate DTS value with rtp timestamp(PTS) and CTS.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
DTS = PTS - CTS * 90
]]></artwork>
        <t>90 is video clock rate, Video receiver construction frame and put to jitter buffer, decoder <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> decode frame by DTS sequence, and video render module <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> render the decoded frame with PTS sequence, which come from rtp timestamp.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="usage-considerations">
        <name>Usage considerations</name>
        <t>In practice, when receiver that  decode video does not support B-frame, 
In order to successfully decode an incoming video stream, it is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> 
An RTP middle box discard B-frame when video rtp sender contains B-frame, 
the decoder at the Endpoint <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> add whether it  support video B-frame capability 
in SDP payload format specific paramaters(a=fmtp), and follow the Offer/Answer procedure describe in  (<xref target="RFC8285"/>).</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="session-description-protocol-sdp-signaling">
      <name>Session Description Protocol (SDP) Signaling</name>
      <t>The URI for declaring this header extension in an extmap attribute is "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:CompositionTime". 
It does not contain any extension attributes, It follows the standard mechanism described in (<xref target="RFC8285"/>)
An example attribute line in SDP:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
a=extmap:19 uri:ietf:rtc:rtp-hdrext:video:CompositionTime;
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations of the RTP specification (<xref target="RFC3550"/>) and the general mechanism for RTP header extensions (<xref target="RFC8285"/>) apply. and all the security considerations of typologies (<xref target="RFC7667"/>) (<xref target="RFC7201"/>) for these two types
of RTP intermediaries are applicable to this header extension.</t>
      <t>Security considerations for SDP are described in the corresponding section in (<xref target="RFC8866"/>), In the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) (<xref target="RFC3711"/>), RTP header extensions are authenticated but not encrypted.  When this header extension is used, cts are therefore visible on a frame-by-frame basis to an attacker passively observing the video stream, In scenarios where this is a concern, additional mechanisms <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used to protect the confidentiality 
of the header extension.  This mechanism could be header extension encryption (<xref target="RFC6904"/>), or a lower-level security and authentication mechanism such as IPsec (<xref target="RFC4301"/>).</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA has registered the following entry in the "RTP Compact Header
Extensions" registry:
Extension URI: uri:ietf:rtc:rtp-hdrext:video:CompositionTime
Description:  video B frame compositionTime
Contact: lideping.byter@bytedance.com</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC3550" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550">
        <front>
          <title>RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications</title>
          <author fullname="H. Schulzrinne" initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="S. Casner" initials="S." surname="Casner">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="R. Frederick" initials="R." surname="Frederick">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="V. Jacobson" initials="V." surname="Jacobson">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="July" year="2003"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memorandum describes RTP, the real-time transport protocol.  RTP provides end-to-end network transport functions suitable for applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or simulation data, over multicast or unicast network services.  RTP does not address resource reservation and does not guarantee quality-of- service for real-time services.  The data transport is augmented by a control protocol (RTCP) to allow monitoring of the data delivery in a manner scalable to large multicast networks, and to provide minimal control and identification functionality.  RTP and RTCP are designed to be independent of the underlying transport and network layers.  The protocol supports the use of RTP-level translators and mixers. Most of the text in this memorandum is identical to RFC 1889 which it obsoletes.  There are no changes in the packet formats on the wire, only changes to the rules and algorithms governing how the protocol is used. The biggest change is an enhancement to the scalable timer algorithm for calculating when to send RTCP packets in order to minimize transmission in excess of the intended rate when many participants join a session simultaneously.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="STD" value="64"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3550"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3550"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8285" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8285">
        <front>
          <title>A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions</title>
          <author fullname="D. Singer" initials="D." surname="Singer">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="H. Desineni" initials="H." surname="Desineni">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="R. Even" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Even">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="October" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides a general mechanism to use the header extension feature of RTP (the Real-time Transport Protocol).  It provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and registration is decentralized.  The actual extensions in use in a session are signaled in the setup information for that session.  This document obsoletes RFC 5285.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8285"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8285"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5285" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5285">
        <front>
          <title>A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions</title>
          <author fullname="D. Singer" initials="D." surname="Singer">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="H. Desineni" initials="H." surname="Desineni">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="July" year="2008"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides a general mechanism to use the header extension feature of RTP (the Real-Time Transport Protocol).  It provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and registration is de-centralized.  The actual extensions in use in a session are signaled in the setup information for that session.   [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5285"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5285"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol  specifications.  This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the  defined special meanings.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7667" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7667">
        <front>
          <title>RTP Topologies</title>
          <author fullname="M. Westerlund" initials="M." surname="Westerlund">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="S. Wenger" initials="S." surname="Wenger">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="November" year="2015"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document discusses point-to-point and multi-endpoint topologies used in environments based on the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). In particular, centralized topologies commonly employed in the video conferencing industry are mapped to the RTP terminology.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7667"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7667"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7201" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201">
        <front>
          <title>Options for Securing RTP Sessions</title>
          <author fullname="M. Westerlund" initials="M." surname="Westerlund">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="C. Perkins" initials="C." surname="Perkins">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="April" year="2014"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in a large number of different application domains and environments.  This heterogeneity implies that different security mechanisms are needed to provide services such as confidentiality, integrity, and source authentication of RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets suitable for the various environments.  The range of solutions makes it difficult for RTP-based application developers to pick the most suitable mechanism.  This document provides an overview of a number of security solutions for RTP and gives guidance for developers on how to choose the appropriate security mechanism.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7201"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7201"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8866" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8866">
        <front>
          <title>SDP: Session Description Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="A. Begen" initials="A." surname="Begen">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="P. Kyzivat" initials="P." surname="Kyzivat">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="C. Perkins" initials="C." surname="Perkins">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="M. Handley" initials="M." surname="Handley">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="January" year="2021"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP). SDP is intended for describing multimedia sessions for the purposes of session announcement, session invitation, and other forms of multimedia session initiation. This document obsoletes RFC 4566.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8866"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8866"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3711" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711">
        <front>
          <title>The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)</title>
          <author fullname="M. Baugher" initials="M." surname="Baugher">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="D. McGrew" initials="D." surname="McGrew">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="M. Naslund" initials="M." surname="Naslund">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="E. Carrara" initials="E." surname="Carrara">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="K. Norrman" initials="K." surname="Norrman">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="March" year="2004"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), a profile of the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), which can provide confidentiality, message authentication, and replay protection to the RTP traffic and to the control traffic for RTP, the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP).   [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3711"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3711"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6904" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904">
        <front>
          <title>Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)</title>
          <author fullname="J. Lennox" initials="J." surname="Lennox">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="April" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) provides authentication, but not encryption, of the headers of Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) packets.  However, RTP header extensions may carry sensitive information for which participants in multimedia sessions want confidentiality.  This document provides a mechanism, extending the mechanisms of SRTP, to selectively encrypt RTP header extensions in SRTP.</t>
            <t>This document updates RFC 3711, the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol specification, to require that all future SRTP encryption transforms specify how RTP header extensions are to be encrypted.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6904"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6904"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4301" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301">
        <front>
          <title>Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="K. Seo" initials="K." surname="Seo">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="December" year="2005"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an updated version of the "Security Architecture for IP", which is designed to provide security services for traffic at the IP layer.  This document obsoletes RFC 2401 (November 1998).  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4301"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4301"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
