





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         J. Lennox
Request for Comments: 7656                                         Vidyo
Category: Informational                                         K. Gross
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                      AVA
                                                           S. Nandakumar
                                                            G. Salgueiro
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          B. Burman, Ed.
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           November 2015


               A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for
               Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources

Abstract

   The terminology about, and associations among, Real-time Transport
   Protocol (RTP) sources can be complex and somewhat opaque.  This
   document describes a number of existing and proposed properties and
   relationships among RTP sources and defines common terminology for
   discussing protocol entities and their relationships.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656.













Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





































Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Media Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.1.  Physical Stimulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.2.  Media Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.3.  Raw Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.4.  Media Source  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.5.  Source Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.6.  Media Encoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.1.7.  Encoded Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.1.8.  Dependent Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.1.9.  Media Packetizer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.1.10. RTP Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.1.11. RTP-Based Redundancy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.1.12. Redundancy RTP Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.1.13. RTP-Based Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.1.14. Secured RTP Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.1.15. Media Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.1.16. Media Transport Sender  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.1.17. Sent RTP Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.1.18. Network Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.1.19. Transported RTP Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.1.20. Media Transport Receiver  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.1.21. Received Secured RTP Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.22. RTP-Based Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.23. Received RTP Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.24. Received Redundancy RTP Stream  . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.25. RTP-Based Repair  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.26. Repaired RTP Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.1.27. Media Depacketizer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.1.28. Received Encoded Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.1.29. Media Decoder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.1.30. Received Source Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.1.31. Media Sink  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.1.32. Received Raw Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.1.33. Media Render  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     2.2.  Communication Entities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.2.1.  Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.2.2.  RTP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.2.3.  Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.2.4.  Multimedia Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       2.2.5.  Communication Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   3.  Concepts of Inter-Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     3.1.  Synchronization Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       3.1.1.  RTCP CNAME  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       3.1.2.  Clock Source Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26



Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


       3.1.3.  Implicitly via RtcMediaStream . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       3.1.4.  Explicitly via SDP Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     3.2.  Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     3.3.  Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     3.4.  RtcMediaStream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     3.5.  Multi-Channel Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     3.6.  Simulcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     3.7.  Layered Multi-Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     3.8.  RTP Stream Duplication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     3.9.  Redundancy Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     3.10. RTP Retransmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     3.11. Forward Error Correction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     3.12. RTP Stream Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     3.13. Multiple RTP Sessions over one Media Transport  . . . . .  37
   4.  Mapping from Existing Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     4.1.  Telepresence Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       4.1.1.  Audio Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       4.1.2.  Capture Device  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       4.1.3.  Capture Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.4.  Capture Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.5.  Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.6.  Individual Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.7.  Media Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.8.  Media Consumer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.9.  Media Provider  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       4.1.10. Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       4.1.11. Video Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     4.2.  Media Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     4.3.  Media Stream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     4.4.  Multimedia Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     4.5.  Multimedia Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     4.6.  Multipoint Control Unit (MCU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     4.7.  Multi-Session Transmission (MST)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     4.8.  Recording Device  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.9.  RtcMediaStream  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.10. RtcMediaStreamTrack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.11. RTP Receiver  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.12. RTP Sender  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.13. RTP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.14. Single-Session Transmission (SST) . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     4.15. SSRC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46





Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


1.  Introduction

   The existing taxonomy of sources in the Real-time Transport Protocol
   (RTP) [RFC3550] has previously been regarded as confusing and
   inconsistent.  Consequently, a deep understanding of how the
   different terms relate to each other becomes a real challenge.
   Frequently cited examples of this confusion are (1) how different
   protocols that make use of RTP use the same terms to signify
   different things and (2) how the complexities addressed at one layer
   are often glossed over or ignored at another.

   This document improves clarity by reviewing the semantics of various
   aspects of sources in RTP.  As an organizing mechanism, it approaches
   this by describing various ways that RTP sources are transformed on
   their way between sender and receiver, and how they can be grouped
   and associated together.

   All non-specific references to ControLling mUltiple streams for
   tElepresence (CLUE) in this document map to [CLUE-FRAME], and all
   references to Web Real-time Communications (WebRTC) map to
   [WEBRTC-OVERVIEW].

2.  Concepts

   This section defines concepts that serve to identify and name various
   transformations and streams in a given RTP usage.  For each concept,
   alternate definitions and usages that coexist today are listed along
   with various characteristics that further describe the concept.
   These concepts are divided into two categories: one is related to the
   chain of streams and transformations that Media can be subject to,
   and the other is for entities involved in the communication.

2.1.  Media Chain

   In the context of this document, media is a sequence of synthetic or
   Physical Stimuli (Section 2.1.1) -- for example, sound waves,
   photons, key strokes -- represented in digital form.  Synthesized
   media is typically generated directly in the digital domain.

   This section contains the concepts that can be involved in taking
   media at a sender side and transporting it to a receiver, which may
   recover a sequence of physical stimuli.  This chain of concepts is of
   two main types: streams and transformations.  Streams are time-based
   sequences of samples of the physical stimulus in various
   representations, while transformations change the representation of
   the streams in some way.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   The below examples are basic ones, and it is important to keep in
   mind that this conceptual model enables more complex usages.  Some
   will be further discussed in later sections of this document.  In
   general the following applies to this model:

   o  A transformation may have zero or more inputs and one or more
      outputs.

   o  A stream is of some type, such as audio, video, real-time text,
      etc.

   o  A stream has one source transformation and one or more sink
      transformations (with the exception of physical stimulus
      (Section 2.1.1) that may lack source or sink transformation).

   o  Streams can be forwarded from a transformation output to any
      number of inputs on other transformations that support that type.

   o  If the output of a transformation is sent to multiple
      transformations, those streams will be identical; it takes a
      transformation to make them different.

   o  There are no formal limitations on how streams are connected to
      transformations.

   It is also important to remember that this is a conceptual model.
   Thus, real-world implementations may look different and have a
   different structure.

   To provide a basic understanding of the relationships in the chain,
   we first introduce the concepts for the sender side (Figure 1).  This
   covers physical stimuli until media packets are emitted onto the
   network.


















Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


               Physical Stimulus
                      |
                      V
           +----------------------+
           |     Media Capture    |
           +----------------------+
                      |
                 Raw Stream
                      V
           +----------------------+
           |     Media Source     |<- Synchronization Timing
           +----------------------+
                      |
                Source Stream
                      V
           +----------------------+
           |    Media Encoder     |
           +----------------------+
                      |
                Encoded Stream      +------------+
                      V             |            V
           +----------------------+ | +----------------------+
           |   Media Packetizer   | | | RTP-Based Redundancy |
           +----------------------+ | +----------------------+
                      |             |            |
                      +-------------+  Redundancy RTP Stream
               Source RTP Stream                 |
                      V                          V
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+
           |  RTP-Based Security  |   |  RTP-Based Security  |
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+
                      |                          |
              Secured RTP Stream   Secured Redundancy RTP Stream
                      V                          V
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+
           |   Media Transport    |   |   Media Transport    |
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+

             Figure 1: Sender Side Concepts in the Media Chain

   In Figure 1, we have included a branched chain to cover the concepts
   for using redundancy to improve the reliability of the transport.
   The Media Transport concept is an aggregate that is decomposed in
   Section 2.1.15.







Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   In Figure 2, we review a receiver media chain matching the sender
   side, to look at the inverse transformations and their attempts to
   recover identical streams as in the sender chain, subject to what may
   be lossy compression and imperfect media transport.  Note that the
   streams out of a reverse transformation, like the Source Stream out
   of the Media Decoder, are in many cases not the same as the
   corresponding ones on the sender side; thus, they are prefixed with a
   "received" to denote a potentially modified version.  The reason for
   not being the same lies in the transformations that can be of
   irreversible type.  For example, lossy source coding in the Media
   Encoder prevents the source stream out of the media decoder from
   being the same as the one fed into the media encoder.  Other reasons
   include packet loss in the media transport transformation that even
   RTP-based Repair, if used, fails to repair.





































Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


          +----------------------+   +----------------------+
          |   Media Transport    |   |   Media Transport    |
          +----------------------+   +----------------------+
            Received |                 Received | Secured
            Secured RTP Stream       Redundancy RTP Stream
                     V                          V
          +----------------------+   +----------------------+
          | RTP-Based Validation |   | RTP-Based Validation |
          +----------------------+   +----------------------+
                     |                          |
            Received RTP Stream   Received Redundancy RTP Stream
                     |                          |
                     |     +--------------------+
                     V     V
          +----------------------+
          |   RTP-Based Repair   |
          +----------------------+
                     |
            Repaired RTP Stream
                     V
          +----------------------+
          |  Media Depacketizer  |
          +----------------------+
                     |
           Received Encoded Stream
                     V
          +----------------------+
          |    Media Decoder     |
          +----------------------+
                     |
           Received Source Stream
                     V
          +----------------------+
          |      Media Sink      |--> Synchronization Information
          +----------------------+
                     |
            Received Raw Stream
                     V
          +----------------------+
          |     Media Render     |
          +----------------------+
                     |
                     V
             Physical Stimulus

            Figure 2: Receiver Side Concepts of the Media Chain





Lennox, et al.                Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.1.  Physical Stimulus

   The physical stimulus is a physical event in the analog domain that
   can be sampled and converted to digital form by an appropriate sensor
   or transducer.  This includes sound waves making up audio, photons in
   a light field, or other excitations or interactions with sensors,
   like keystrokes on a keyboard.

2.1.2.  Media Capture

   Media Capture is the process of transforming the analog physical
   stimulus (Section 2.1.1) into digital media using an appropriate
   sensor or transducer.  The media capture performs a digital sampling
   of the physical stimulus, usually periodically, and outputs this in
   some representation as a Raw Stream (Section 2.1.3).  This data is
   considered "media", because it includes data that is periodically
   sampled or made up of a set of timed asynchronous events.  The media
   capture is normally instantiated in some type of device, i.e., media
   capture device.  Examples of different types of media capturing
   devices are digital cameras, microphones connected to A/D converters,
   or keyboards.

   Characteristics:

   o  A media capture is identified either by hardware/manufacturer ID
      or via a session-scoped device identifier as mandated by the
      application usage.

   o  A media capture can generate an Encoded Stream (Section 2.1.7) if
      the capture device supports such a configuration.

   o  The nature of the media capture may impose constraints on the
      clock handling in some of the subsequent steps.  For example, many
      audio or video capture devices are not completely free in
      selecting the sample rate.

2.1.3.  Raw Stream

   A raw stream is the time progressing stream of digitally sampled
   information, usually periodically sampled and provided by a media
   capture (Section 2.1.2).  A raw stream can also contain synthesized
   media that may not require any explicit media capture, since it is
   already in an appropriate digital form.








Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.4.  Media Source

   A Media Source is the logical source of a time progressing digital
   media stream synchronized to a reference clock.  This stream is
   called a source stream (Section 2.1.5).  This transformation takes
   one or more raw streams (Section 2.1.3) and provides a source stream
   as output.  The output is synchronized with a reference clock
   (Section 3.1), which can be as simple as a system local wall clock or
   as complex as an NTP synchronized clock.

   The output can be of different types.  One type is directly
   associated with a particular media capture's raw stream.  Others are
   more conceptual sources, like an audio mix of multiple source streams
   (Figure 3).  Mixing multiple streams typically requires that the
   input streams are possible to relate in time, meaning that they have
   to be source streams (Section 2.1.5) rather than raw streams.  In
   Figure 3, the generated source stream is a mix of the three input
   source streams.

                Source    Source    Source
                Stream    Stream    Stream
                  |         |         |
                  V         V         V
              +--------------------------+
              |        Media Source      |<-- Reference Clock
              |           Mixer          |
              +--------------------------+
                            |
                            V
                      Source Stream

      Figure 3: Conceptual Media Source in the form of an Audio Mixer

   Another possible example of a conceptual media source is a video
   surveillance switch, where the input is multiple source streams from
   different cameras, and the output is one of those source streams
   based on some selection criteria, such as round robin or some video
   activity measure.

2.1.5.  Source Stream

   A source stream is a stream of digital samples that has been
   synchronized with a reference clock and comes from a particular media
   source (Section 2.1.4).







Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.6.  Media Encoder

   A media encoder is a transform that is responsible for encoding the
   media data from a source stream (Section 2.1.5) into another
   representation, usually more compact, that is output as an encoded
   stream (Section 2.1.7).

   The media encoder step commonly includes pre-encoding
   transformations, such as scaling, resampling, etc.  The media encoder
   can have a significant number of configuration options that affects
   the properties of the encoded stream.  This includes properties such
   as codec, bitrate, start points for decoding, resolution, bandwidth,
   or other fidelity affecting properties.

   Scalable media encoders need special attention as they produce
   multiple outputs that are potentially of different types.  As shown
   in Figure 4, a scalable media encoder takes one input source stream
   and encodes it into multiple output streams of two different types:
   at least one encoded stream that is independently decodable and one
   or more Dependent Streams (Section 2.1.8).  Decoding requires at
   least one encoded stream and zero or more dependent streams.  A
   dependent stream's dependency is one of the grouping relations this
   document discusses further in Section 3.7.

                              Source Stream
                                    |
                                    V
                       +--------------------------+
                       |  Scalable Media Encoder  |
                       +--------------------------+
                          |         |   ...    |
                          V         V          V
                       Encoded  Dependent  Dependent
                       Stream    Stream     Stream

            Figure 4: Scalable Media Encoder Input and Outputs

   There are also other variants of encoders, like so-called Multiple
   Description Coding (MDC).  Such media encoders produce multiple
   independent and thus individually decodable encoded streams.
   However, (logically) combining multiple of these encoded streams into
   a single Received Source Stream during decoding leads to an
   improvement in perceptual reproduced quality when compared to
   decoding a single encoded stream.

   Creating multiple encoded streams from the same source stream, where
   the encoded streams are neither in a scalable nor in an MDC




Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   relationship is commonly utilized in simulcast [SDP-SIMULCAST]
   environments.

2.1.7.  Encoded Stream

   A stream of time synchronized encoded media that can be independently
   decoded.

   Due to temporal dependencies, an encoded stream may have limitations
   in where decoding can be started.  These entry points, for example,
   Intra frames from a video encoder, may require identification and
   their generation may be event based or configured to occur
   periodically.

2.1.8.  Dependent Stream

   A stream of time synchronized encoded media fragments that are
   dependent on one or more encoded streams (Section 2.1.7) and zero or
   more dependent streams to be possible to decode.

   Each dependent stream has a set of dependencies.  These dependencies
   must be understood by the parties in a Multimedia Session
   (Section 2.2.4) that intend to use a dependent stream.

2.1.9.  Media Packetizer

   The transformation of taking one or more encoded (Section 2.1.7) or
   dependent streams (Section 2.1.8) and putting their content into one
   or more sequences of packets, normally RTP Packets, and output Source
   RTP Streams (Section 2.1.10).  This step includes both generating RTP
   Payloads as well as RTP packets.  The Media Packetizer then selects
   which synchronization source(s) (SSRC) [RFC3550] and RTP Sessions
   (Section 2.2.2) to use.

   The media packetizer can combine multiple encoded or dependent
   streams into one or more RTP Streams:

   o  The media packetizer can use multiple inputs when producing a
      single RTP stream.  One such example is Single RTP stream on a
      Single media Transport (SRST) packetization when using Scalable
      Video Coding (SVC) (Section 3.7).

   o  The media packetizer can also produce multiple RTP streams, for
      example, when encoded and/or dependent streams are distributed
      over multiple RTP streams.  One example of this is Multiple RTP
      streams on Multiple media Transports (MRMT) packetization when
      using SVC (Section 3.7).




Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.10.  RTP Stream

   An RTP stream is a stream of RTP packets containing media data,
   source or redundant.  The RTP stream is identified by an SSRC
   belonging to a particular RTP Session.  The RTP session is identified
   as discussed in Section 2.2.2.

   A source RTP stream is an RTP stream directly related to an encoded
   stream (Section 2.1.7), targeted for transport over RTP without any
   additional RTP-based Redundancy (Section 2.1.11) applied.

   Characteristics:

   o  Each RTP stream is identified by an SSRC [RFC3550] that is carried
      in every RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packet header.  The
      SSRC is unique in a specific RTP session context.

   o  At any given point in time, an RTP stream can have one and only
      one SSRC, but SSRCs for a given RTP stream can change over time.
      SSRC collision and clock rate change [RFC7160] are examples of
      valid reasons to change SSRC for an RTP stream.  In those cases,
      the RTP stream itself is not changed in any significant way, only
      the identifying SSRC number.

   o  Each SSRC defines a unique RTP sequence numbering and timing
      space.

   o  Several RTP streams, each with their own SSRC, may represent a
      single media source.

   o  Several RTP streams, each with their own SSRC, can be carried in a
      single RTP session.

2.1.11.  RTP-Based Redundancy

   RTP-based redundancy is defined here as a transformation that
   generates redundant or repair packets sent out as a Redundancy RTP
   Stream (Section 2.1.12) to mitigate Network Transport
   (Section 2.1.18) impairments, like packet loss and delay.  Note that
   this excludes the type of redundancy that most suitable media
   encoders (Section 2.1.6) may add to the media format of the encoded
   stream (Section 2.1.7) that makes it cope better with RTP packet
   losses.

   The RTP-based redundancy exists in many flavors: they may generate
   independent repair streams that are used in addition to the source
   stream (like RTP Retransmission (Section 3.10) and some special types
   of Forward Error Correction (FEC) (Section 3.11), like RTP stream



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   duplication (Section 3.8)); they may generate a new source stream by
   combining redundancy information with source information (using XOR
   FEC as a redundancy payload (Section 3.9)); or they may completely
   replace the source information with only redundancy packets.

2.1.12.  Redundancy RTP Stream

   A redundancy RTP stream is an RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) that
   contains no original source data, only redundant data, which may
   either be used as standalone or be combined with one or more Received
   RTP Streams (Section 2.1.23) to produce Repaired RTP Streams
   (Section 2.1.26).

2.1.13.  RTP-Based Security

   The optional RTP-based Security transformation applies security
   services such as authentication, integrity protection, and
   confidentiality to an input RTP stream, like what is specified in
   "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)" [RFC3711], producing
   a Secured RTP Stream (Section 2.1.14).  Either an RTP stream
   (Section 2.1.10) or a redundancy RTP stream (Section 2.1.12) can be
   used as input to this transformation.

   In SRTP and the related Secure RTCP (SRTCP), all of the above-
   mentioned security services are optional, except for integrity
   protection of SRTCP, which is mandatory.  Also confidentiality
   (encryption) is effectively optional in SRTP, since it is possible to
   use a NULL encryption algorithm.  As described in [RFC7201], the
   strength of SRTP data origin authentication depends on the
   cryptographic transform and key management used.  For example, in
   group communication, where it is sometimes possible to authenticate
   group membership but not the actual RTP stream sender.

   RTP-based security and RTP-based redundancy can be combined in a few
   different ways.  One way is depicted in Figure 1, where an RTP stream
   and its corresponding redundancy RTP stream are protected by separate
   RTP-based security transforms.  In other cases, like when a Media
   Translator is adding FEC in Section 3.2.1.3 of [RTP-TOPOLOGIES], a
   middlebox can apply RTP-based redundancy to an already secured RTP
   stream instead of a source RTP stream.  One example of that is
   depicted in Figure 5 below.










Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


               Source RTP Stream    +------------+
                      V             |            V
           +----------------------+ | +----------------------+
           |  RTP-Based Security  | | | RTP-Based Redundancy |
           +----------------------+ | +----------------------+
                      |             |            |
                      |             |  Redundancy RTP Stream
                      +-------------+            |
                      |                          V
                      |               +----------------------+
              Secured RTP Stream      |  RTP-Based Security  |
                      |               +----------------------+
                      |                          |
                      |            Secured Redundancy RTP Stream
                      V                          V
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+
           |   Media Transport    |   |   Media Transport    |
           +----------------------+   +----------------------+

            Figure 5: Adding Redundancy to a Secured RTP Stream

   In this case, the redundancy RTP stream may already have been secured
   for confidentiality (encrypted) by the first RTP-based security, and
   it may therefore not be necessary to apply additional confidentiality
   protection in the second RTP-based security.  To avoid attacks and
   negative impact on RTP-based Repair (Section 2.1.25) and the
   resulting repaired RTP stream (Section 2.1.26), it is, however, still
   necessary to have this second RTP-based security apply both
   authentication and integrity protection to the redundancy RTP stream.

2.1.14.  Secured RTP Stream

   A secured RTP stream is a source or redundancy RTP stream that is
   protected through RTP-based security (Section 2.1.13) by one or more
   of the confidentiality, integrity, or authentication security
   services.

2.1.15.  Media Transport

   A media transport defines the transformation that the RTP streams
   (Section 2.1.10) are subjected to by the end-to-end transport from
   one RTP Sender (Section 4.12) to one specific RTP Receiver
   (Section 4.11) (an RTP session (Section 2.2.2) may contain multiple
   RTP receivers per sender).  Each media transport is defined by a
   transport association that is normally identified by a 5-tuple
   (source address, source port, destination address, destination port,
   transport protocol), but a proposal exists for sending multiple
   transport associations on a single 5-tuple [TRANSPORT-MULTIPLEX].



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   Characteristics:

   o  Media transport transmits RTP streams of RTP packets from a source
      transport address to a destination transport address.

   o  Each media transport contains only a single RTP session.

   o  A single RTP session can span multiple media transports.

   The media transport concept sometimes needs to be decomposed into
   more steps to enable discussion of what a sender emits that gets
   transformed by the network before it is received by the receiver.
   Thus, we provide also this media transport decomposition (Figure 6).

                               RTP Stream
                                    |
                                    V
                       +--------------------------+
                       |  Media Transport Sender  |
                       +--------------------------+
                                    |
                             Sent RTP Stream
                                    V
                       +--------------------------+
                       |    Network Transport     |
                       +--------------------------+
                                    |
                         Transported RTP Stream
                                    V
                       +--------------------------+
                       | Media Transport Receiver |
                       +--------------------------+
                                    |
                                    V
                           Received RTP Stream

                Figure 6: Decomposition of Media Transport

2.1.16.  Media Transport Sender

   The first transformation within the media transport (Section 2.1.15)
   is the Media Transport Sender.  The sending Endpoint (Section 2.2.1)
   takes an RTP stream and emits the packets onto the network using the
   transport association established for this media transport, thereby
   creating a Sent RTP Stream (Section 2.1.17).  In the process, it
   transforms the RTP stream in several ways.  First, it generates the
   necessary protocol headers for the transport association, for
   example, IP and UDP headers, thus forming IP/UDP/RTP packets.  In



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   addition, the media transport sender may queue, intentionally pace,
   or otherwise affect how the packets are emitted onto the network,
   thereby potentially introducing delay and delay variations [RFC5481]
   that characterize the sent RTP stream.

2.1.17.  Sent RTP Stream

   The sent RTP stream is the RTP stream as entering the first hop of
   the network path to its destination.  The sent RTP stream is
   identified using network transport addresses, like the 5-tuple
   (source IP address, source port, destination IP address, destination
   port, and protocol (UDP)) for IP/UDP.

2.1.18.  Network Transport

   Network transport is the transformation that subjects the sent RTP
   stream (Section 2.1.17) to traveling from the source to the
   destination through the network.  This transformation can result in
   loss of some packets, delay, and delay variation on a per-packet
   basis, packet duplication, and packet header or data corruption.
   This transformation produces a Transported RTP Stream
   (Section 2.1.19) at the exit of the network path.

2.1.19.  Transported RTP Stream

   The transported RTP stream is the RTP stream that is emitted out of
   the network path at the destination, subjected to the network
   transport's transformation (Section 2.1.18).

2.1.20.  Media Transport Receiver

   The Media Transport Receiver is the receiver endpoint's
   (Section 2.2.1) transformation of the transported RTP stream
   (Section 2.1.19) by its reception process, which results in the
   received RTP stream (Section 2.1.23).  This transformation includes
   transport checksums being verified.  Sensible system designs
   typically either discard packets with mismatching checksums or pass
   them on while somehow marking them in the resulting received RTP
   stream so to alert subsequent transformations about the possible
   corrupt state.  In this context, it is worth noting that there is
   typically some probability for corrupt packets to pass through
   undetected (with a seemingly correct checksum).  Other
   transformations can compensate for delay variations in receiving a
   packet on the network interface and providing it to the application
   (de-jitter buffer).






Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.21.  Received Secured RTP Stream

   This is the secured RTP stream (Section 2.1.14) resulting from the
   media transport (Section 2.1.15) aggregate transformation.

2.1.22.  RTP-Based Validation

   RTP-based Validation is the reverse transformation of RTP-based
   security (Section 2.1.13).  If this transformation fails, the result
   is either not usable and must be discarded or may be usable but
   cannot be trusted.  If the transformation succeeds, the result can be
   a received RTP stream (Section 2.1.23) or a Received Redundancy RTP
   Stream (Section 2.1.24), depending on what was input to the
   corresponding RTP-based security transformation, but it can also be a
   Received Secured RTP Stream (Section 2.1.21) in case several RTP-
   based security transformations were applied.

2.1.23.  Received RTP Stream

   The received RTP stream is the RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) resulting
   from the media transport's aggregate transformation (Section 2.1.15),
   i.e., subjected to packet loss, packet corruption, packet
   duplication, delay, and delay variation from sender to receiver.

2.1.24.  Received Redundancy RTP Stream

   The received redundancy RTP stream is the redundancy RTP stream
   (Section 2.1.12) resulting from the media transport's aggregate
   transformation, i.e., subjected to packet loss, packet corruption,
   packet duplication, delay, and delay variation from sender to
   receiver.

2.1.25.  RTP-Based Repair

   RTP-based repair is a transformation that takes as input zero or more
   received RTP streams (Section 2.1.23) and one or more received
   redundancy RTP streams (Section 2.1.24) and produces one or more
   repaired RTP streams (Section 2.1.26) that are as close to the
   corresponding sent source RTP streams (Section 2.1.10) as possible,
   using different RTP-based repair methods, for example, the ones
   referred to in RTP-based redundancy (Section 2.1.11).

2.1.26.  Repaired RTP Stream

   A repaired RTP stream is a received RTP stream (Section 2.1.23) for
   which received redundancy RTP stream (Section 2.1.24) information has
   been used to try to recover the source RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) as
   it was before media transport (Section 2.1.15).



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.27.  Media Depacketizer

   A Media Depacketizer takes one or more RTP streams (Section 2.1.10),
   depacketizes them, and attempts to reconstitute the encoded streams
   (Section 2.1.7) or dependent streams (Section 2.1.8) present in those
   RTP streams.

   In practical implementations, the media depacketizer and the media
   decoder may be tightly coupled and share information to improve or
   optimize the overall decoding and error concealment process.  It is,
   however, not expected that there would be any benefit in defining a
   taxonomy for those detailed (and likely very implementation-
   dependent) steps.

2.1.28.  Received Encoded Stream

   The Received Encoded Stream is the received version of an encoded
   stream (Section 2.1.7).

2.1.29.  Media Decoder

   A media decoder is a transformation that is responsible for decoding
   encoded streams (Section 2.1.7) and any dependent streams
   (Section 2.1.8) into a source stream (Section 2.1.5).

   In practical implementations, the media decoder and the media
   depacketizer may be tightly coupled and share information to improve
   or optimize the overall decoding process in various ways.  It is,
   however, not expected that there would be any benefit in defining a
   taxonomy for those detailed (and likely very implementation-
   dependent) steps.

   A media decoder has to deal with any errors in the encoded streams
   that resulted from corruption or failure to repair packet losses.
   Therefore, it commonly is robust to error and losses, and includes
   concealment methods.

2.1.30.  Received Source Stream

   The received source stream is the received version of a source stream
   (Section 2.1.5).










Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.1.31.  Media Sink

   The Media Sink receives a source stream (Section 2.1.5) that
   contains, usually periodically, sampled media data together with
   associated synchronization information.  Depending on application,
   this source stream then needs to be transformed into a raw stream
   (Section 2.1.3) that is conveyed to the Media Render (Section 2.1.33)
   and synchronized with the output from other media sinks.  The media
   sink may also be connected with a media source (Section 2.1.4) and be
   used as part of a conceptual media source.

   The media sink can further transform the source stream into a
   representation that is suitable for rendering on the media render as
   defined by the application or system-wide configuration.  This
   includes sample scaling, level adjustments, etc.

2.1.32.  Received Raw Stream

   The Received Raw Stream is the received version of a raw stream
   (Section 2.1.3).

2.1.33.  Media Render

   A media render takes a raw stream (Section 2.1.3) and converts it
   into physical stimulus (Section 2.1.1) that a human user can
   perceive.  Examples of such devices are screens and D/A converters
   connected to amplifiers and loudspeakers.

   An endpoint can potentially have multiple media renders for each
   media type.





















Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


2.2.  Communication Entities

   This section contains concepts for entities involved in the
   communication.

      +------------------------------------------------------------+
      | Communication Session                                      |
      |                                                            |
      | +----------------+                      +----------------+ |
      | | Participant A  |    +------------+    | Participant B  | |
      | |                |    | Multimedia |    |                | |
      | | +------------+ |<==>| Session    |<==>| +------------+ | |
      | | | Endpoint A | |    |            |    | | Endpoint B | | |
      | | |            | |    +------------+    | |            | | |
      | | | +----------+-+----------------------+-+----------+ | | |
      | | | | RTP      | |                      | |          | | | |
      | | | | Session  |-+---Media Transport----+>|          | | | |
      | | | | Audio    |<+---Media Transport----+-|          | | | |
      | | | |          | |          ^           | |          | | | |
      | | | +----------+-+----------|-----------+-+----------+ | | |
      | | |            | |          v           | |            | | |
      | | |            | | +-----------------+  | |            | | |
      | | |            | | | Synchronization |  | |            | | |
      | | |            | | |     Context     |  | |            | | |
      | | |            | | +-----------------+  | |            | | |
      | | |            | |          ^           | |            | | |
      | | | +----------+-+----------|-----------+-+----------+ | | |
      | | | | RTP      | |          v           | |          | | | |
      | | | | Session  |<+---Media Transport----+-|          | | | |
      | | | | Video    |-+---Media Transport----+>|          | | | |
      | | | |          | |                      | |          | | | |
      | | | +----------+-+----------------------+-+----------+ | | |
      | | +------------+ |                      | +------------+ | |
      | +----------------+                      +----------------+ |
      +------------------------------------------------------------+

    Figure 7: Example Point-to-Point Communication Session with Two RTP
                                 Sessions

   Figure 7 shows a high-level example representation of a very basic
   point-to-point Communication Session between Participants A and B.
   It uses two different audio and video RTP sessions between A's and
   B's endpoints, where each RTP session is a group communications
   channel that can potentially carry a number of RTP streams.  It is
   using separate media transports for those RTP sessions.  The
   multimedia session shared by the participants can, for example, be
   established using SIP (i.e., there is a SIP dialog between A and B).




Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   The terms used in Figure 7 are further elaborated in the subsections
   below.

2.2.1.  Endpoint

   An endpoint is a single addressable entity sending or receiving RTP
   packets.  It may be decomposed into several functional blocks, but as
   long as it behaves as a single RTP stack entity, it is classified as
   a single "endpoint".

   Characteristics:

   o  Endpoints can be identified in several different ways.  While RTCP
      Canonical Names (CNAMEs) [RFC3550] provide a globally unique and
      stable identification mechanism for the duration of the
      communication session (see Section 2.2.5), their validity applies
      exclusively within a Synchronization Context (Section 3.1).  Thus,
      one endpoint can handle multiple CNAMEs, each of which can be
      shared among a set of endpoints belonging to the same participant
      (Section 2.2.3).  Therefore, mechanisms outside the scope of RTP,
      such as application-defined mechanisms, must be used to provide
      endpoint identification when outside this synchronization context.

   o  An endpoint can be associated with at most one participant
      (Section 2.2.3) at any single point in time.

   o  In some contexts, an endpoint would typically correspond to a
      single "host", for example, a computer using a single network
      interface and being used by a single human user.  In other
      contexts, a single "host" can serve multiple participants, in
      which case each participant's endpoint may share properties, for
      example, the IP address part of a transport address.

2.2.2.  RTP Session

   An RTP session is an association among a group of participants
   communicating with RTP.  It is a group communications channel that
   can potentially carry a number of RTP streams.  Within an RTP
   session, every participant can find metadata and control information
   (over RTCP) about all the RTP streams in the RTP session.  The
   bandwidth of the RTCP control channel is shared between all
   participants within an RTP session.

   Characteristics:

   o  An RTP session can carry one or more RTP streams.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   o  An RTP session shares a single SSRC space as defined in [RFC3550].
      That is, the endpoints participating in an RTP session can see an
      SSRC identifier transmitted by any of the other endpoints.  An
      endpoint can receive an SSRC either as SSRC or as a contributing
      source (CSRC) in RTP and RTCP packets, as defined by the
      endpoints' network interconnection topology.

   o  An RTP session uses at least two media transports
      (Section 2.1.15): one for sending and one for receiving.
      Commonly, the receiving media transport is the reverse direction
      of the media transport used for sending.  An RTP session may use
      many media transports and these define the session's network
      interconnection topology.

   o  A single media transport always carries a single RTP session.

   o  Multiple RTP sessions can be conceptually related, for example,
      originating from or targeted for the same participant
      (Section 2.2.3) or endpoint (Section 2.2.1), or by containing RTP
      streams that are somehow related (Section 3).

2.2.3.  Participant

   A participant is an entity reachable by a single signaling address
   and is thus related more to the signaling context than to the media
   context.

   Characteristics:

   o  A single signaling-addressable entity, using an application-
      specific signaling address space, for example, a SIP URI.

   o  A participant can participate in several multimedia sessions
      (Section 2.2.4).

   o  A participant can be comprised of several associated endpoints
      (Section 2.2.1).

2.2.4.  Multimedia Session

   A multimedia session is an association among a group of participants
   (Section 2.2.3) engaged in the communication via one or more RTP
   sessions (Section 2.2.2).  It defines logical relationships among
   media sources (Section 2.1.4) that appear in multiple RTP sessions.







Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   Characteristics:

   o  A multimedia session can be composed of several RTP sessions with
      potentially multiple RTP streams per RTP session.

   o  Each participant in a multimedia session can have a multitude of
      media captures and media rendering devices.

   o  A single multimedia session can contain media from one or more
      synchronization contexts (Section 3.1).  An example of that is a
      multimedia session containing one set of audio and video for
      communication purposes belonging to one synchronization context,
      and another set of audio and video for presentation purposes (like
      playing a video file) with a separate synchronization context that
      has no strong timing relationship and need not be strictly
      synchronized with the audio and video used for communication.

2.2.5.  Communication Session

   A communication session is an association among two or more
   participants (Section 2.2.3) communicating with each other via one or
   more multimedia sessions (Section 2.2.4).

   Characteristics:

   o  Each participant in a communication session is identified via an
      application-specific signaling address.

   o  A communication session is composed of participants that share at
      least one multimedia session, involving one or more parallel RTP
      sessions with potentially multiple RTP streams per RTP session.

   For example, in a full mesh communication, the communication session
   consists of a set of separate multimedia sessions between each pair
   of participants.  Another example is a centralized conference, where
   the communication session consists of a set of multimedia sessions
   between each participant and the conference handler.

3.  Concepts of Inter-Relations

   This section uses the concepts from previous sections and looks at
   different types of relationships among them.  These relationships
   occur at different abstraction levels and for different purposes, but
   the reason for the needed relationship at a certain step in the media
   handling chain may exist at another step.  For example, the use of
   simulcast (Section 3.6) implies a need to determine relations at the





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   RTP stream level, but the underlying reason is that multiple media
   encoders use the same media source, i.e., to be able to identify a
   common media source.

3.1.  Synchronization Context

   A synchronization context defines a requirement for a strong timing
   relationship between the media sources, typically requiring alignment
   of clock sources.  Such a relationship can be identified in multiple
   ways as listed below.  A single media source can only belong to a
   single synchronization context, since it is assumed that a single
   media source can only have a single media clock and requiring
   alignment to several synchronization contexts (and thus reference
   clocks) will effectively merge those into a single synchronization
   context.

3.1.1.  RTCP CNAME

   [RFC3550] describes inter-media synchronization between RTP sessions
   based on RTCP CNAME, RTP, and timestamps of a reference clock
   formatted using the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905].  As
   indicated in [RFC7273], despite using NTP format timestamps, it is
   not required that the clock be synchronized to an NTP source.

3.1.2.  Clock Source Signaling

   [RFC7273] provides a mechanism to signal the clock source in the
   Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] both for the reference
   clock as well as the media clock, thus allowing a synchronization
   context to be defined beyond the one defined by the usage of CNAME
   source descriptions.

3.1.3.  Implicitly via RtcMediaStream

   WebRTC defines RtcMediaStream with one or more RtcMediaStreamTracks.
   All tracks in a RtcMediaStream are intended to be synchronized when
   rendered, implying that they must be generated such that
   synchronization is possible.

3.1.4.  Explicitly via SDP Mechanisms

   The SDP Grouping Framework [RFC5888] defines an "m=" line
   (Section 4.2) grouping mechanism called Lip Synchronization (with LS
   identification-tag) for establishing the synchronization requirement
   across "m=" lines when they map to individual sources.






Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   Source-Specific Media Attributes in SDP [RFC5576] extends the above
   mechanism when multiple media sources are described by a single "m="
   line.

3.2.  Endpoint

   Some applications require knowledge of what media sources originate
   from a particular endpoint (Section 2.2.1).  This can include such
   decisions as packet routing between parts of the topology, knowing
   the endpoint origin of the RTP streams.

   In RTP, this identification has been overloaded with the
   synchronization context (Section 3.1) through the usage of the RTCP
   source description CNAME (Section 3.1.1).  This works for some
   usages, but in others it breaks down.  For example, if an endpoint
   has two sets of media sources that have different synchronization
   contexts, like the audio and video of the human participant as well
   as a set of media sources of audio and video for a shared movie,
   CNAME would not be an appropriate identification for that endpoint.
   Therefore, an endpoint may have multiple CNAMEs.  The CNAMEs or the
   media sources themselves can be related to the endpoint.

3.3.  Participant

   In communication scenarios, information about which media sources
   originate from which participant (Section 2.2.3) is commonly needed.
   One reason is, for example, to enable the application to correctly
   display participant identity information associated with the media
   sources.  This association is handled through signaling to point at a
   specific multimedia session where the media sources may be explicitly
   or implicitly tied to a particular endpoint.

   Participant information becomes more problematic when there are media
   sources that are generated through mixing or other conceptual
   processing of raw streams or source streams that originate from
   different participants.  These types of media sources can thus have a
   dynamically varying set of origins and participants.  RTP contains
   the concept of CSRC that carries information about the previous step
   origin of the included media content on the RTP level.

3.4.  RtcMediaStream

   An RtcMediaStream in WebRTC is an explicit grouping of a set of media
   sources (RtcMediaStreamTracks) that share a common identifier and a
   single synchronization context (Section 3.1).






Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.5.  Multi-Channel Audio

   There exist a number of RTP payload formats that can carry multi-
   channel audio, despite the codec being a single-channel (mono)
   encoder.  Multi-channel audio can be viewed as multiple media sources
   sharing a common synchronization context.  These are independently
   encoded by a media encoder and the different encoded streams are
   packetized together in a time-synchronized way into a single source
   RTP stream, using the used codec's RTP payload format.  Examples of
   codecs that support multi-channel audio are PCMA and PCMU [RFC3551],
   Adaptive Multi Rate (AMR) [RFC4867], and G.719 [RFC5404].

3.6.  Simulcast

   A media source represented as multiple independent encoded streams
   constitutes a simulcast [SDP-SIMULCAST] or Modification Detection
   Code (MDC) of that media source.  Figure 8 shows an example of a
   media source that is encoded into three separate simulcast streams,
   that are in turn sent on the same media transport flow.  When using
   simulcast, the RTP streams may be sharing an RTP session and media
   transport, or be separated on different RTP sessions and media
   transports, or be any combination of these two.  One major reason to
   use separate media transports is to make use of different quality of
   service (QoS) for the different source RTP streams.  Some
   considerations on separating related RTP streams are discussed in
   Section 3.12.

























Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


                            +----------------+
                            |  Media Source  |
                            +----------------+
                     Source Stream  |
             +----------------------+----------------------+
             |                      |                      |
             V                      V                      V
    +------------------+   +------------------+   +------------------+
    |  Media Encoder   |   |  Media Encoder   |   |  Media Encoder   |
    +------------------+   +------------------+   +------------------+
             | Encoded              | Encoded              | Encoded
             | Stream               | Stream               | Stream
             V                      V                      V
    +------------------+   +------------------+   +------------------+
    | Media Packetizer |   | Media Packetizer |   | Media Packetizer |
    +------------------+   +------------------+   +------------------+
             | Source               | Source               | Source
             | RTP                  | RTP                  | RTP
             | Stream               | Stream               | Stream
             +-----------------+    |    +-----------------+
                               |    |    |
                               V    V    V
                          +-------------------+
                          |  Media Transport  |
                          +-------------------+

                Figure 8: Example of Media Source Simulcast

   The simulcast relation between the RTP streams is the common media
   source.  In addition, to be able to identify the common media source,
   a receiver of the RTP stream may need to know which configuration or
   encoding goals lay behind the produced encoded stream and its
   properties.  This enables selection of the stream that is most useful
   in the application at that moment.

















Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.7.  Layered Multi-Stream

   Layered Multi-Stream (LMS) is a mechanism by which different portions
   of a layered or scalable encoding of a source stream are sent using
   separate RTP streams (sometimes in separate RTP sessions).  LMSs are
   useful for receiver control of layered media.

   A media source represented as an encoded stream and multiple
   dependent streams constitutes a media source that has layered
   dependencies.  Figure 9 represents an example of a media source that
   is encoded into three dependent layers, where two layers are sent on
   the same media transport using different RTP streams, i.e., SSRCs,
   and the third layer is sent on a separate media transport.

                            +----------------+
                            |  Media Source  |
                            +----------------+
                                    |
                                    |
                                    V
       +---------------------------------------------------------+
       |                      Media Encoder                      |
       +---------------------------------------------------------+
               |                    |                     |
        Encoded Stream       Dependent Stream     Dependent Stream
               |                    |                     |
               V                    V                     V
       +----------------+   +----------------+   +----------------+
       |Media Packetizer|   |Media Packetizer|   |Media Packetizer|
       +----------------+   +----------------+   +----------------+
               |                    |                     |
          RTP Stream           RTP Stream            RTP Stream
               |                    |                     |
               +------+      +------+                     |
                      |      |                            |
                      V      V                            V
                +-----------------+              +-----------------+
                | Media Transport |              | Media Transport |
                +-----------------+              +-----------------+

           Figure 9: Example of Media Source Layered Dependency

   It is sometimes useful to make a distinction between using a single
   media transport or multiple separate media transports when (in both
   cases) using multiple RTP streams to carry encoded streams and
   dependent streams for a media source.  Therefore, the following new
   terminology is defined here:




Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   SRST:  Single RTP stream on a Single media Transport

   MRST:  Multiple RTP streams on a Single media Transport

   MRMT:  Multiple RTP streams on Multiple media Transports

   MRST and MRMT relations need to identify the common media encoder
   origin for the encoded and dependent streams.  When using different
   RTP sessions (MRMT), a single RTP stream per media encoder, and a
   single media source in each RTP session, common SSRCs and CNAMEs can
   be used to identify the common media source.  When multiple RTP
   streams are sent from one media encoder in the same RTP session
   (MRST), then CNAME is the only currently specified RTP identifier
   that can be used.  In cases where multiple media encoders use
   multiple media sources sharing synchronization context, and thus have
   a common CNAME, additional heuristics or identification need to be
   applied to create the MRST or MRMT relationships between the RTP
   streams.

































Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.8.  RTP Stream Duplication

   RTP Stream Duplication [RFC7198], using the same or different media
   transports, and optionally also delaying the duplicate [RFC7197],
   offers a simple way to protect media flows from packet loss in some
   cases (see Figure 10).  This is a specific type of redundancy.  All
   but one source RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) are effectively redundancy
   RTP streams (Section 2.1.12), but since both source and redundant RTP
   streams are the same, it does not matter which one is which.  This
   can also be seen as a specific type of simulcast (Section 3.6) that
   transmits the same encoded stream (Section 2.1.7) multiple times.

                            +----------------+
                            |  Media Source  |
                            +----------------+
                     Source Stream  |
                                    V
                            +----------------+
                            | Media Encoder  |
                            +----------------+
                    Encoded Stream  |
                        +-----------+-----------+
                        |                       |
                        V                       V
               +------------------+    +------------------+
               | Media Packetizer |    | Media Packetizer |
               +------------------+    +------------------+
                 Source | RTP Stream     Source | RTP Stream
                        |                       V
                        |                +-------------+
                        |                | Delay (opt) |
                        |                +-------------+
                        |                       |
                        +-----------+-----------+
                                    |
                                    V
                          +-------------------+
                          |  Media Transport  |
                          +-------------------+

               Figure 10: Example of RTP Stream Duplication










Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.9.  Redundancy Format

   "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data" [RFC2198] defines a transport
   for redundant audio data together with primary data in the same RTP
   payload.  The redundant data can be a time-delayed version of the
   primary or another time-delayed encoded stream using a different
   media encoder to encode the same media source as the primary, as
   depicted in Figure 11.

              +--------------------+
              |    Media Source    |
              +--------------------+
                        |
                   Source Stream
                        |
                        +------------------------+
                        |                        |
                        V                        V
              +--------------------+   +--------------------+
              |   Media Encoder    |   |   Media Encoder    |
              +--------------------+   +--------------------+
                        |                        |
                        |                 +------------+
                  Encoded Stream          | Time Delay |
                        |                 +------------+
                        |                        |
                        |     +------------------+
                        V     V
              +--------------------+
              |  Media Packetizer  |
              +--------------------+
                        |
                        V
                   RTP Stream

   Figure 11: Concept for Usage of Audio Redundancy with Different Media
                                 Encoders

   The redundancy format is thus providing the necessary meta
   information to correctly relate different parts of the same encoded
   stream.  The case depicted above (Figure 11) relates the received
   source stream fragments coming out of different media decoders, to be
   able to combine them together into a less erroneous source stream.

3.10.  RTP Retransmission

   Figure 12 shows an example where a media source's source RTP stream
   is protected by a retransmission (RTX) flow [RFC4588].  In this



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   example, the source RTP stream and the redundancy RTP stream share
   the same media transport.

          +--------------------+
          |    Media Source    |
          +--------------------+
                    |
                    V
          +--------------------+
          |   Media Encoder    |
          +--------------------+
                    |                              Retransmission
              Encoded Stream     +--------+     +---- Request
                    V            |        V     V
          +--------------------+ | +--------------------+
          |  Media Packetizer  | | | RTP Retransmission |
          +--------------------+ | +--------------------+
                    |            |           |
                    +------------+  Redundancy RTP Stream
             Source RTP Stream               |
                    |                        |
                    +---------+    +---------+
                              |    |
                              V    V
                       +-----------------+
                       | Media Transport |
                       +-----------------+

          Figure 12: Example of Media Source Retransmission Flows

   The RTP retransmission example (Figure 12) illustrates that this
   mechanism works purely on the source RTP stream.  The RTP
   retransmission transforms buffers from the sent source RTP stream
   and, upon request, emits a retransmitted packet with an extra payload
   header as a redundancy RTP stream.  The RTP retransmission mechanism
   [RFC4588] is specified such that there is a one-to-one relation
   between the source RTP stream and the redundancy RTP stream.
   Therefore, a redundancy RTP stream needs to be associated with its
   source RTP stream.  This is done based on CNAME selectors and
   heuristics to match requested packets for a given source RTP stream
   with the original sequence number in the payload of any new
   redundancy RTP stream using the RTX payload format.  In cases where
   the redundancy RTP stream is sent in a different RTP session than the
   source RTP stream, the RTP session relation is signaled by using the
   SDP media grouping's [RFC5888] Flow Identification (FID
   identification-tag) semantics.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.11.  Forward Error Correction

   Figure 13 shows an example where two media sources' source RTP
   streams are protected by FEC.  Source RTP stream A has an RTP-based
   redundancy transformation in FEC encoder 1.  This produces a
   redundancy RTP stream 1, that is only related to source RTP stream A.
   The FEC encoder 2, however, takes two source RTP streams (A and B)
   and produces a redundancy RTP stream 2 that protects them jointly,
   i.e., redundancy RTP stream 2 relates to two source RTP streams (a
   FEC group).  FEC decoding, when needed due to packet loss or packet
   corruption at the receiver, requires knowledge about which source RTP
   streams that the FEC encoding was based on.

   In Figure 13, all RTP streams are sent on the same media transport.
   This is, however, not the only possible choice.  Numerous
   combinations exist for spreading these RTP streams over different
   media transports to achieve the communication application's goal.

       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
       |   Media Source A   |                |   Media Source B   |
       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
                 |                                     |
                 V                                     V
       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
       |   Media Encoder A  |                |   Media Encoder B  |
       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
                 |                                     |
           Encoded Stream                        Encoded Stream
                 V                                     V
       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
       | Media Packetizer A |                | Media Packetizer B |
       +--------------------+                +--------------------+
                 |                                     |
        Source RTP Stream A                   Source RTP Stream B
                 |                                     |
           +-----+---------+-------------+         +---+---+
           |               V             V         V       |
           |       +---------------+  +---------------+    |
           |       | FEC Encoder 1 |  | FEC Encoder 2 |    |
           |       +---------------+  +---------------+    |
           |  Redundancy   |     Redundancy   |            |
           |  RTP Stream 1 |     RTP Stream 2 |            |
           V               V                  V            V
       +----------------------------------------------------------+
       |                    Media Transport                       |
       +----------------------------------------------------------+

             Figure 13: Example of FEC Redundancy RTP Streams



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   As FEC encoding exists in various forms, the methods for relating FEC
   redundancy RTP streams with its source information in source RTP
   streams are many.  The XOR-based RTP FEC payload format [RFC5109] is
   defined in such a way that a redundancy RTP stream has a one-to-one
   relation with a source RTP stream.  In fact, the RFC requires the
   redundancy RTP stream to use the same SSRC as the source RTP stream.
   This requires the use of either a separate RTP session or the
   redundancy RTP payload format [RFC2198].  The underlying relation
   requirement for this FEC format and a particular redundancy RTP
   stream is to know the related source RTP stream, including its SSRC.

3.12.  RTP Stream Separation

   RTP streams can be separated exclusively based on their SSRCs, at the
   RTP session level, or at the multimedia session level.

   When the RTP streams that have a relationship are all sent in the
   same RTP session and are uniquely identified based on their SSRC
   only, it is termed an "SSRC-only-based separation".  Such streams can
   be related via RTCP CNAME to identify that the streams belong to the
   same endpoint.  SSRC-based approaches [RFC5576], when used, can
   explicitly relate various such RTP streams.

   On the other hand, when RTP streams that are related are sent in the
   context of different RTP sessions to achieve separation, it is known
   as "RTP session-based separation".  This is commonly used when the
   different RTP streams are intended for different media transports.

   Several mechanisms that use RTP session-based separation rely on it
   as a grouping mechanism expressing the relationship.  The solutions
   have been based on using the same SSRC value in the different RTP
   sessions to implicitly indicate their relation.  That way, no
   explicit RTP level mechanism has been needed; only signaling level
   relations have been established using semantics from the media-line
   grouping framework [RFC5888].  Examples of this are RTP
   retransmission [RFC4588], SVC Multi-Session Transmission [RFC6190],
   and XOR-based FEC [RFC5109].  RTCP CNAME explicitly relates RTP
   streams across different RTP sessions, as explained in the previous
   section.  Such a relationship can be used to perform inter-media
   synchronization.

   RTP streams that are related and need to be associated can be part of
   different multimedia sessions, rather than just different RTP
   sessions within the same multimedia session context.  This puts
   further demand on the scope of the mechanism(s) and its handling of
   identifiers used for expressing the relationships.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


3.13.  Multiple RTP Sessions over one Media Transport

   [TRANSPORT-MULTIPLEX] describes a mechanism that allows several RTP
   sessions to be carried over a single underlying media transport.  The
   main reasons for doing this are related to the impact of using one or
   more media transports (using a common network path or potentially
   having different ones).  The fewer media transports used, the less
   need for NAT/firewall traversal resources and smaller number of flow-
   based QoS.

   However, multiple RTP sessions over one media transport imply that a
   single media transport 5-tuple is not sufficient to express in which
   RTP session context a particular RTP stream exists.  Complexities in
   the relationship between media transports and RTP sessions already
   exist as one RTP session contains multiple media transports, e.g.,
   even a Peer-to-Peer RTP Session with RTP/RTCP Multiplexing requires
   two media transports, one in each direction.  The relationship
   between media transports and RTP sessions as well as additional
   levels of identifiers needs to be considered in both signaling design
   and when defining terminology.

4.  Mapping from Existing Terms

   This section describes a selected set of terms from some relevant
   RFCs and Internet-Drafts (at the time of writing), using the concepts
   from previous sections.

4.1.  Telepresence Terms

   The terms in this subsection are used in the context of CLUE
   [CLUE-FRAME].  Note that some terms listed in this subsection use the
   same names as terms defined elsewhere in this document.  Unless
   explicitly stated (as "RTP Taxonomy") and in this subsection, they
   are to be read as references to the CLUE-specific term within this
   subsection.

4.1.1.  Audio Capture

   Defined in CLUE as a Media Capture (Section 4.1.7) for audio.
   Describes an audio media source (Section 2.1.4).

4.1.2.  Capture Device

   Defined in CLUE as a device that converts physical input into an
   electrical signal.  Identifies a physical entity performing an RTP
   Taxonomy media capture (Section 2.1.2) transformation.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


4.1.3.  Capture Encoding

   Defined in CLUE as a specific Encoding (Section 4.1.6) of a Media
   Capture (Section 4.1.7).  Describes an encoded stream (Section 2.1.7)
   related to CLUE-specific semantic information.

4.1.4.  Capture Scene

   Defined in CLUE as a structure representing a spatial region captured
   by one or more Capture Devices (Section 4.1.2), each capturing media
   representing a portion of the region.  Describes a set of spatially
   related media sources (Section 2.1.4).

4.1.5.  Endpoint

   Defined in CLUE as a CLUE-capable device that is the logical point of
   final termination through receiving, decoding, and rendering and/or
   initiation through capturing, encoding, and sending of media Streams
   (Section 4.1.10).  CLUE further defines it to consist of one or more
   physical devices with source and sink media streams, and exactly one
   participant [RFC4353].  Describes exactly one participant
   (Section 2.2.3) and one or more RTP Taxonomy endpoints
   (Section 2.2.1).

4.1.6.  Individual Encoding

   Defined in CLUE as a set of parameters representing a way to encode a
   Media Capture (Section 4.1.7) to become a Capture Encoding
   (Section 4.1.3).  Describes the configuration information needed to
   perform a media encoder (Section 2.1.6) transformation.

4.1.7.  Media Capture

   Defined in CLUE as a source of media, such as from one or more
   Capture Devices (Section 4.1.2) or constructed from other media
   Streams (Section 4.1.10).  Describes either an RTP Taxonomy media
   capture (Section 2.1.2) or a media source (Section 2.1.4), depending
   on in which context the term is used.

4.1.8.  Media Consumer

   Defined in CLUE as a CLUE-capable device that intends to receive
   Capture Encodings (Section 4.1.3).  Describes the media receiving
   part of an RTP Taxonomy endpoint (Section 2.2.1).







Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


4.1.9.  Media Provider

   Defined in CLUE as a CLUE-capable device that intends to send Capture
   Encodings (Section 4.1.3).  Describes the media sending part of an
   RTP Taxonomy endpoint (Section 2.2.1).

4.1.10.  Stream

   Defined in CLUE as a Capture Encoding (Section 4.1.3) sent from a
   Media Provider (Section 4.1.9) to a Media Consumer (Section 4.1.8)
   via RTP.  Describes an RTP stream (Section 2.1.10).

4.1.11.  Video Capture

   Defined in CLUE as a Media Capture (Section 4.1.7) for video.
   Describes a video media source (Section 2.1.4).

4.2.  Media Description

   A single Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] Media
   Description (or media block; an "m=" line and all subsequent lines
   until the next "m=" line or the end of the SDP) describes part of the
   necessary configuration and identification information needed for a
   media encoder transformation, as well as the necessary configuration
   and identification information for the media decoder to be able to
   correctly interpret a received RTP stream.

   A media description typically relates to a single media source.  This
   is, for example, an explicit restriction in WebRTC.  However, nothing
   prevents that the same media description (and same RTP session) is
   reused for multiple media sources [RTP-MULTI-STREAM].  It can thus
   describe properties of one or more RTP streams, and can also describe
   properties valid for an entire RTP session (via [RFC5576] mechanisms,
   for example).

4.3.  Media Stream

   RTP [RFC3550] uses media stream, audio stream, video stream, and a
   stream of (RTP) packets interchangeably, which are all RTP streams.

4.4.  Multimedia Conference

   A Multimedia Conference is a communication session (Section 2.2.5)
   between two or more participants (Section 2.2.3), along with the
   software they are using to communicate.






Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


4.5.  Multimedia Session

   SDP [RFC4566] defines a multimedia session as a set of multimedia
   senders and receivers and the data streams flowing from senders to
   receivers, which would correspond to a set of endpoints and the RTP
   streams that flow between them.  In this document, multimedia session
   (Section 2.2.4) also assumes those endpoints belong to a set of
   participants that are engaged in communication via a set of related
   RTP streams.

   RTP [RFC3550] defines a multimedia session as a set of concurrent RTP
   sessions among a common group of participants.  For example, a video
   conference may contain an audio RTP session and a video RTP session.
   This would correspond to a group of participants (each using one or
   more endpoints) sharing a set of concurrent RTP sessions.  In this
   document, multimedia session also defines those RTP sessions to have
   some relation and be part of a communication among the participants.

4.6.  Multipoint Control Unit (MCU)

   This term is commonly used to describe the central node in any type
   of star topology [RTP-TOPOLOGIES] conference.  It describes a device
   that includes one participant (Section 2.2.3) (usually corresponding
   to a so-called conference focus) and one or more related endpoints
   (Section 2.2.1) (sometimes one or more per conference participant).

4.7.  Multi-Session Transmission (MST)

   One of two transmission modes defined in H.264-based SVC [RFC6190],
   the other mode being a Single-Session Transmission (SST)
   (Section 4.14).  In Multi-Session Transmission (MST), the SVC media
   encoder sends encoded streams and dependent streams distributed
   across two or more RTP streams in one or more RTP sessions.  The term
   "MST" is ambiguous in RFC 6190, especially since the name indicates
   the use of multiple "sessions", while MST-type packetization is in
   fact required whenever two or more RTP streams are used for the
   encoded and dependent streams, regardless if those are sent in one or
   more RTP sessions.  Corresponds either to MRST or MRMT (Section 3.7)
   stream relations defined in this document.  The SVC RTP payload RFC
   [RFC6190] is not particularly explicit about how the common media
   encoder (Section 2.1.6) relation between encoded streams
   (Section 2.1.7) and dependent streams (Section 2.1.8) is to be
   implemented.








Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


4.8.  Recording Device

   WebRTC specifications use this term to refer to locally available
   entities performing a media capture (Section 2.1.2) transformation.

4.9.  RtcMediaStream

   A WebRTC RtcMediaStream is a set of media sources (Section 2.1.4)
   sharing the same synchronization context (Section 3.1).

4.10.  RtcMediaStreamTrack

   A WebRTC RtcMediaStreamTrack is a media source (Section 2.1.4).

4.11.  RTP Receiver

   RTP [RFC3550] uses this term, which can be seen as the RTP protocol
   part of a media depacketizer (Section 2.1.27).

4.12.  RTP Sender

   RTP [RFC3550] uses this term, which can be seen as the RTP protocol
   part of a media packetizer (Section 2.1.9).

4.13.  RTP Session

   Within the context of SDP, a singe "m=" line can map to a single RTP
   session (Section 2.2.2), or multiple "m=" lines can map to a single
   RTP session.  The latter is enabled via multiplexing schemes such as
   BUNDLE [SDP-BUNDLE], for example, which allows mapping of multiple
   "m=" lines to a single RTP session.

4.14.  Single-Session Transmission (SST)

   One of two transmission modes defined in H.264-based SVC [RFC6190],
   the other mode being MST (Section 4.7).  In SST, the SVC media
   encoder sends encoded streams (Section 2.1.7) and dependent streams
   (Section 2.1.8) combined into a single RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) in
   a single RTP session (Section 2.2.2), using the SVC RTP payload
   format.  The term "SST" is ambiguous in RFC 6190, in that it
   sometimes refers to the use of a single RTP stream, like in sections
   relating to packetization, and sometimes appears to refer to use of a
   single RTP session, like in the context of discussing SDP.  Closely
   corresponds to SRST (Section 3.7) defined in this document.







Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


4.15.  SSRC

   RTP [RFC3550] defines this as "the source of a stream of RTP
   packets", which indicates that an SSRC is not only a unique
   identifier for the encoded stream (Section 2.1.7) carried in those
   packets but is also effectively used as a term to denote a media
   packetizer (Section 2.1.9).  In [RFC3550], it is stated that "a
   synchronization source may change its data format, e.g., audio
   encoding, over time".  The related encoded stream data format in an
   RTP stream (Section 2.1.10) is identified by the RTP payload type.
   Changing the data format for an encoded stream effectively also
   changes what media encoder (Section 2.1.6) is used for the encoded
   stream.  No ambiguity is introduced to SSRC as an encoded stream
   identifier by allowing RTP payload type changes, as long as only a
   single RTP payload type is valid for any given RTP Timestamp.  This
   is aligned with and further described by Section 5.2 of [RFC3550].

5.  Security Considerations

   The purpose of this document is to make clarifications and reduce the
   confusion prevalent in RTP taxonomy because of inconsistent usage by
   multiple technologies and protocols making use of the RTP protocol.
   It does not introduce any new security considerations beyond those
   already well documented in the RTP protocol [RFC3550] and each of the
   many respective specifications of the various protocols making use of
   it.

   Having a well-defined common terminology and understanding of the
   complexities of the RTP architecture will help lead us to better
   standards, avoiding security problems.

6.  Informative References

   [CLUE-FRAME]
              Duckworth, M., Pepperell, A., and S. Wenger, "Framework
              for Telepresence Multi-Streams", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-clue-framework-22, April 2015.

   [RFC2198]  Perkins, C., Kouvelas, I., Hodson, O., Hardman, V.,
              Handley, M., Bolot, J., Vega-Garcia, A., and S. Fosse-
              Parisis, "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC 2198,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2198, September 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2198>.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.

   [RFC4353]  Rosenberg, J., "A Framework for Conferencing with the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4353,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4353, February 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4353>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC4588]  Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
              Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4588, July 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4588>.

   [RFC4867]  Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie,
              "RTP Payload Format and File Storage Format for the
              Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband
              (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 4867, DOI 10.17487/RFC4867,
              April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4867>.

   [RFC5109]  Li, A., Ed., "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
              Correction", RFC 5109, DOI 10.17487/RFC5109, December
              2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5109>.

   [RFC5404]  Westerlund, M. and I. Johansson, "RTP Payload Format for
              G.719", RFC 5404, DOI 10.17487/RFC5404, January 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5404>.

   [RFC5481]  Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
              Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
              March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.

   [RFC5576]  Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
              Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
              (SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.





Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   [RFC5888]  Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "The Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 5888,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5888, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5888>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC6190]  Wenger, S., Wang, Y., Schierl, T., and A. Eleftheriadis,
              "RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding", RFC 6190,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6190, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6190>.

   [RFC7160]  Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Zorn, Ed., "Support for Multiple
              Clock Rates in an RTP Session", RFC 7160,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7160, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7160>.

   [RFC7197]  Begen, A., Cai, Y., and H. Ou, "Duplication Delay
              Attribute in the Session Description Protocol", RFC 7197,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7197, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7197>.

   [RFC7198]  Begen, A. and C. Perkins, "Duplicating RTP Streams",
              RFC 7198, DOI 10.17487/RFC7198, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7198>.

   [RFC7201]  Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
              Sessions", RFC 7201, DOI 10.17487/RFC7201, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7201>.

   [RFC7273]  Williams, A., Gross, K., van Brandenburg, R., and H.
              Stokking, "RTP Clock Source Signalling", RFC 7273,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7273, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7273>.

   [RTP-MULTI-STREAM]
              Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, W., and C. Perkins,
              "Sending Multiple Media Streams in a Single RTP Session",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-08,
              July 2015.

   [RTP-TOPOLOGIES]
              Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", Work in
              Progress, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-10,
              July 2015.



Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


   [SDP-BUNDLE]
              Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
              "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP)", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-23, July 2015.

   [SDP-SIMULCAST]
              Burman, B., Westerlund, M., Nandakumar, S., and M. Zanaty,
              "Using Simulcast in SDP and RTP Sessions", Work in
              Progress, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-simulcast-01, July 2015.

   [TRANSPORT-MULTIPLEX]
              Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Multiplexing Multiple RTP
              Sessions onto a Single Lower-Layer Transport", Work in
              Progress, draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing-
              07, October 2013.

   [WEBRTC-OVERVIEW]
              Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
              Browser-based Applications", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-14, June 2015.

Acknowledgements

   This document has many concepts borrowed from several documents such
   as WebRTC [WEBRTC-OVERVIEW], CLUE [CLUE-FRAME], and Multiplexing
   Architecture [TRANSPORT-MULTIPLEX].  The authors would like to thank
   all the authors of each of those documents.

   The authors would also like to acknowledge the insights, guidance,
   and contributions of Magnus Westerlund, Roni Even, Paul Kyzivat,
   Colin Perkins, Keith Drage, Harald Alvestrand, Alex Eleftheriadis, Mo
   Zanaty, Stephan Wenger, and Bernard Aboba.

Contributors

   Magnus Westerlund has contributed the concept model for the media
   chain using transformations and streams model, including rewriting
   pre-existing concepts into this model and adding missing concepts.
   The first proposal for updating the relationships and the topologies
   based on this concept was also performed by Magnus.










Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 7656                      RTP Taxonomy                 November 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Lennox
   Vidyo, Inc.
   433 Hackensack Avenue
   Seventh Floor
   Hackensack, NJ  07601
   United States

   Email: jonathan@vidyo.com


   Kevin Gross
   AVA Networks, LLC
   Boulder, CO
   United States

   Email: kevin.gross@avanw.com


   Suhas Nandakumar
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   United States

   Email: snandaku@cisco.com


   Gonzalo Salgueiro
   Cisco Systems
   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   United States

   Email: gsalguei@cisco.com


   Bo Burman (editor)
   Ericsson
   Kistavagen 25
   SE-16480 Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: bo.burman@ericsson.com






Lennox, et al.                Informational                    [Page 46]

