Jingle Audio via RTP

%ents; ]>

Jingle Audio via RTP This document defines methods for negotiating Jingle audio sessions that use the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) for media exchange. &LEGALNOTICE; 0167 Proposed Standards Track Standards Council XMPP Core XEP-0166 TO BE ASSIGNED &scottlu; &stpeter; &seanegan; &robmcqueen; 0.12 2007-11-27 psa

Further editorial review.

0.11 2007-11-15 psa

Editorial review and consistency check; moved voice chat scenarios from XEP-0166 to this specification.

0.10 2007-11-13 psa

Removed info message for busy since it is now a Jingle-specific error condition defined in XEP-0166; defined info message for active.

0.9 2007-04-17 psa

Specified Jingle conformance, including the preference for lossy transports over reliable transports and the process of sending and receiving audio content over each transport type.

0.8 2007-03-23 psa/ram

Renamed to mention RTP as the associated transport; corrected negotiation flow to be consistent with SIP/SDP (each party specifies a list of the payload types it can receive); added profile attribute to content element in order to specify RTP profile in use.

0.7 2006-12-21 psa

Modified spec to use provisional namespace before advancement to Draft (per XEP-0053).

0.6 2006-10-31 psa/se

Specified how to include SDP parameters and codec-specific parameters; clarified negotiation process; added Speex examples; removed queued info message.

0.5 2006-08-23 psa

Modified namespace to track XEP-0166.

0.4 2006-07-12 se/psa

Specified when to play received audio (early media); specified that DTMF must use in-band signalling (XEP-0181).

0.3 2006-03-20 psa

Defined info messages for hold and mute.

0.2 2006-02-13 psa

Defined info message for busy; added info message examples; recommended use of Speex; updated schema and XMPP Registrar considerations.

0.1 2005-12-15 psa

Initial version.

0.0.3 2005-12-05 psa

Described service discovery usage; defined initial informational messages.

0.0.2 2005-10-27 psa

Added SDP mapping, security considerations, IANA considerations, XMPP Registrar considerations, and XML schema.

0.0.1 2005-10-21 psa/sl

First draft.

&xep0166; can be used to initiate and negotiate a wide range of peer-to-peer sessions. One session type of interest is audio chat. This document specifies an application format for negotiating Jingle audio sessions, where the media is exchanged over the Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP; see &rfc3550;).

The Jingle application format defined herein is designed to meet the following requirements:

Enable negotiation of parameters necessary for audio chat over Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP).
Map these parameters to Session Description Protocol (SDP; see &rfc4566;) to enable interoperability.
Define informational messages related to audio chat (e.g., ringing, on hold, on mute).

In accordance with Section 8 of XEP-0166, this document specifies the following information related to the Jingle Audio via RTP application type:

The application format negotiation process is defined in the Negotiating a Jingle Audio Session section of this document.
The semantics of the &DESCRIPTION; element are defined in the Application Format section of this document.
A mapping of Jingle semantics to the Session Description Protocol is provided in the Mapping to Session Description Protocol section of this document.
A Jingle audio session SHOULD use a lossy transport method such as &xep0177; or the "ice-udp" method specified in &xep0176;, but MAY use a reliable transport such as "ice-tcp" if a low-bandwidth codec is employed.
Content is to be sent and received as follows:
- For lossy transports, outbound audio content shall be encoded into RTP packets and each packet shall be sent individually over the transport. Each inbound packet received over the transport is an RTP packet.
- For reliable transports, outbound audio content shall be encoded into RTP packets and each packet data shall be sent in succession over the transport. Incoming data received over the transport shall be processed as a stream of RTP packets, where each RTP packet boundary marks the location of the next packet.

A Jingle audio session is described by a content type that contains one application format and one transport method. The application format consists of one or more encodings contained within a wrapper <description/> element qualified by the 'http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns' namespace &NSNOTE;. In the language of RFC 4566 each encoding is a payload-type; therefore, each <payload-type/> element specifies an encoding that can be used for the audio stream, as illustrated in the following example.

]]>

The &DESCRIPTION; element is intended to be a child of a &CONTENT; element as specified in XEP-0166.

The &CONTENT; element SHOULD possess a 'profile' attribute that specifies the exact protocol in use as would be encapsulated in SDP (e.g., "RTP/AVP" or "UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP").

The encodings SHOULD be provided in order of preference by placing the most-preferred &PAYLOADTYPE; element as the first child of the &DESCRIPTION; element (etc.).

The allowable attributes of the &PAYLOADTYPE; element are as follows:

Attribute	Description	Datatype	Inclusion
channels	The number of channels; if omitted, it MUST be assumed to contain one channel	positiveInteger (defaults to 1)	RECOMMENDED
clockrate	The sampling frequency in Hertz	positiveInteger	RECOMMENDED
id	The payload identifier	positiveInteger	REQUIRED
maxptime	Maximum packet time as specified in RFC 4566	positiveInteger	OPTIONAL
name	The appropriate subtype of the audio MIME type	string	RECOMMENDED for static payload types, REQUIRED for dynamic payload types
ptime	Packet time as specified in RFC 4566	positiveInteger	OPTIONAL

In Jingle Audio, the encodings are used in the context of RTP. The most common encodings for the Audio/Video Profile (AVP) of RTP are listed in &rfc3551; (these "static" types are reserved from payload ID 0 through payload ID 95), although other encodings are allowed (these "dynamic" types use payload IDs 96 to 127) in accordance with the dynamic assignment rules described in Section 3 of RFC 3551. The payload IDs are represented in the 'id' attribute.

Each <payload-type/> element MAY contain one or more child elements that specify particular parameters related to the payload. For example, as described in &rtpspeex;, the "cng", "mode", and "vbr" parameters may be specified in relation to usage of the Speex See <http://www.speex.org/>. codec. Where such parameters are encoded via the "fmtp" SDP attribute, they shall be represented in Jingle via the following format:

]]>

Note: The parameter names are effectively guaranteed to be unique, since &IANA; maintains a registry of SDP parameters (see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters>).

When the initiator sends a session-initiate stanza to the responder, the &DESCRIPTION; element includes all of the payload types that the initiator can receive for Jingle audio (each one encapsulated in a separate &PAYLOADTYPE; element):

action='session-initiate' initiator='romeo@montague.net/orchard' sid='a73sjjvkla37jfea'>

]]>

Upon receiving the session-initiate stanza, the responder determines whether it can proceed with the negotiation. The general Jingle error cases are specified in XEP-0166 and illustrated in the Scenarios section of this document. In addition, the responder must determine if it supports any of the payload types advertised by the initiator; if it supports none of the offered payload types, it must reject the session by returning a ¬acceptable; error with a Jingle-Audio-specific condition of <unsupported-codecs/>:

]]>

If there is no error, the responder acknowledges the session initiation request.

]]>

The responder then should send a list of the payload types that it can receive via a Jingle "content-accept" (or "session-accept") action. The list that the responder sends MAY include any payload types (not a subset of the payload types sent by the initiator) but SHOULD retain the ID numbers specified by the initiator. The order of the &PAYLOADTYPE; elements indicates the responder's preferences, with the most-preferred types first.

action='content-accept' initiator='romeo@montague.net/orchard' sid='a73sjjvkla37jfea'>

]]>

The initiator acknowledges the 'content-accept' with an empty IQ result:

]]>

After successful transport negotiation (not shown here), the responder then accepts the session:

]]>

And the initiator acknowledges session acceptance:

]]>

Note: Because a "session-accept" action implicitly indicates acceptance of the application format (i.e., "content-accept"), it is not necessary to send a separate "content-accept" action. This flow is shown for completeness only.

If the payload type is static (payload-type IDs 0 through 95 inclusive), it MUST be mapped to a media field defined in RFC 4566. The generic format for the media field is as follows:

]]>

In the context of Jingle audio sessions, the <media> is "audio", the <port> is the preferred port for such communications (which may be determined dynamically), the <transport> is whatever profile is negotiated via the 'profile' attribute of the &CONTENT; element in the Jingle negotiation (e.g., "RTP/AVP"), and the <fmt list> is the payload-type ID.

For example, consider the following static payload-type:

]]>

That Jingle-formatted information would be mapped to SDP as follows:

If the payload type is dynamic (payload-type IDs 96 through 127 inclusive), it SHOULD be mapped to an SDP media field plus an SDP attribute field named "rtpmap".

For example, consider a payload of 16-bit linear-encoded stereo audio sampled at 16KHz associated with dynamic payload-type 96:

]]>

That Jingle-formatted information would be mapped to SDP as follows:

As noted, if additional parameters are to be specified, they shall be represented as attributes of the <parameter/> child of the &PAYLOADTYPE; element, as in the following example.

]]>

That Jingle-formatted information would be mapped to SDP as follows:

Informational messages may be sent by either party within the context of Jingle to communicate the status of a Jingle audio session, device, or principal. The informational message MUST be an IQ-set containing a &JINGLE; element of type "session-info", where the informational message is a payload element qualified by the 'http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns-info' namespace; the following payload elements are defined: A <trying/> element (equivalent to the SIP 100 Trying response code) is not necessary, since each session-level action is acknowledged via XMPP IQ semantics.

Element	Meaning
<active/>	The principal or device is again actively participating in the session after having been on hold or on mute.
<hold/>	The principal is temporarily pausing the chat (i.e., putting the other party on hold).
<mute/>	The principal is temporarily stopping audio output but continues to accept audio input.
<ringing/>	The device is ringing but the principal has not yet interacted with it to answer (this maps to the SIP 180 response code).

Note: Because the informational message is sent in an IQ-set, the receiving party MUST return either an IQ-result or an IQ-error (normally only an IQ-result to acknowledge receipt; no error flows are defined or envisioned at this time).

action='session-info' initiator='romeo@montague.net/orchard' sid='a73sjjvkla37jfea'> ]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

The Jingle-Audio-specific error conditions are as follows:

Jingle Audio Condition	XMPP Condition	Description
<unsupported-codecs/>	¬acceptable;	The recipient does not support any of the offered audio encodings.

If an entity supports Jingle audio exchanges via RTP, it MUST advertise that fact by returning a feature of "http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns" &NSNOTE; in response to &xep0030; information requests.

]]> ... ... ]]>

Naturally, support MAY also be determined via the dynamic, presence-based profile of Service Discovery defined in &xep0115;.

The following sections show a number of Jingle audio scenarios, in relative order of complexity.

In this scenario, Romeo initiates a voice chat with Juliet but she is otherwise engaged.

The session flow is as follows:

|
  |   error                     |
  |   (recipient-unavailable)   |
  |<----------------------------|
    ]]>

The protocol flow is as follows.

]]>

In this scenario, Romeo initiates a voice chat with Juliet using a transport method of ICE-UDP. The parties also exchange informational messages.

The session flow is as follows:

|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   session-info (ringing)    |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   transport-info (X times)  |
  |   (with acks)               |
  |<--------------------------->|
  |   session-accept            |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   AUDIO (RTP)               |
  |<===========================>|
  |   session-terminate         |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |                             |
    ]]>

The protocol flow is as follows.

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

For each candidate received, the other party acknowledges receipt or returns an error:

]]>

At the same time (i.e., immediately after acknowledging the session-initation request, not waiting for the initiator to begin or finish sending candidates), the responder also begins sending candidates that may work for it. As above, the initiator acknowledges receipt of the candidates.

As the initiator and responder receive candidates, they probe the various candidate transports for connectivity. In performing these connectivity checks, the parties follow the procedure specified in Section 7 of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice.

If one of the candidate transports is found to work, the responder accepts the session.

]]>

If the payload types and transport candidate can be successfully used by both parties, then the initiator acknowledges the session-accept action.

]]>

The parties now begin to exchange media. In this case they would exchange audio using the Speex codec at a clockrate of 8000 since that is the highest-priority codec for the responder (as determined by the XML order of the &PAYLOADTYPE; children).

The parties may continue the session as long as desired.

Eventually, one of the parties terminates the session.

]]>

The other party then acknowledges termination of the session:

]]>

In this scenario, Romeo initiates a combined audio and video chat with Juliet using a transport method of ICE-UDP. Juliet at first refuses the video portion, then later offers to add video, which Romeo accepts. The parties also exchange various informational messages

The session flow is as follows:

|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   session-info (ringing)    |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-remove            |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-accept            |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   transport-info (X times)  |
  |   (with acks)               |
  |<--------------------------->|
  |   session-accept            |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   AUDIO (RTP)               |
  |<===========================>|
  |   session-info (hold)       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   session-info (active)     |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-add               |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-accept            |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   AUDIO + VIDEO (RTP)       |
  |<===========================>|
  |   session-terminate         |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |                             |
    ]]>

The protocol flow is as follows.

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

However, Juliet doesn't want to do video because she is having a bad hair day, so she sends a "content-remove" request to Romeo.

]]>

Romeo then acknowledges the content-remove request and, if it is acceptable, returns a content-accept:

]]> ]]>

The other party then acknowledges the acceptance.

]]>

As in the previous scenario, the parties exchange ICE candidates (see above for examples).

Once the parties find candidate transports that work, the responder accepts the session.

]]>

As above, if the payload types and transport candidate can be successfully used by both parties, then the initiator acknowledges the session-accept action.

]]>

The parties chat for a while. Eventually Juliet wants to get her hair in order so she puts Romeo on hold.

]]> ]]>

Juliet returns so she informs Romeo that she is actively engaged in the call again.

]]> ]]>

The parties now continue the audio chat.

Finally Juliet decides that she is presentable for a video chat so she sends a content-add request to Romeo.

]]>

The entity receiving the content-add request then acknowledges the request and, if it is acceptable, returns a content-accept:

]]>

The other party then acknowledges the acceptance.

]]>

The media session proceeds. Now they would exchange both audio and video, where the audio is exchanged the Speex codec at a clockrate of 8000 and the video is exchanged using the Theora codec with a height of 720 pixels, a width of 1280 pixels, and so on.

The parties may continue the session as long as desired.

Eventually, one of the parties terminates the session.

]]> ]]>

In this scenario, Romeo initiates a voice chat with Juliet using a transport method of ICE-UDP and an unencrypted profile of "RTP/AVP", but Juliet wants to chat securely so she requests the use of a secure transport as specified in &sdpdtls; (via a profile of "UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP").

The session flow is as follows:

|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   session-info (ringing)    |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-modify            |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   content-accept            |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   ack                       |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   transport-info (X times)  |
  |   (with acks)               |
  |<--------------------------->|
  |   session-accept            |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |   AUDIO (RTP)               |
  |<===========================>|
  |   session-terminate         |
  |<----------------------------|
  |   ack                       |
  |---------------------------->|
  |                             |
    ]]>

The protocol flow is as follows.

]]> ]]> ]]> ]]>

However, Juliet wants to make sure that the communications are encrypted, so she sends a "content-modify" request to Romeo.

]]>

Romeo then acknowledges the content-modify request and, if it is acceptable, returns a content-accept:

]]> ]]>

The other party then acknowledges the acceptance.

]]>

As in the previous scenario, the parties exchange ICE candidates (see above for examples).

If one of the candidate transports is found to work, the responder accepts the session.

]]>

If the payload types and transport candidate can be successfully used by both parties, then the initiator acknowledges the session-accept action.

]]>

The parties may continue the session as long as desired.

Eventually, one of the parties terminates the session.

]]>

The other party then acknowledges termination of the session:

]]>

Support for the Speex codec is RECOMMENDED.

If it is necessary to send Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF) tones, it is REQUIRED to use the XML format specified &xep0181;.

When the Jingle Audio content type is accepted via a "content-accept" action, both initiator and responder SHOULD start listening for audio as defined by the negotiated transport method and audio application format. For interoperability with telephony systems, after the responder acknowledges the session initiation request, the responder SHOULD send a "ringing" message and both parties SHOULD play any audio received.

In order to secure the data stream, implementations SHOULD use encryption methods appropriate to the transport method and media being exchanged; for example, in the case of UDP, that would include Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as specified in &rfc4347;. The work-in-progress draft-fishl-mmusic-sdp-dtls defines such methods for the Session Description Protocol; the relevant RTP profile (e.g., "UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP" for transporting the RTP stream over DTLS with UDP) shall be specified as the value of the &CONTENT; element's 'profile' attribute.

This document requires no interaction with &IANA;.

Until this specification advances to a status of Draft, its associated namespaces shall be:

http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns-errors
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html#ns-info

Upon advancement of this specification, the ®ISTRAR; shall issue permanent namespaces in accordance with the process defined in Section 4 of &xep0053;.

The following namespaces are requested, and are thought to be unique per the XMPP Registrar's requirements:

urn:xmpp:jingle:app:audio-rtp
urn:xmpp:jingle:app:audio-rtp:errors
urn:xmpp:jingle:app:audio-rtp:info

The XMPP Registrar shall include "audio-rtp" in its registry of Jingle application formats. The registry submission is as follows:


  audio-rtp
  Jingle sessions that support audio exchange via the Real-time Transport Protocol
  lossy
  XEP-0167

    ]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>