分享
 
 
 

RFC4103 - RTP Payload for Text Conversation

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group G. Hellstrom

Request for Comments: 4103 Omnitor AB

Obsoletes: 2793 P. Jones

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.

June 2005

RTP Payload for Text Conversation

Status of This Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

This memo obsoletes RFC 2793; it describes how to carry real-time

text conversation session contents in RTP packets. Text conversation

session contents are specified in ITU-T Recommendation T.140.

One payload format is described for transmitting text on a separate

RTP session dedicated for the transmission of text.

This RTP payload description recommends a method to include redundant

text from already transmitted packets in order to redUCe the risk of

text loss caused by packet loss.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................3

2. Conventions Used in This Document ..............................4

3. Usage of RTP ...................................................4

3.1. Motivations and Rationale .................................4

3.2. Payload Format for Transmission of text/t140 Data .........4

3.3. The "T140block" ...........................................5

3.4. Synchronization of Text with Other Media ..................5

3.5. RTP Packet Header .........................................5

4. Protection against Loss of Data ................................6

4.1. Payload Format When Using Redundancy ......................6

4.2. Using Redundancy with the text/t140 Format ................7

5. Recommended Procedure ..........................................8

5.1. Recommended Basic Procedure ...............................8

5.2. Transmission before and after "Idle Periods" ..............8

5.3. Detection of Lost Text Packets ............................9

5.4. Compensation for Packets Out of Order ....................10

6. Parameter for Character Transmission Rate .....................10

7. Examples ......................................................11

7.1. RTP Packetization Examples for the text/t140 Format ......11

7.2. SDP Examples .............................................13

8. Security Considerations .......................................14

8.1. Confidentiality ..........................................14

8.2. Integrity ................................................14

8.3. Source Authentication ....................................14

9. Congestion Considerations .....................................14

10. IANA Considerations ...........................................16

10.1. Registration of MIME Media Type text/t140 ...............16

10.2. SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters ..........................17

10.3. Offer/Answer Consideration ..............................17

11. Acknowledgements ..............................................18

12. Normative References ..........................................18

13. Informative References ........................................19

1. Introduction

This document defines a payload type for carrying text conversation

session contents in RTP [2] packets. Text conversation session

contents are specified in ITU-T Recommendation T.140 [1]. Text

conversation is used alone or in connection with other conversational

facilities, such as video and voice, to form multimedia conversation

services. Text in multimedia conversation sessions is sent

character-by-character as soon as it is available, or with a small

delay for buffering.

The text is intended to be entered by human users from a keyboard,

handwriting recognition, voice recognition or any other input method.

The rate of character entry is usually at a level of a few characters

per second or less. In general, only one or a few new characters are

eXPected to be transmitted with each packet. Small blocks of text

may be prepared by the user and pasted into the user interface for

transmission during the conversation, occasionally causing packets to

carry more payload.

T.140 specifies that text and other T.140 elements must be

transmitted in ISO 10646-1 [5] code with UTF-8 [6] transformation.

This makes it easy to implement internationally useful applications

and to handle the text in modern information technology environments.

The payload of an RTP packet that follows this specification consists

of text encoded according to T.140, without any additional framing.

A common case will be a single ISO 10646 character, UTF-8 encoded.

T.140 requires the transport channel to provide characters without

duplication and in original order. Text conversation users expect

that text will be delivered with no, or a low level, of lost

information.

Therefore, a mechanism based on RTP is specified here. It gives text

arrival in correct order, without duplication, and with detection and

indication of loss. It also includes an optional possibility to

repeat data for redundancy in order to lower the risk of loss.

Because packet overhead is usually much larger than the T.140

contents, the increase in bandwidth, with the use of redundancy, is

minimal.

By using RTP for text transmission in a multimedia conversation

application, uniform handling of text and other media can be achieved

in, for example, conferencing systems, firewalls, and network

translation devices. This, in turn, eases the design and increases

the possibility for prompt and proper media delivery.

This document obsoletes RFC 2793 [16]. The text clarifies

ambiguities in RFC 2793, improves on the specific implementation

requirements learned through development experience and gives

explicit usage examples.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].

3. Usage of RTP

The payload format for real-time text transmission with RTP [2]

described in this memo is intended for general text conversation use

and is called text/t140 after its MIME registration.

3.1. Motivations and Rationale

The text/t140 format is intended to be used for text transmitted on a

separate RTP session, dedicated for the transmission of text, and not

shared with other media.

The text/t140 format MAY be used for any non-gateway application, as

well as in gateways. It MAY be used simultaneously with other media

streams, transmitted as a separate RTP session, as required in real

time multimedia applications.

The text/t140 format specified in this memo is compatible with its

earlier definition in RFC 2793. It has been refined, with the main

intention to minimize interoperability problems and encourage good

reliability and functionality.

By specifying text transmission as a text medium, many good effects

are gained. Routing, device selection, invocation of transcoding,

selection of quality of service parameters, and other high and low

level functions depend on each medium being explicitly specified.

3.2. Payload Format for Transmission of text/t140 Data

A text/t140 conversation RTP payload format consists of one, and only

one, block of T.140 data, referred to as a "T140block" (see Section

3.3). There are no additional headers specific to this payload

format. The fields in the RTP header are set as defined in Section

3.5, carried in network byte order (see RFC 791 [12]).

3.3. The "T140block"

T.140 text is UTF-8 coded, as specified in T.140, with no extra

framing. The T140block contains one or more T.140 code elements as

specified in [1]. Most T.140 code elements are single ISO 10646 [5]

characters, but some are multiple character sequences. Each

character is UTF-8 encoded [6] into one or more octets. Each block

MUST contain an integral number of UTF-8 encoded characters

regardless of the number of octets per character. Any composite

character sequence (CCS) SHOULD be placed within one block.

3.4. Synchronization of Text with Other Media

Usually, each medium in a session utilizes a separate RTP stream. As

such, if synchronization of the text and other media packets is

important, the streams MUST be associated when the sessions are

established and the streams MUST share the same reference clock

(refer to the description of the timestamp field as it relates to

synchronization in Section 5.1 of RFC 3550 [2]). Association of RTP

streams can be done through the CNAME field of RTCP SDES function.

It is dependent on the particular application and is outside the

scope of this document.

3.5. RTP Packet Header

Each RTP packet starts with a fixed RTP header. The following fields

of the RTP fixed header are specified for T.140 text streams:

Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type is specific

to the RTP profile under which the payload format

is used. For profiles that use dynamic payload

type number assignment, this payload format can be

identified by the MIME type "text/t140" (see

Section 10). If redundancy is used per RFC 2198,

another payload type number needs to be provided

for the redundancy format. The MIME type for

identifying RFC 2198 is available in RFC 4102 [9].

Sequence number: The definition of sequence numbers is available in

RFC 3550 [2]. When transmitting text using the

payload format for text/t140, it is used for

detection of packet loss and out-of-order packets,

and can be used in the process of retrieval of

redundant text, reordering of text and marking

missing text.

Timestamp: The RTP Timestamp encodes the approximate instance

of entry of the primary text in the packet. A

clock frequency of 1000 Hz MUST be used.

Sequential packets MUST NOT use the same

timestamp. Because packets do not represent any

constant duration, the timestamp cannot be used to

directly infer packet loss.

M-bit: The M-bit MUST be included. The first packet in a

session, and the first packet after an idle

period, SHOULD be distinguished by setting the

marker bit in the RTP data header to one. The

marker bit in all other packets MUST be set to

zero. The reception of the marker bit MAY be used

for refined methods for detection of loss.

4. Protection against Loss of Data

Consideration must be devoted to keeping loss of text due to packet

loss within acceptable limits. (See ITU-T F.703 [17])

The default method that MUST be used, when no other method is

explicitly selected, is redundancy in accordance with RFC 2198 [3].

When this method is used, the original text and two redundant

generations SHOULD be transmitted if the application or end-to-end

conditions do not call for other levels of redundancy to be used.

Forward Error Correction mechanisms, as per RFC 2733 [8], or any

other mechanism with the purpose of increasing the reliability of

text transmission, MAY be used as an alternative or complement to

redundancy. Text data MAY be sent without additional protection if

end-to-end network conditions allow the text quality requirements,

specified in ITU-T F.703 [17], to be met in all anticipated load

conditions.

4.1. Payload Format When Using Redundancy

When using the payload format with redundant data, the transmitter

may select a number of T140block generations to retransmit in each

packet. A higher number introduces better protection against loss of

text but marginally increases the data rate.

The RTP header is followed by one or more redundant data block

headers: one for each redundant data block to be included. Each of

these headers provides the timestamp offset and length of the

corresponding data block, in addition to a payload type number

(indicating the payload format text/t140).

The redundant data block headers are followed by the redundant data

fields carrying T140blocks from previous packets. Finally, the new

(primary) T140block for this packet follows.

Redundant data that would need a timestamp offset higher than 16383

(due to its age at transmission) MUST NOT be included in transmitted

packets.

4.2. Using Redundancy with the text/t140 Format

Because text is transmitted only when there is text to transmit, the

timestamp is not used to identify a lost packet. Rather, missing

sequence numbers are used to detect lost text packets at reception.

Also, because sequence numbers are not provided in the redundant

header, some additional rules must be followed to allow redundant

data that corresponds to missing primary data to be properly merged

into the stream of primary data T140blocks. They are:

- Each redundant data block MUST contain the same data as a T140block

previously transmitted as primary data.

- The redundant data MUST be placed in age order, with the most

recent redundant T140block last in the redundancy area.

- All T140blocks, from the oldest desired generation up through the

generation immediately preceding the new (primary) T140block, MUST

be included.

These rules allow the sequence numbers for the redundant T140blocks

to be inferred by counting backwards from the sequence number in the

RTP header. The result will be that all the text in the payload will

be contiguous and in order.

If there is a gap in the received RTP sequence numbers, and redundant

T140blocks are available in a subsequent packet, the sequence numbers

for the redundant T140blocks should be inferred by counting backwards

from the sequence number in the RTP header for that packet. If there

are redundant T140blocks with sequence numbers matching those that

are missing, the redundant T140blocks may be substituted for the

missing T140blocks.

5. Recommended Procedure

This section contains RECOMMENDED procedures for usage of the payload

format. Based on the information in the received packets, the

receiver can:

- reorder text received out of order.

- mark where text is missing because of packet loss.

- compensate for lost packets by using redundant data.

5.1. Recommended Basic Procedure

Packets are transmitted when there is valid T.140 data to transmit.

T.140 specifies that T.140 data MAY be buffered for transmission with

a maximum buffering time of 500 ms. A buffering time of 300 ms is

RECOMMENDED when the application or end-to-end network conditions are

not known to require another value.

If no new data is available for a longer period than the buffering

time, the transmission process is in an idle period.

When new text is available for transmission after an idle period, it

is RECOMMENDED to send it as soon as possible. After this

transmission, it is RECOMMENDED to buffer T.140 data in buffering

time intervals, until the next idle period. This is done in order to

keep the maximum bit rate usage for text at a reasonable level. The

buffering time MUST be selected so that text users will perceive a

real-time text flow.

5.2. Transmission before and after "Idle Periods"

When valid T.140 data has been sent and no new T.140 data is

available for transmission after the selected buffering time, an

empty T140block SHOULD be transmitted. This situation is regarded as

the beginning of an idle period. The procedure is recommended in

order to more rapidly detect potentially missing text before an idle

period.

An empty T140block contains no data.

When redundancy is used, transmission continues with a packet at

every transmission timer expiration and insertion of an empty

T.140block as primary, until the last non-empty T140block has been

transmitted, as primary and as redundant data, with all intended

generations of redundancy. The last packet before an idle period

will contain only one non-empty T140block as redundant data, while

the remainder of the redundancy packet will contain empty T140blocks.

Any empty T140block sent as primary data MUST be included as

redundant T140blocks in subsequent packets, just as normal text

T140blocks would be, unless the empty T140block is too old to be

transmitted. This is done so that sequence number inference for the

redundant T140blocks will be correct, as explained in Section 4.2.

After an idle period, the transmitter SHOULD set the M-bit to one in

the first packet with new text.

5.3. Detection of Lost Text Packets

Packet loss for text/t140 packets MAY be detected by observing gaps

in the sequence numbers of RTP packets received by the receiver.

With text/t140, the loss of packets is usually detected by comparison

of the sequence of RTP packets as they arrive. Any discrepancy MAY

be used to indicate loss. The highest RTP sequence number received

may also be compared with that in RTCP reports, as an additional

check for loss of the last packet before an idle period.

Missing data SHOULD be marked by insertion of a missing text marker

in the received stream for each missing T140block, as specified in

ITU-T T.140 Addendum 1 [1].

Because empty T140blocks are transmitted in the beginning of an idle

period, there is a slight risk of falsely marking loss of text, when

only an empty T140block was lost. Procedures based on detection of

the packet with the M-bit set to one MAY be used to reduce the risk

of introducing false markers of loss.

If redundancy is used with the text/t140 format, and a packet is

received with fewer redundancy levels than normally in the session,

it SHOULD be treated as if one empty T140block has been received for

each excluded level in the received packet. This is because the only

occasion when a T140block is excluded from transmission is when it is

an empty T140block that has become too old to be transmitted.

If two successive packets have the same number of redundant

generations, it SHOULD be treated as the general redundancy level for

the session. Change of the general redundancy level SHOULD only be

done after an idle period.

The text/t140 format relies on use of the sequence number in the RTP

packet header for detection of loss and, therefore, is not suitable

for applications where it needs to be alternating with other payloads

in the same RTP stream. It would be complicated and unreliable to

try to detect loss of data at the edges of the shifts between t140

text and other stream contents. Therefore, text/t140 is RECOMMENDED

to be the only payload type in the RTP stream.

5.4. Compensation for Packets Out of Order

For protection against packets arriving out of order, the following

procedure MAY be implemented in the receiver. If analysis of a

received packet reveals a gap in the sequence and no redundant data

is available to fill that gap, the received packet SHOULD be kept in

a buffer to allow time for the missing packet(s) to arrive. It is

RECOMMENDED that the waiting time be limited to 1 second.

If a packet with a T140block belonging to the gap arrives before the

waiting time expires, this T140block is inserted into the gap and

then consecutive T140blocks from the leading edge of the gap may be

consumed. Any T140block that does not arrive before the time limit

expires should be treated as lost and a missing text marker should be

inserted (see Section 5.3).

6. Parameter for Character Transmission Rate

In some cases, it is necessary to limit the rate at which characters

are transmitted. For example, when a Public Switched Telephone

Network (PSTN) gateway is interworking between an IP device and a

PSTN textphone, it may be necessary to limit the character rate from

the IP device in order to avoid throwing away characters (in case of

buffer overflow at the PSTN gateway).

To control the character transmission rate, the MIME parameter "cps"

in the "fmtp" attribute [7] is defined (see Section 10 ). It is used

in SDP with the following syntax:

a=fmtp: cps=

The field is populated with the payload type that is used

for text. The field contains an integer representing the

maximum number of characters that may be received per second. The

value shall be used as a mean value over any 10-second interval. The

default value is 30.

Examples of use in SDP are found in Section 7.2.

In receipt of this parameter, devices MUST adhere to the request by

transmitting characters at a rate at or below the specified

value. Note that this parameter was not defined in RFC 2793 [16].

Therefore implementations of the text/t140 format may be in use that

do not recognize and act according to this parameter. Therefore,

receivers of text/t140 MUST be designed so they can handle temporary

reception of characters at a higher rate than this parameter

specifies. As a result malfunction due to buffer overflow is avoided

for text conversation with human input.

7. Examples

7.1. RTP Packetization Examples for the text/t140 Format

Below is an example of a text/t140 RTP packet without redundancy.

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

V=2PX CC=0 M T140 PT sequence number

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

timestamp (1000Hz)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

synchronization source (SSRC) identifier

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

T.140 encoded data

+ +---------------+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Below is an example of a text/t140 RTP packet with one redundant

T140block.

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

V=2PX CC=0 M "RED" PT sequence number of primary

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

timestamp of primary encoding "P"

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

synchronization source (SSRC) identifier

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

1 T140 PT timestamp offset of "R" "R" block length

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

0 T140 PT "R" T.140 encoded redundant data

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+

+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+

"P" T.140 encoded primary data

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Below is an example of an RTP packet with one redundant T140block

using text/t140 payload format. The primary data block is empty,

which is the case when transmitting a packet for the sole purpose of

forcing the redundant data to be transmitted in the absence of any

new data.

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

V=2PX CC=0 M "RED" PT sequence number of primary

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

timestamp of primary encoding "P"

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

synchronization source (SSRC) identifier

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

1 T140 PT timestamp offset of "R" "R" block length

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

0 T140 PT "R" T.140 encoded redundant data

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

As a follow-on to the previous example, the example below shows the

next RTP packet in the sequence, which does contain a real T140block

when using the text/t140 payload format. Note that the empty block

is present in the redundant transmissions of the text/t140 payload

format. This example shows two levels of redundancy and one primary

data block. The value of the "R2 block length" would be set to zero

in order to represent the empty T140block.

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

V=2PX CC=0 M "RED" PT sequence number of primary

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

timestamp of primary encoding "P"

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

synchronization source (SSRC) identifier

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

1 T140 PT timestamp offset of "R2" "R2" block length

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

1 T140 PT timestamp offset of "R1" "R1" block length

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

0 T140 PT "R1" T.140 encoded redundant data

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +---------------+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+

"P" T.140 encoded primary data

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

7.2. SDP Examples

Below is an example of SDP, which describes RTP text transport on

port 11000:

m=text 11000 RTP/AVP 98

a=rtpmap:98 t140/1000

Below is an example of SDP that is similar to the above example, but

also utilizes RFC 2198 to provide the recommended two levels of

redundancy for the text packets:

m=text 11000 RTP/AVP 98 100

a=rtpmap:98 t140/1000

a=rtpmap:100 red/1000

a=fmtp:100 98/98/98

Note: Although these examples utilize the RTP/AVP profile, it is not

intended to limit the scope of this memo. Any appropriate profile

may be used in conjunction with this memo.

8. Security Considerations

All of the security considerations from Section 14 of RFC 3550 [2]

apply.

8.1. Confidentiality

Because the intention of the described payload format is to carry

text in a text conversation, security measures in the form of

encryption are of importance. The amount of data in a text

conversation session is low. Therefore, any encryption method MAY be

selected and applied to T.140 session contents or to whole RTP

packets. Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [14] provides a

suitable method for ensuring confidentiality.

8.2. Integrity

It may be desirable to protect the text contents of an RTP stream

against manipulation. SRTP [14] provides methods for providing

integrity that MAY be applied.

8.3. Source Authentication

There are several methods of making sure the source of the text is

the intended one.

Text streams are usually used in a multimedia control environment.

Security measures for authentication are available and SHOULD be

applied in the registration and session establishment procedures, so

that the identity of the sender of the text stream is reliably

associated with the person or device setting up the session. Once

established, SRTP [14] mechanisms MAY be applied to ascertain that

the source is maintained the same during the session.

9. Congestion Considerations

The congestion considerations from Section 10 of RFC 3550 [2],

Section 6 of RFC 2198 [3], and any used profile (e.g., the section

about congestion in chapter 2 of RFC 3551 [11]) apply with the

following application-specific considerations.

Automated systems MUST NOT use this format to send large amounts of

text at rates significantly above those a human user could enter.

Even if the network load from users of text conversation is usually

very low, for best-effort networks an application MUST monitor the

packet loss rate and take appropriate actions to reduce its sending

rate (if this application sends at higher rate than what TCP would

achieve over the same path). The reason for this is that this

application, due to its recommended usage of two or more redundancy

levels, is very robust against packet loss. At the same time, due to

the low bit-rate of text conversations, if one considers the

discussion in RFC 3714 [13], this application will experience very

high packet loss rates before it needs to perform any reduction in

the sending rate.

If the application needs to reduce its sending rate, it SHOULD NOT

reduce the number of redundancy levels below the default amount

specified in Section 4. Instead, the following actions are

RECOMMENDED in order of priority:

- Increase the shortest time between transmissions (described in

Section 5.1) from the recommended 300 ms to 500 ms, which is the

highest value allowed according to T.140.

- Limit the maximum rate of characters transmitted.

- Increase the shortest time between transmissions to a higher value,

not higher than 5 seconds. This will cause unpleasant delays in

transmission, beyond what is allowed according to T.140, but text

will still be conveyed in the session with some usability.

- Exclude participants from the session.

Please note that if the reduction in bit-rate achieved through the

above measures is not sufficient, the only remaining action is to

terminate the session.

As guidance, some load figures are provided here as examples based on

use of IPv4, including the load from IP, UDP, and RTP headers without

compression .

- Experience tells that a common mean character transmission rate,

during a complete PSTN text telephony session, is around two

characters per second.

- A maximum performance of 20 characters per second is enough even

for voice-to-text applications.

- With the (unusually high) load of 20 characters per second, in a

language that makes use of three octets per UTF-8 character, two

redundant levels, and 300 ms between transmissions, the maximum

load of this application is 3300 bits/s.

- When the restrictions mentioned above are applied, limiting

transmission to 10 characters per second, using 5 s between

transmissions, the maximum load of this application, in a language

that uses one octet per UTF-8 character, is 300 bits/s.

Note that this payload can be used in a congested situation as a last

resort to maintain some contact when audio and video media need to be

stopped. The availability of one low bit-rate stream for text in

such adverse situations may be crucial for maintaining some

communication in a critical situation.

10. IANA Considerations

This document updates the RTP payload format named "t140" and the

associated MIME type "text/t140", in the IANA RTP and Media Type

registries.

10.1. Registration of MIME Media Type text/t140

MIME media type name: text

MIME suBType name: t140

Required parameters: rate: The RTP timestamp clock rate, which is

equal to the sampling rate. The only valid value is 1000.

Optional parameters: cps: The maximum number of characters that may

be received per second. The default value is 30.

Encoding considerations: T.140 text can be transmitted with RTP as

specified in RFC 4103.

Security considerations: See Section 8 of RFC 4103.

Interoperability considerations: This format is the same as specified

in RFC2793. For RFC2793 the "cps=" parameter was not defined.

Therefore, there may be implementations that do not consider this

parameter. Receivers need to take that into account.

Published specification: ITU-T T.140 Recommendation. RFC 4103.

Applications which use this media type: Text communication terminals

and text conferencing tools.

Additional information: This type is only defined for transfer via

RTP.

Magic number(s): None

File extension(s): None

Macintosh File Type Code(s): None

Person & email address to contact for further information:

Gunnar Hellstrom

E-mail: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se

Intended usage: COMMON

Author / Change controller:

Gunnar Hellstrom IETF avt WG

gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se

10.2. SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters

The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a

specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)

[7], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP is

used to specify sessions employing the text/t140 format, the mapping

is as follows:

- The MIME type ("text") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

- The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as

the encoding name. The RTP clock rate in "a=rtpmap" MUST be 1000

for text/t140.

- The parameter "cps" goes in SDP "a=fmtp" attribute.

- When the payload type is used with redundancy according to RFC

2198, the level of redundancy is shown by the number of elements in

the slash-separated payload type list in the "fmtp" parameter of

the redundancy declaration as defined in RFC 4102 [9] and RFC 2198

[3].

10.3. Offer/Answer Consideration

In order to achieve interoperability within the framework of the

offer/answer model [10], the following consideration should be made:

- The "cps" parameter is declarative. Both sides may provide a

value, which is independent of the other side.

11. Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Stephen Casner, Magnus Westerlund, and

Colin Perkins for valuable support with reviews and advice on

creation of this document, to Mickey Nasiri at EriCsson Mobile

Communication for providing the development environment, Michele

Mizarro for verification of the usability of the payload format for

its intended purpose, and Andreas Piirimets for editing support and

validation.

12. Normative References

[1] ITU-T Recommendation T.140 (1998) - Text conversation protocol

for multimedia application, with amendment 1, (2000).

[2] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson,

"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC

3550, July 2003.

[3] 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, September 1997.

[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[5] ISO/IEC 10646-1: (1993), Universal Multiple Octet Coded

Character Set.

[6] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD

63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

[7] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description

Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

[8] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format for

Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733, December 1999.

[9] Jones, P., "Registration of the text/red MIME Sub-Type", RFC

4102, June 2005.

[10] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with

the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.

[11] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video

Conference with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.

[12] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

13. Informative References

[13] Floyd, S. and J. Kempf, "IAB Concerns Regarding Congestion

Control for Voice Traffic in the Internet", RFC 3714, March

2004.

[14] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.

Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC

3711, March 2004.

[15] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Petrack, "RTP Payload for DTMF Digits,

Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals", RFC 2833, May 2000.

[16] Hellstrom, G., "RTP Payload for Text Conversation", RFC 2793,

May 2000.

[17] ITU-T Recommendation F.703, Multimedia Conversational Services,

November 2000.

Authors' Addresses

Gunnar Hellstrom

Omnitor AB

Renathvagen 2

SE-121 37 Johanneshov

Sweden

Phone: +46 708 204 288 / +46 8 556 002 03

Fax: +46 8 556 002 06

EMail: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se

Paul E. Jones

Cisco Systems, Inc.

7025 Kit Creek Rd.

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

USA

Phone: +1 919 392 6948

EMail: paulej@packetizer.com

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions

contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors

retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS

OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET

ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE

INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any

Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to

pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in

this document or the extent to which any license under such rights

might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has

made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information

on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be

found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any

assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an

attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of

such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this

specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any

copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary

rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement

this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-

ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有