RTP over QUIC (RoQ)

1.1. Background

The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] is generally used to carry real-time media for conversational media sessions, such as video conferences, across the Internet. Since RTP requires real-time delivery and is tolerant to packet losses, the default underlying transport protocol has historically been UDP [RFC0768], but a large variety of other underlying transport protocols have been defined for various reasons (e.g., securing media exchange, or providing a fallback when UDP is blocked along a network path). This document describes RTP over QUIC, providing one more underlying transport protocol. The reasons for using QUIC as an underlying transport protocol are given in Section 3.1.¶

This document describes an application usage of QUIC ([RFC9308]). As a baseline, the document does not expect more than a standard QUIC implementation as defined in [RFC8999], [RFC9000], [RFC9001], and [RFC9002], providing a secure end-to-end transport. Beyond this baseline, real-time applications can benefit from QUIC extensions such as unreliable DATAGRAMs [RFC9221], which provides additional desirable properties for real-time traffic (e.g., no unnecessary retransmissions, avoiding head-of-line blocking).¶

1.2. What's in Scope for this Document

This document focuses on providing a secure encapsulation of RTP and RTCP packets for transmission over QUIC. The expected usage is wherever RTP is used to carry media packets, allowing QUIC in place of other underlying transport protocols. We expect RoQ to be used in contexts where a signaling protocol is used to announce or negotiate a media encapsulation for RTP and the associated transport parameters (such as IP address, port number). RoQ does not provide a stand-alone media transport capability, because at a minimum, media transport parameters would need to be statically configured.¶

RoQ can be used in many of the point-to-point and multi-endpoint RTP topologies described in [RFC7667], and can be used with both decentralized and centralized control topologies. When RoQ is used in a decentralized topology, RTP packets are exchanged directly between ultimate RTP endpoints. When RoQ is used in a centralized topology, RTP packets transit one or more middleboxes which might function as mixers or translators between ultimate RTP endpoints. RoQ can also be used in RTP client-server-style settings, e.g., when talking to a conference server as described in RFC 7667 ([RFC7667]), or, if RoQ is used to replace RTSP ([RFC7826]), to a media server.¶

Moreover, this document describes how a QUIC implementation and its API can be extended to improve efficiency of the RoQ protocol operation.¶

RoQ does not limit the usage of RTP Audio Video Profiles (AVP) ([RFC3551]), or any RTP-based mechanisms, although it might render some of them unnecessary, e.g., Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) ([RFC3711]) might not be needed, because end-to-end security is already provided by QUIC, and double encryption by QUIC and by SRTP might have more costs than benefits. Nor does RoQ limit the use of RTCP-based mechanisms, although some information or functions provided by using RTCP mechanisms might also be available from the underlying QUIC implementation.¶

RoQ supports multiplexing multiple RTP-based media streams within a single QUIC connection and thus using a single (destination IP address, destination port number, source IP address, source port number, protocol) 5-tuple. We note that multiple independent QUIC connections can be established in parallel using the same 5-tuple., e.g. to carry different media channels. These connections would be logically independent of one another.¶

1.3. What's Out of Scope for this Document

This document does not enhance QUIC for real-time media or define a replacement for, or evolution of, RTP. Work to map other media transport protocols to QUIC is under way elsewhere in the IETF.¶

This document does not specify RoQ for point-to-multipoint applications, because QUIC itself is not defined for multicast operation. The scope of this document is limited to unicast RTP, even though nothing would prevent its use in multicast setups if future QUIC extensions support multicast.¶

RoQ does not define new congestion control and rate adaptation algorithms for use with RTP media, and does not specify the use of particular congestion control and rate adaptation algorithms for use with RTP media. However, Section 8 discusses multiple ways that congestion control and rate adaptation could be performed at the QUIC and/or at the RTP layer, and Section 11 describes information available at the QUIC layer that could be exposed via an API for the benefit of RTP layer implementation.¶

RoQ does not define prioritization mechanisms when handling different media as those would be dependent on the media themselves and their relationships. Prioritization is left to the application using RoQ.¶

This document does not cover signaling for session setup. SDP for RoQ is defined in separate documents such as [I-D.draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic], and can be carried in any signaling protocol that can carry SDP, including the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) ([RFC3261]), Real-Time Protocols for Browser-Based Applications (RTCWeb) ([RFC8825]), or WebRTC-HTTP Ingestion Protocol (WHIP) ([I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]).¶

3.1. Motivation

From time to time, someone asks the reasonable question, "why would anyone implement and deploy RoQ"? This reasonable question deserves a better answer than "because we can". Upon reflection, the following motivations seem useful to state.¶

The motivations in this section are in no particular order, and this reflects the reality that not all implementers and deployers would agree on "the most important motivations".¶

3.2. RTP with QUIC Streams, QUIC DATAGRAMs, and a Mixture of Both

This document describes the use of QUIC streams and DATAGRAMs as RTP encapsulations but does not take a position on which encapsulation an application ought to use. Indeed, an application can use both QUIC streams and DATAGRAM encapsulations on the same QUIC connection. The choice of encapsulation is left to the application developer, but it is worth noting differences that are relevant when making this choice.¶

QUIC [RFC9000] was initially designed to carry HTTP [RFC9114] in QUIC streams, and QUIC streams provide what HTTP application developers need - for example, a stateful, connection-oriented, flow-controlled, reliable, ordered stream of bytes to an application. QUIC streams can be multiplexed over a single QUIC connection, using stream IDs to demultiplex incoming messages.¶

QUIC DATAGRAMs [RFC9221] were developed as a QUIC extension, intended to support applications that do not need reliable delivery of application data. This extension defines two DATAGRAM frame types (one including a length field, the other not including a length field), and these DATAGRAM frames can co-exist with QUIC streams within a single QUIC connection, sharing the connection's cryptographic and authentication context, and congestion controller context.¶

There is no default relative priority between DATAGRAM frames with respect to each other, and there is no default priority between DATAGRAM frames and QUIC STREAM frames. QUIC implementations can present an API to allow applications to assign relative priorities within a QUIC connection, but this is not mandated by the standard and might not be present in all implementations.¶

Because DATAGRAMs are an extension to QUIC, they inherit a great deal of functionality from QUIC (much of which is described in Section 3.1); so much so that it is easier to explain what DATAGRAMs do NOT inherit.¶

• DATAGRAM frames do not provide any explicit flow control signaling. This means that a QUIC receiver might not be able to commit the necessary resources to process incoming frames, but the purpose for DATAGRAM frames is to carry application-level information that can be lost and will not be retransmitted.¶

• DATAGRAM frames cannot be fragmented. They are limited in size by the max_datagram_frame_size transport parameter, and further limited by the max_udp_payload_size transport parameter and the Path MTU between endpoints.¶

• DATAGRAM frames belong to a QUIC connection as a whole. There is no QUIC-level way to multiplex/demultiplex DATAGRAM frames within a single QUIC connection. Any multiplexing identifiers must be added, interpreted, and removed by an application, and they will be sent as part of the payload of the DATAGRAM frame itself.¶

DATAGRAM frames do inherit the QUIC connection's congestion controller. This means that although there is no frame-level flow control, DATAGRAM frames can be delayed until the controller allows them to be sent or dropped (with an optional notification to the sending application). Implementations can also delay sending DATAGRAM frames to maintain consistent packet pacing (as described in Section 7.7 of [RFC9002]), and can allow an application to specify a sending expiration time, but these capabilities are not mandated by the standard and might not be present in all implementations.¶

Because DATAGRAMs are an extension to QUIC, a RoQ endpoint cannot assume that its peer supports this extension. The RoQ endpoint might discover that its peer does not support DATAGRAMs in one of two ways:¶

• as part of the signaling process to set up QUIC connections, or¶

• during negotiation of the DATAGRAM extension during the QUIC handshake.¶

When either of these situations happen, the RoQ endpoint needs to make a decision about what to do next.¶

• If the use of DATAGRAMs was critical for the application, the endpoint can simply close the QUIC connection, allowing someone or something to correct this mismatch, so that DATAGRAMs can be used.¶

• If the use of DATAGRAMs was not critical for the application, the endpoint can negotiate the use of QUIC streams instead.¶

3.3. Supported RTP Topologies

RoQ supports only some of the RTP topologies described in [RFC7667]. Most notably, due to QUIC [RFC9000] being a purely IP unicast protocol at the time of writing, RoQ cannot be used as a transport protocol for any of the paths that rely on IP multicast in several multicast topologies (e.g., Topo-ASM, Topo-SSM, Topo-SSM-RAMS).¶

Some "multicast topologies" can include IP unicast paths (e.g., Topo-SSM, Topo-SSM-RAMS). In these cases, the unicast paths can use RoQ.¶

RTP supports different types of translators and mixers. Whenever a middlebox needs to access the content of QUIC frames (e.g., Topo-PtP-Translator, Topo-PtP-Relay, Topo-Trn-Translator, Topo-Media-Translator), the QUIC connection will be terminated at that middlebox.¶

RoQ streams (see Section 5.2) can support much larger RTP packet sizes than other transport protocols such as UDP can, which can lead to problems when transport translators which translate from RoQ to RTP over a different transport protocol. A similar problem can occur if a translator needs to translate from RTP over UDP to RoQ over DATAGRAMs, where the max_datagram_frame_size of a QUIC DATAGRAM can be smaller than the MTU of a UDP datagram. In both cases, the translator might need to rewrite the RTP packets to fit into the smaller MTU of the other protocol. Such a translator might need codec-specific knowledge to packetize the payload of the incoming RTP packets in smaller RTP packets.¶

Additional details are provided in the following table.¶

Note-NAT:

Not supported, because QUIC [RFC9000] does not support NAT traversal.¶

Note-MTU:

Supported, but might require MTU adaptation.¶

Note-Sec:

Note that because RoQ uses QUIC as its underlying transport, and QUIC authenticates the entirety of each packet and encrypts as much of each packet as is practical, RoQ secures both RTP headers and RTP payloads, while other RTP transports do not. Section 15 describes strategies to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of RTP sessions to unintended third parties.¶

Note-MCast:

Not supported, because QUIC [RFC9000] does not support IP multicast.¶

Note-UCast-MCast:

The topology refers to a Distribution Source, which receives and relays RTP from a number of different media senders via unicast before relaying it to the receivers via multicast. QUIC can be used between the senders and the Distribution Source.¶

Note-MCast-UCast:

The topology refers to a Burst Source or Retransmission Source, which retransmits RTP to receivers via unicast. QUIC can be used between the Retransmission Source and the receivers.¶

Note-Topo-PtM-Trn-Translator:

Supported for IP unicast paths between RTP sources and translators.¶

Note-Topo-Mixer:

Supported for IP unicast paths between RTP senders and mixers.¶

Note-Warn:

Quote from [RFC7667]: This topology is so problematic and it is so easy to get the RTCP processing wrong, that it is NOT RECOMMENDED to implement this topology.¶

4.1. Draft version identification

• RFC Editor's note: Please remove this section prior to publication of a final version of this document.¶

RoQ uses the ALPN token "roq" to identify itself during QUIC connection setup.¶

Only implementations of the final, published RFC can identify themselves as "roq". Until such an RFC exists, implementations MUST NOT identify themselves using this string.¶

Implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST add the string "-" and the corresponding draft number to the identifier. For example, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-09 is identified using the string "roq-09".¶

Non-compatible experiments that are based on these draft versions MUST append the string "-" and an experiment name to the identifier.¶

5.1. Multiplexing

RoQ uses flow identifiers to multiplex different RTP streams on a single QUIC connection. A flow identifier is a QUIC variable-length integer as described in Section 16 of [RFC9000]. Each flow identifier is associated with an RTP stream.¶

In a QUIC connection using the ALPN token defined in Section 4, every DATAGRAM and every QUIC stream MUST start with a flow identifier. An endpoint MUST NOT send any data in a DATAGRAM or stream that is not associated with the flow identifier which started the DATAGRAM or stream.¶

RTP packets of different RTP sessions MUST use distinct flow identifiers. If endpoints wish to send multiple types of media in a single RTP session, they can do so by following the guidance specified in [RFC8860].¶

A single RTP session can be associated with one or two flow identifiers. Thus, it is possible to send RTP and RTCP packets belonging to the same session using different flow identifiers. RTP and RTCP packets of a single RTP session can use the same flow identifier (following the procedures defined in [RFC5761]), or they can use different flow identifiers.¶

Endpoints need to associate flow identifiers with RTP streams. Depending on the context of the application, the association can be statically configured, signaled using an out-of-band signaling mechanism (e.g., SDP), or applications might be able to identify the stream based on the RTP packets sent on the stream (e.g., by inspecting the payload type).¶

If an endpoint receives a flow identifier that it cannot associate with an RTP stream, the endpoint MAY close the connection using the ROQ_UNKNOWN_FLOW_ID error code. Closing the connection can be a valid response if it is not expected that out of band signaling is still ongoing and the application cannot handle unknown flow identifiers.¶

If the association of flow identifiers with RTP streams depends on out-of-band signaling, the signaling mechanism SHOULD be completed before the exchange of RTP packets using the new flow identifiers starts.¶

In cases where it cannot be guaranteed that signaling is completed before RTP packets are transmitted, streams or DATAGRAMs with a given flow identifer can arrive before the signaling finished. In that case, an endpoint cannot associate the stream or DATAGRAM with the corresponding RTP stream. The endpoint can buffer streams and DATAGRAMs using an unknown flow identifier until they can be associated with the corresponding RTP stream. To avoid resource exhaustion, the buffering endpoint MUST limit the number of streams and DATAGRAMs to buffer. If the number of buffered streams exceeds the limit on buffered streams, the endpoint MUST send a STOP_SENDING with the error code ROQ_UNKNOWN_FLOW_ID. It is an implementation's choice on which stream to send STOP_SENDING. If the number of buffered DATAGRAMs exceeds the limit on buffered DATAGRAMs, the endpoint MUST drop a DATAGRAM. It is an implementation's choice which DATAGRAMs to drop.¶

Flow identifiers introduce some overhead in addition to the header overhead of RTP and QUIC. QUIC variable-length integers require between one and eight bytes depending on the number expressed. Thus, using low numbers as session identifiers first will minimize this additional overhead.¶

5.2. QUIC Streams

To send RTP packets over QUIC streams, a sender MUST open at least one new unidirectional QUIC stream. RoQ uses unidirectional streams, because there is no synchronous relationship between sent and received RTP packets. An endpoint that receives a bidirectional stream with a flow identifier that is associated with an RTP stream, MUST stop reading from the stream and send a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with the frame type set to APPLICATION_ERROR and the error code set to ROQ_STREAM_CREATION_ERROR.¶

The underlying QUIC implementation might be acting as either a QUIC client or QUIC server, so the unidirectional QUIC stream can be either client-initiated or server-initiated, as described in Section 2.1 of [RFC9000], depending on the role. The QUIC implementation's role is not controlled by RoQ, and can be negotiated using a separate signaling protocol.¶

A RoQ sender can open new QUIC streams for different RTP packets using the same flow identifier. This allows RoQ senders to use QUIC streams while avoiding head-of-line blocking.¶

Because a sender can continue sending on a stream with a lower stream identifier after starting packet transmission on a stream with a higher stream identifier, a RoQ receiver MUST be prepared to receive RoQ packets on any number of QUIC streams (subject to its limit on parallel open streams) and MUST NOT make assumptions about which RTP sequence numbers are carried in any particular stream.¶

Payload {
  Flow Identifier (i),
  RTP Payload(..) ...,
}

RTP Payload {
  Length(i),
  RTP Packet(..),
}

5.3. QUIC DATAGRAMs

Senders can also transmit RTP packets in QUIC DATAGRAMs, using a QUIC extension described in [RFC9221]. DATAGRAMs can only be used if the use of the DATAGRAM extension was successfully negotiated during the QUIC handshake. If the DATAGRAM extension was negotiated using a signaling protocol, but was not also negotiated during the resulting QUIC handshake, an endpoint can close the connection with the ROQ_EXPECTATION_UNMET error code.¶

DATAGRAMs preserve application frame boundaries. Thus, a single RTP packet can be mapped to a single DATAGRAM without additional framing. Because QUIC DATAGRAMs cannot be IP-fragmented (Section 5 of [RFC9221]), senders need to consider the header overhead associated with DATAGRAMs, and ensure that the RTP packets, including their payloads, flow identifier, QUIC, and IP headers, will fit into the Path MTU.¶

Figure 3 shows the encapsulation format for RoQ Datagrams.¶

Payload {
  Flow Identifier (i),
  RTP Packet (..),
}

Flow Identifier:

Flow identifier to demultiplex different data flows on the same QUIC connection.¶

RTP Packet:

The RTP packet to transmit.¶

RoQ senders need to be aware that QUIC uses the concept of QUIC frames, and QUIC connections use different kinds of QUIC frames to carry different application and control data types. A single QUIC packet can contain more than one QUIC frame, including, for example, QUIC STREAM frames or DATAGRAM frames carrying application data and ACK frames carrying QUIC acknowledgments, as long as the overall size fits into the MTU. One implication is that the number of packets a QUIC stack transmits depends on whether it can fit ACK and DATAGRAM frames in the same QUIC packet. Suppose the application creates many DATAGRAM frames that fill up the QUIC packet. In that case, the QUIC stack would need to create additional packets for ACK frames, and possibly other control frames. The additional overhead could, in some cases, be reduced if the application creates smaller RTP packets, such that the resulting DATAGRAM frame can fit into a QUIC packet that can also carry ACK frames. Another implication is that multiple RTP packets in either QUIC streams or QUIC DATAGRAMs might be encapsulated in a single QUIC packet, which is discussed in more detail in Section 12.3.¶

Since DATAGRAMs are not retransmitted on loss (see also Section 10.4 for loss signaling), if an application is using DATAGRAMs and wishes to retransmit lost RTP packets, the application has to carry out that retransmission. RTP retransmissions can be done in the same RTP session or in a different RTP session [RFC4588] and the flow identifier MUST be set to the flow identifier of the RTP session in which the retransmission happens.¶

8.1. Congestion Control at the Transport Layer

QUIC is a congestion-controlled transport protocol. Senders are required to employ some form of congestion control. The default congestion control specified for QUIC in [RFC9002] is similar to TCP NewReno [RFC6582], but senders are free to choose any congestion control algorithm as long as they follow the guidelines specified in Section 3 of [RFC8085], and QUIC implementors make use of this freedom.¶

Congestion control mechanisms are often implemented at the transport layer of the protocol stack, but can also be implemented at the application layer.¶

A congestion control mechanism could respond to actual packet loss (detected by timeouts), or to impending packet loss (signaled by mechanisms such as Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]).¶

For real-time traffic, it is best that the QUIC implementation uses a congestion controller that aims at keeping queues at intermediary network elements, and thus latency, as short as possible. Delay-based congestion control algorithms might use, for example, an increasing one-way delay as a signal of impending congestion, and adjust the sending rate to prevent continued increases in one-way delay.¶

A wide variety of congestion control algorithms for real-time media have been developed (for example, "Google Congestion Controller" [I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc]). The IETF has defined two such algorithms in Experimental RFCs (SCReAM [RFC8298] and NADA [RFC8698]). These algorithms for RTP are specifically tailored for real-time transmission at low latencies, but the guidance in this section would apply to any congestion control algorithm that meets the requirements described in "Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media" [RFC8836].¶

Some low latency congestion control algorithms depend on detailed arrival time feedback to estimate the current one-way delay between sender and receiver, which is unavailable in QUIC [RFC9000] without extensions. QUIC implementations can use an extension to add this information to QUIC as described in Appendix A. In addition to these dedicated real-time media congestion-control algorithms, QUIC implementations could support the Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service [RFC9330], which limits growth in round-trip delays that result from increasing queuing delays. While L4S does not rely on a QUIC protocol extension, L4S does rely on support from network devices along the path from sender to receiver.¶

The application needs a mechanism to query the available bandwidth to adapt media codec configurations. If the employed congestion controller of the QUIC connection keeps an estimate of the available bandwidth, it could also expose an API to the application to query the current estimate. If the congestion controller cannot provide a current bandwidth estimate to the application, the sender can implement an alternative bandwidth estimation at the application layer as described in Section 8.2.¶

It is assumed that the congestion controller in use provides a pacing mechanism to determine when a packet can be sent to avoid bursts and minimize variation in inter-packet arrival times. The currently proposed congestion control algorithms for real-time communications (e.g., SCReAM and NADA) provide such pacing mechanisms, and the QUIC exemplary congestion control algorithm (Section 7.7 of [RFC9002]) recommends pacing for senders.¶

8.2. Rate Adaptation at the Application Layer

RTP itself does not specify a congestion control algorithm, but [RFC8888] defines an RTCP feedback message intended to enable rate adaptation for interactive real-time traffic using RTP, and successful rate adaptation will accomplish congestion control as well.¶

If an application cannot access a bandwidth estimation from the QUIC layer, the application can alternatively implement a bandwidth estimation algorithm at the application layer. Congestion control algorithms for real-time media such as GCC [I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc], NADA [RFC8698], and SCReAM [RFC8298] expose a target bitrate to dynamically reconfigure media codecs to produce media at the rate of the observed available bandwidth. Applications can use the same bandwidth estimation to adapt their rate when using QUIC. However, running an additional congestion control algorithm at the application layer can have unintended effects due to the interaction of two nested congestion controllers.¶

If an RTP application paces its media transmission at a rate that does not saturate path bandwidth, more heavy-handed congestion control mechanisms (drastic reductions in the sending rate when loss is detected, with much slower increases when losses are no longer being detected) ought to rarely come into play. If an RTP application chooses RoQ as its transport, sends enough media to saturate the available path bandwidth, and does not adapt its sending rate, these drastic measures will be required to avoid sustained or oscillating congestion along the path.¶

Thus, applications are advised to only use the bandwidth estimation without running the complete congestion control algorithm at the application layer before passing data to the QUIC layer.¶

The bandwidth estimation algorithm typically needs some feedback on the transmission performance. This feedback can be collected via RTCP or following the guidelines in Section 10 and Section 11.¶

8.3. Sharing QUIC connections

Two endpoints can establish channels to exchange more than one type of data simultaneously. The channels can be intended to carry real-time RTP data or other non-real-time data. This can be realized in different ways.¶

• One straightforward solution is to establish multiple QUIC connections, one for each channel, whether the channel is used for real-time media or non-real-time data.¶

• Alternatively, all real-time channels are mapped to one QUIC connection, while a separate QUIC connection is created for the non-real-time channels.¶

• A third option is to multiplex all channels, whether real-time or non-real-time, in a single QUIC connection via an extension to RoQ.¶

In the first two cases, the congestion controllers can be chosen to match the demands of the respective channels and the different QUIC connections will compete for the same resources in the network. No local prioritization of data across the different (types of) channels would be necessary.¶

Although it is possible to multiplex (all or a subset of) real-time and non-real-time channels onto a single, shared QUIC connection by extending RoQ, the underlying QUIC implementation will likely use the same congestion controller for all channels in the shared QUIC connection. For this reason, applications multiplexing real-time and non-real-time channels in one connection will need to implement some form of prioritization or bandwidth allocation for the different channels.¶

9.1. RTP Considerations

One implementation goal might be to minimize processing overhead, for applications that are migrating from RTP over UDP to RoQ. These applications don't rely on any transport protocol behaviors beyond UDP, which can be described as "IP plus multiplexing". The implementers might be motivated by one or more of the advantages of encapsulating RTP in QUIC that are described in Section 3.1, but they do not need any of the advantages that would apply when encapsulating RTP in QUIC streams. For these applications, simply placing each RTP packet in a QUIC DATAGRAM frame when it becomes available would be sufficient, using no QUIC streams at all.¶

Another implementation goal might be to prioritize specific types of video frames over other types. For these applications, placing each type of video frame in a separate QUIC stream would allow the RoQ receiver to focus on the most important video frames more easily. This also allows the implementer to rely on QUIC's "byte stream" abstraction, freeing the application from dealing with MTU size restrictions, in contrast to the need to fit RTP packets into QUIC DATAGRAMs. The application might use QUIC streams for all of the RTP packets carried over this specific QUIC connection, with no QUIC DATAGRAMs at all.¶

Some applications might have implementation goals that don't fit neatly into "QUIC streams only" or "QUIC DATAGRAMs only" categories. For example, another implementation goal might be to use QUIC streams to carry RTP video frames, but to use QUIC DATAGRAMs to carry RTP audio frames, which are typically much smaller. Because humans tend to tolerate inconsistent behavior in video better than inconsistent behavior in audio, the application might add Forward Error Correction [RFC6363] to RTP audio packets and encapsulate the result in QUIC DATAGRAMs, while encapsulating RTP video packets in QUIC streams.¶

As noted in Section 5.1, all RoQ streams and RoQ datagrams begin with a flow identifier. This allows a RoQ sender to begin by encapsulating related RTP packets in QUIC streams and then switch to carrying them in QUIC DATAGRAMs, or vice versa. RoQ receivers need to be prepared to accept any valid RTP packet with a given flow identifier, whether it started by being encapsulated in QUIC streams or in QUIC DATAGRAMs, and RoQ receivers need to be prepared to accept RTP flows that switch from QUIC stream encapsulation to QUIC DATAGRAMs, or vice versa.¶

Because QUIC provides a capability to migrate connections for various reasons, including recovering from a path failure (Section 9 of [RFC9000]), when a QUIC connection migrates, a RoQ sender has the opportunity to revisit decisions about which RTP packets are encapsulated in QUIC streams, and which RTP packets are encapsulated in QUIC DATAGRAMs. Again, RoQ receivers need to be prepared for this eventuality.¶

9.2. RTCP Considerations

RTCP was originally defined to be used with UDP, which implies (1) the only buffering present would be at the IP interface level, so that transmission timing is largely under the control of the application, and (2) that the overhead, avg_rtcp_size, used to compute the RTCP transmission interval could be deterministically computed by adding the IP and UDP headers. Both change when carrying RTCP over QUIC and they change in different ways when using QUIC streams vs. QUIC datagrams.¶

10.1. RoQ Datagrams

QUIC DATAGRAMs are ACK-eliciting packets, which means that an acknowledgment is triggered when a DATAGRAM frame is received. Thus, a sender can assume that an RTP packet arrived at the receiver or was lost in transit, using the QUIC acknowledgments of QUIC DATAGRAM frames. In the following, an RTP packet is regarded as acknowledged when the QUIC DATAGRAM frame that carried the RTP packet was acknowledged.¶

10.2. RoQ Streams

For RTP packets that are sent over QUIC streams, an RTP packet is considered acknowledged after all STREAM frames that carried parts of the RTP packet were acknowledged.¶

When QUIC streams are used, the implementer needs to be aware that the direct mapping proposed below might not reflect the real characteristics of the network. RTP packet loss can seem lower than actual packet loss due to QUIC's automatic retransmissions. Similarly, timing information can be incorrect due to retransmissions or transmission delays introduced by the QUIC stack.¶

10.3. Multihop Topologies

In some topologies, RoQ might only be used on some of the links between multiple session participants. Other links might be using RTP over UDP, or over some other supported RTP encapsulation protocol, and some participants might be using RTP implementations that don't support RoQ at all. These participants will not be able to infer feedback from QUIC, and they might receive less RTCP feedback than expected. This situation can arise when participants using RoQ are not aware that other participants are not using RoQ and minimize their use of RTCP, assuming their RoQ peer will be able to infer statistics from QUIC. There are two ways to solve this problem:¶

• If the middlebox translating between RoQ and RTP over other RTP transport protocols such as UDP or TCP provides Back-to-Back RTP sessions as described in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC7667], this middlebox can add RTCP packets for the participants not using RoQ by using the statistics the middlebox gets from QUIC and the mappings described in the following sections.¶

• If the middlebox does not provide Back-to-Back RTP sessions, participants can use additional signaling to let the RoQ participants know what RTCP is required.¶

10.4. Feedback Mappings

This section explains how some of the RTCP packet types that are used to signal reception statistics can be replaced by equivalent statistics that are already collected by QUIC. The following list explains how this mapping can be achieved for the individual fields of different RTCP packet types.¶

The list of RTCP packets in this section is not exhaustive, and similar considerations would apply when exchanging any other type of RTCP control packets using RoQ.¶

A more thorough analysis including the information that cannot be mapped from QUIC can be found in Appendix B: RTCP Control Packet Types (in Appendix B.1), Generic RTP Feedback (RTPFB) (in Appendix B.3), Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB) (in Appendix B.4), Extended Reports (in Appendix B.2), and RTP Header Extensions (in Appendix B.5).¶

12.1. Impact of Connection Migration

RTP sessions are characterized by a continuous flow of packets in either or both directions. A connection migration might lead to pausing media transmission until reachability of the peer under the new address is validated. This might lead to short breaks in media delivery in the order of RTT and, if RTCP is used for RTT measurements, might cause spikes in observed delays. Application layer congestion control mechanisms (and packet repair schemes such as retransmissions) need to be prepared to cope with such spikes. As noted in Section 11, it could be desirable that the RoQ implementation provides an indication of connection migration to the RTP application, to assist in coping.¶

12.2. 0-RTT and Early Data considerations

RoQ applications, like any other RTP applications, want to establish a media path quickly, reducing clipping at the beginning of a conversation. For repeated connections between endpoints that have previously carried out a full TLS handshake procedure, the initiator of a QUIC connection can use 0-RTT packets with "early data" to include application data in a packet that is used to establish a connection.¶

As 0-RTT packets are subject to replay attacks, RoQ applications MUST carefully specify which data types and operations are allowed.¶

Section 9.2 of [RFC9001] says¶

• Application protocols MUST either prohibit the use of extensions that carry application semantics in 0-RTT or provide replay mitigation strategies.¶

For the purposes of this discussion, RoQ is an application protocol that allows the use of 0-RTT.¶

RoQ application developers ought to take the considerations described in Section 12.2.1 and Section 12.2.2 into account when deciding whether to use 0-RTT with early data for an application.¶

12.3. Coalescing RTP packets in a single QUIC packet

Applications have some control over how the QUIC stack maps application data to QUIC frames, but applications cannot control how the QUIC stack maps STREAM and DATAGRAM frames to QUIC packets Section 13 of [RFC9000] and Section 5 of [RFC9308].¶

• When RTP payloads are carried over QUIC streams, the RTP payload is treated as an ordered byte stream that will be carried in QUIC STREAM frames, with no effort to match application data boundaries.¶

• When RTP payloads are carried over DATAGRAMs, each RTP payload data unit is mapped into a DATAGRAM frame, but¶

• QUIC implementations can include multiple STREAM frames from different streams and one or more DATAGRAM frames into a single QUIC packet, and can include other QUIC frames as well.¶

QUIC stacks are allowed to wait for a short period of time if the queued QUIC packet is shorter than the Path MTU, in order to optimize for bandwidth utilization instead of latency, while real-time applications usually prefer to optimize for latency rather than bandwidth utilization. This waiting interval is under the QUIC implementation's control, and could be based on knowledge about application sending behavior or heuristics to determine whether and for how long to wait.¶

When there are a lot of small DATAGRAM frames (e.g., an audio stream) and a lot of large DATAGRAM frames (e.g., a video stream), it could be a good idea to make sure the audio frames can be included in a QUIC packet that also carries video frames (i.e., the video frames don't fill the whole QUIC packet). Otherwise, the QUIC stack might have to send additional small packets only carrying single audio frames, which would waste some bandwidth.¶

Application designers are advised to take these considerations into account when selecting and configuring a QUIC stack for use with RoQ.¶

13.1. Future Work Resulting from Implementation and Deployment Experience

Possible directions would include¶

• More guidance on transport for RTCP (for example, when to use QUIC streams vs. DATAGRAMs) including guidance on prioritization between streams and DATAGRAMs for the performance of RTCP.¶

• More guidance on the use of real-time-friendly congestion control algorithms (for example, Copa [Copa], L4S [RFC9330], etc.).¶

• More guidance for congestion control and rate adaptation for multiple RoQ flows (whether streams or datagrams).¶

• Possible guidance for connection sharing between real-time and non-real-time flows, including considerations for congestion control and rate adaptation, scheduling, prioritization, and which ALPNs to use.¶

• Investigation of the effects of delaying or dropping DATAGRAMs due to congestion before they can be transmitted by the QUIC stack.¶

• Implementation of translating middleboxes for translating between RoQ and RTP over UDP. As described in Section 3.3, RoQ can be used to connect to some RTP middleboxes using some topologies, and these middleboxes might be connecting RoQ endpoints and non-RoQ endpoints, so will need to translate between RoQ and RTP over UDP.¶

For these reasons, publication of this document as a stable reference for implementers to test with, and report results, seems useful.¶

13.2. Future Work Resulting from New QUIC Extensions

In addition, as noted in Section 3.1.7, one of the motivations for using QUIC as a transport for RTP is to exploit new QUIC extensions as they become available. We noted several specific proposed QUIC extensions in Appendix A, but these proposals are all solving relevant problems, and those problems are worth solving for the QUIC protocol, whether the listed proposals are used in the solution or not.¶

• Guidance for using RoQ with QUIC connection migration and over multiple paths. QUIC connection migration was already defined in [RFC9000], and the Multipath Extension for QUIC [I-D.draft-ietf-quic-multipath] has been adopted and is relatively mature, so this is likely to be the first new QUIC extension we address.¶

• Guidance for using RoQ with QUIC NAT traversal solutions. This could use Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC8445] or other NAT traversal solutions.¶

• Guidance for improved jitter calculations to use with congestion control and rate adaptation.¶

• Guidance for other aspects of QUIC performance optimization relying on extensions.¶

Other QUIC extensions, not yet proposed, might also be useful with RoQ.¶

14.1. mengelbart/roq

Ogranization:

Technical University of Munich¶

Implementation:

[roq]¶

Description:

roq is a library implementing the basic encapsulation described in Section 5. The library uses the Go programming language and supports the [quic-go] QUIC implementation.¶

Level of Maturity:

prototype¶

Coverage: : The library supports sending and receiving RTP and RTCP packets using QUIC streams and QUIC DATAGRAMs, and supports multiplexing using flow identifiers. Applications using the library are responsible for appropriate signaling, setting up QUIC connections, and managing RTP sessions. Applications choose whether to send RTP and RTCP packets over streams or DATAGRAMs, and applications also have control over the QUIC and RTP congestion controllers in use since they control the QUIC connection setup and can thus configure the QUIC stack they use to their preferences.¶

Version Compatibility:

The library implements [I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-10].¶

Licensing:

MIT License¶

Implementation Experience:

The implementer reports they have no experience with the topics discussed in Section 13. RoQ relies on out-of-band signaling for connection establishment, and since there is currently no specification for SDP for RoQ, applications using the library have to statically configure connection information to allow testing¶

Contact Information:

Mathis Engelbart ([email protected])¶

Last Updated:

25 May 2024¶

14.2. bbc/gst-roq

Ogranization:

BBC Research and Development¶

Implementation:

RTP-over-QUIC elements for GStreamer [gst-roq]¶

Description:

gst-quic-transport provides a set of GStreamer plugins implementing QUIC transport. gst-roq provides a set of GStreamer plugins implementing RoQ.¶

Level of Maturity:

research¶

Coverage:

The plugins support sending and receiving RTP and RTCP packets using QUIC streams and QUIC DATAGRAMs, and supports multiplexing using flow identifiers. GStreamer pipelines that use the RoQ plugins found in the gst-roq repository can make use of the plugins found in the gst-quic-transport repository to set up QUIC connections. RTP sessions can be managed by existing GStreamer plugins available in the standard GStreamer release. GStreamer pipeline applications choose whether to send RTP and RTCP packets over streams or DATAGRAMs.¶

Version Compatibility:

The library implements [I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-05].¶

Licensing:

GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1¶

Implementation Experience:

The implementer reports they have no experience with the topics discussed in Section 13. Both in-band and out-of-band signalling for RoQ media sessions is in active development via an implementation of [I-D.draft-hurst-sip-quic-00], which re-uses the GStreamer plugins described above.¶

Contact Information:

Sam Hurst ([email protected])¶

Last Updated:

05 June 2024¶

14.3. mengelbart/rtp-over-quic

Ogranization:

Technical University of Munich¶

Implementation:

RTP over QUIC [RTP-over-QUIC]¶

Description:

RTP over QUIC is a experimental implementation of the mapping described in an earlier version of this document.¶

Level of Maturity:

research¶

Coverage:

The application implements the RoQ DATAGRAMs mapping and implements SCReAM congestion control at the application layer. It can optionally disable the built-in QUIC congestion control (NewReno). The endpoints only use RTCP for congestion control feedback, which can optionally be disabled and replaced by the QUIC connection statistics as described in Section 10.4. Experimental results of the implementation can be found in [RoQ-Mininet].¶

Version Compatibility:

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-00]¶

Licensing:

MIT¶

Implementation Experience:

See [RoQ-Mininet]¶

Contact Information:

Mathis Engelbart ([email protected])¶

Last Updated:

25 May 2024¶

16.1. Registration of a RoQ Identification String

This document creates a new registration for the identification of RoQ in the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" registry [RFC7301].¶

The "roq" string identifies RoQ:¶

Protocol:

RTP over QUIC (RoQ)¶

Identification Sequence:

0x72 0x6F 0x71 ("roq")¶

Specification:

This document¶

16.2. RoQ Error Codes Registry

This document establishes a registry for RoQ error codes. The "RTP over QUIC (RoQ) Error Codes" registry manages a 62-bit space and is listed under the "Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters" heading.¶

The new error codes registry created in this document operates under the QUIC registration policy documented in Section 22.1 of [RFC9000]. This registry includes the common set of fields listed in Section 22.1.1 of [RFC9000].¶

Permanent registrations in this registry are assigned using the Specification Required policy ([RFC8126]), except for values between 0x00 and 0x3f (in hexadecimal; inclusive), which are assigned using Standards Action or IESG Approval as defined in Sections 4.9 and 4.10 of [RFC8126].¶

Registrations for error codes are required to include a description of the error code. An expert reviewer is advised to examine new registrations for possible duplication or interaction with existing error codes.¶

In addition to common fields as described in Section Section 22.1 of [RFC9000], this registry includes two additional fields. Permanent registrations in this registry MUST include the following fields:¶

Name:

A name for the error code.¶

Description:

A brief description of the error code semantics, which can be a summary if a specification reference is provided.¶

The initial allocations in this registry are all assigned permanent status and list a change controller of the IETF and a contact of the AVTCORE working group ([email protected]).¶

The entries in Table 2 are registered by this document.¶

17.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3550>.

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3551>.

[RFC3611]

Friedman, T., Ed., Caceres, R., Ed., and A. Clark, Ed., "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, DOI 10.17487/RFC3611, November 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3611>.

[RFC4585]

Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, DOI 10.17487/RFC4585, July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4585>.

[RFC4588]

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

[RFC6363]

Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6363>.

[RFC6679]

Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P., and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, DOI 10.17487/RFC6679, August 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6679>.

[RFC7301]

Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7301>.

[RFC7667]

Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", RFC 7667, DOI 10.17487/RFC7667, November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7667>.

[RFC8126]

Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

[RFC8298]

Johansson, I. and Z. Sarker, "Self-Clocked Rate Adaptation for Multimedia", RFC 8298, DOI 10.17487/RFC8298, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8298>.

[RFC8698]

Zhu, X., Pan, R., Ramalho, M., and S. Mena, "Network-Assisted Dynamic Adaptation (NADA): A Unified Congestion Control Scheme for Real-Time Media", RFC 8698, DOI 10.17487/RFC8698, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8698>.

[RFC8836]

Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, Ed., "Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media", RFC 8836, DOI 10.17487/RFC8836, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8836>.

[RFC8888]

Sarker, Z., Perkins, C., Singh, V., and M. Ramalho, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control", RFC 8888, DOI 10.17487/RFC8888, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8888>.

[RFC8999]

Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC", RFC 8999, DOI 10.17487/RFC8999, May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8999>.

[RFC9000]

Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

[RFC9001]

Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001>.

[RFC9002]

Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002, May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9002>.

[RFC9221]

Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221, DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.

17.2. Informative References

[Copa]

"Copa: Practical Delay-Based Congestion Control for the Internet", 2018, <https://web.mit.edu/copa/>.

[gst-roq]

"RTP-over-QUIC elements for GStreamer", n.d., <https://github.com/bbc/gst-roq>.

[I-D.draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic]

Dawkins, S., "SDP Offer/Answer for RTP using QUIC as Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic-00, 28 January 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dawkins-avtcore-sdp-rtp-quic-00>.

[I-D.draft-huitema-quic-ts]

Huitema, C., "Quic Timestamps For Measuring One-Way Delays", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-huitema-quic-ts-08, 28 August 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-huitema-quic-ts-08>.

[I-D.draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling]

Hurst, S., "QRT: QUIC RTP Tunnelling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling-01, 28 January 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hurst-quic-rtp-tunnelling-01>.

[I-D.draft-hurst-sip-quic-00]

Hurst, S., "SIP-over-QUIC: Session Initiation Protocol over QUIC Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hurst-sip-quic-00, 6 November 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hurst-sip-quic-00>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata]

He, Y., Herglotz, C., and E. Francois, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Messages for Temporal-Spatial Resolution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata-04, 7 October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata-04>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-00]

Ott, J. and M. Engelbart, "RTP over QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-00, 26 July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-00>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-05]

Ott, J., Engelbart, M., and S. Dawkins, "RTP over QUIC (RoQ)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-05, 26 July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-05>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-10]

Ott, J., Engelbart, M., and S. Dawkins, "RTP over QUIC (RoQ)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-10, 8 May 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic-10>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07]

Lennox, J., Hong, D., Uberti, J., Holmer, S., and M. Flodman, "The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback Message", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07, 2 July 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtext-lrr-07>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram]

Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the Capsule Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-11, 17 June 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-11>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency]

Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and M. Kühlewind, "QUIC Acknowledgment Frequency", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-10, 29 August 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequency-10>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-multipath]

Liu, Y., Ma, Y., De Coninck, Q., Bonaventure, O., Huitema, C., and M. Kühlewind, "Multipath Extension for QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-multipath-11, 21 October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-multipath-11>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-reliable-stream-reset]

Seemann, M. and K. Oku, "QUIC Stream Resets with Partial Delivery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-reliable-stream-reset-06, 28 February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-reliable-stream-reset-06>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc]

Holmer, S., Lundin, H., Carlucci, G., De Cicco, L., and S. Mascolo, "A Google Congestion Control Algorithm for Real-Time Communication", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc-02, 8 July 2016, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc-02>.

[I-D.draft-ietf-wish-whip]

Murillo, S. G. and A. Gouaillard, "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-wish-whip-16, 21 August 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-wish-whip-16>.

[I-D.draft-smith-quic-receive-ts]

Smith, C. and I. Swett, "QUIC Extension for Reporting Packet Receive Timestamps", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-smith-quic-receive-ts-00, 25 October 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smith-quic-receive-ts-00>.

[I-D.draft-thomson-quic-enough]

Thomson, M., "Signaling That a QUIC Receiver Has Enough Stream Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-thomson-quic-enough-00, 30 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-quic-enough-00>.

[IANA-RTCP-FMT-PSFB-PT]

"FMT Values for PSFB Payload Types", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-9>.

[IANA-RTCP-FMT-RTPFB-PT]

"FMT Values for RTPFB Payload Types", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-8>.

[IANA-RTCP-PT]

"RTCP Control Packet Types (PT)", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-4>.

[IANA-RTCP-XR-BT]

"RTCP XR Block Type", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/rtcp-xr-block-types.xhtml#rtcp-xr-block-types-1>.

[IANA-RTP-CHE]

"RTP Compact Header Extensions", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-10>.

[IANA-RTP-SDES-CHE]

"RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#sdes-compact-header-extensions>.

[IEEE-1733-2011]

"IEEE 1733-2011 Standard for Layer 3 Transport Protocol for Time-Sensitive Applications in Local Area Networks", n.d., <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1733/4748/>.

[quic-go]

"A QUIC implementation in pure Go", n.d., <https://github.com/quic-go/quic-go>.

[RFC0768]

Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.

[RFC1122]

Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1122>.

[RFC1191]

Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191>.

[RFC3168]

Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3168>.

[RFC3261]

Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261>.

[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3711>.

[RFC5093]

Hunt, G., "BT's eXtended Network Quality RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR XNQ)", RFC 5093, DOI 10.17487/RFC5093, December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5093>.

[RFC5104]

Wenger, S., Chandra, U., Westerlund, M., and B. Burman, "Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF)", RFC 5104, DOI 10.17487/RFC5104, February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5104>.

[RFC5450]

Singer, D. and H. Desineni, "Transmission Time Offsets in RTP Streams", RFC 5450, DOI 10.17487/RFC5450, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5450>.

[RFC5484]

Singer, D., "Associating Time-Codes with RTP Streams", RFC 5484, DOI 10.17487/RFC5484, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5484>.

[RFC5725]

Begen, A., Hsu, D., and M. Lague, "Post-Repair Loss RLE Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XRs)", RFC 5725, DOI 10.17487/RFC5725, February 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5725>.

[RFC5760]

Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, DOI 10.17487/RFC5760, February 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5760>.

[RFC5761]

Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5761>.

[RFC6051]

Perkins, C. and T. Schierl, "Rapid Synchronisation of RTP Flows", RFC 6051, DOI 10.17487/RFC6051, November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6051>.

[RFC6284]

Begen, A., Wing, D., and T. Van Caenegem, "Port Mapping between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions", RFC 6284, DOI 10.17487/RFC6284, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6284>.

[RFC6285]

Ver Steeg, B., Begen, A., Van Caenegem, T., and Z. Vax, "Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions", RFC 6285, DOI 10.17487/RFC6285, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6285>.

[RFC6332]

Begen, A. and E. Friedrich, "Multicast Acquisition Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports (XRs)", RFC 6332, DOI 10.17487/RFC6332, July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6332>.

[RFC6464]

Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464, DOI 10.17487/RFC6464, December 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6464>.

[RFC6465]

Ivov, E., Ed., Marocco, E., Ed., and J. Lennox, "A Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Mixer-to-Client Audio Level Indication", RFC 6465, DOI 10.17487/RFC6465, December 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6465>.

[RFC6582]

Henderson, T., Floyd, S., Gurtov, A., and Y. Nishida, "The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm", RFC 6582, DOI 10.17487/RFC6582, April 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6582>.

[RFC6642]

Wu, Q., Ed., Xia, F., and R. Even, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extension for a Third-Party Loss Report", RFC 6642, DOI 10.17487/RFC6642, June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6642>.

[RFC6776]

Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "Measurement Identity and Information Reporting Using a Source Description (SDES) Item and an RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block", RFC 6776, DOI 10.17487/RFC6776, October 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6776>.

[RFC6798]

Clark, A. and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Packet Delay Variation Metric Reporting", RFC 6798, DOI 10.17487/RFC6798, November 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6798>.

[RFC6843]

Clark, A., Gross, K., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Delay Metric Reporting", RFC 6843, DOI 10.17487/RFC6843, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6843>.

[RFC6904]

Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904, DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6904>.

[RFC6958]

Clark, A., Zhang, S., Zhao, J., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Loss Metric Reporting", RFC 6958, DOI 10.17487/RFC6958, May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6958>.

[RFC6990]

Huang, R., Wu, Q., Asaeda, H., and G. Zorn, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting", RFC 6990, DOI 10.17487/RFC6990, August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6990>.

[RFC7002]

Clark, A., Zorn, G., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Discard Count Metric Reporting", RFC 7002, DOI 10.17487/RFC7002, September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7002>.

[RFC7003]

Clark, A., Huang, R., and Q. Wu, Ed., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Burst/Gap Discard Metric Reporting", RFC 7003, DOI 10.17487/RFC7003, September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7003>.

[RFC7004]

Zorn, G., Schott, R., Wu, Q., Ed., and R. Huang, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Summary Statistics Metrics Reporting", RFC 7004, DOI 10.17487/RFC7004, September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7004>.

[RFC7005]

Clark, A., Singh, V., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for De-Jitter Buffer Metric Reporting", RFC 7005, DOI 10.17487/RFC7005, September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7005>.

[RFC7097]

Ott, J., Singh, V., Ed., and I. Curcio, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) for RLE of Discarded Packets", RFC 7097, DOI 10.17487/RFC7097, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7097>.

[RFC7243]

Singh, V., Ed., Ott, J., and I. Curcio, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for the Bytes Discarded Metric", RFC 7243, DOI 10.17487/RFC7243, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7243>.

[RFC7244]

Asaeda, H., Wu, Q., and R. Huang, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Synchronization Delay and Offset Metrics Reporting", RFC 7244, DOI 10.17487/RFC7244, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7244>.

[RFC7266]

Clark, A., Wu, Q., Schott, R., and G. Zorn, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Metric Reporting", RFC 7266, DOI 10.17487/RFC7266, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7266>.

[RFC7272]

van Brandenburg, R., Stokking, H., van Deventer, O., Boronat, F., Montagud, M., and K. Gross, "Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS) Using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)", RFC 7272, DOI 10.17487/RFC7272, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7272>.

[RFC7294]

Clark, A., Zorn, G., Bi, C., and Q. Wu, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for Concealment Metrics Reporting on Audio Applications", RFC 7294, DOI 10.17487/RFC7294, July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7294>.

[RFC7380]

Tong, J., Bi, C., Ed., Even, R., Wu, Q., Ed., and R. Huang, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting", RFC 7380, DOI 10.17487/RFC7380, November 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7380>.

[RFC7509]

Huang, R. and V. Singh, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) for Post-Repair Loss Count Metrics", RFC 7509, DOI 10.17487/RFC7509, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7509>.

[RFC7728]

Burman, B., Akram, A., Even, R., and M. Westerlund, "RTP Stream Pause and Resume", RFC 7728, DOI 10.17487/RFC7728, February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7728>.

[RFC7826]

Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., Lanphier, R., Westerlund, M., and M. Stiemerling, Ed., "Real-Time Streaming Protocol Version 2.0", RFC 7826, DOI 10.17487/RFC7826, December 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7826>.

[RFC7867]

Huang, R., "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Loss Concealment Metrics for Video Applications", RFC 7867, DOI 10.17487/RFC7867, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7867>.

[RFC7941]

Westerlund, M., Burman, B., Even, R., and M. Zanaty, "RTP Header Extension for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Source Description Items", RFC 7941, DOI 10.17487/RFC7941, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7941>.

[RFC7942]

Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

[RFC8015]

Singh, V., Perkins, C., Clark, A., and R. Huang, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for Independent Reporting of Burst/Gap Discard Metrics", RFC 8015, DOI 10.17487/RFC8015, November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8015>.

[RFC8083]

Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083, DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8083>.

[RFC8085]

Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8085>.

[RFC8201]

McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8201>.

[RFC8286]

Xia, J., Even, R., Huang, R., and L. Deng, "RTP/RTCP Extension for RTP Splicing Notification", RFC 8286, DOI 10.17487/RFC8286, October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8286>.

[RFC8445]

Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445, DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8445>.

[RFC8825]

Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real-Time Protocols for Browser-Based Applications", RFC 8825, DOI 10.17487/RFC8825, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8825>.

[RFC8849]

Even, R. and J. Lennox, "Mapping RTP Streams to Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE) Media Captures", RFC 8849, DOI 10.17487/RFC8849, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8849>.

[RFC8852]

Roach, A.B., Nandakumar, S., and P. Thatcher, "RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES)", RFC 8852, DOI 10.17487/RFC8852, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8852>.

[RFC8860]

Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and J. Lennox, "Sending Multiple Types of Media in a Single RTP Session", RFC 8860, DOI 10.17487/RFC8860, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8860>.

[RFC8861]

Lennox, J., Westerlund, M., Wu, Q., and C. Perkins, "Sending Multiple RTP Streams in a Single RTP Session: Grouping RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Reception Statistics and Other Feedback", RFC 8861, DOI 10.17487/RFC8861, January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8861>.

[RFC8899]

Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T. Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899, September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899>.

[RFC9114]

Bishop, M., Ed., "HTTP/3", RFC 9114, DOI 10.17487/RFC9114, June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114>.

[RFC9143]

Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 9143, DOI 10.17487/RFC9143, February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9143>.

[RFC9308]

Kühlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol", RFC 9308, DOI 10.17487/RFC9308, September 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9308>.

[RFC9330]

Briscoe, B., Ed., De Schepper, K., Bagnulo, M., and G. White, "Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: Architecture", RFC 9330, DOI 10.17487/RFC9330, January 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9330>.

[RFC9335]

Uberti, J., Jennings, C., and S. Murillo, "Completely Encrypting RTP Header Extensions and Contributing Sources", RFC 9335, DOI 10.17487/RFC9335, January 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9335>.

[roq]

"RTP over QUIC (RoQ)", n.d., <https://github.com/mengelbart/roq>.

[RoQ-Mininet]

"Congestion Control for RTP over QUIC Simulations", n.d., <https://github.com/mengelbart/rtp-over-quic-mininet>.

[RTP-over-QUIC]

"RTP over QUIC", n.d., <https://github.com/mengelbart/rtp-over-quic>.

[VJMK88]

"Congestion Avoidance and Control", November 1988, <https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf>.

[_3GPP-TS-26.114]

"IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Multimedia telephony; Media handling and interaction", 5 January 2023, <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=1404>.

B.1. RTCP Control Packet Types

The IANA registry for this section is [IANA-RTCP-PT].¶

B.2. RTCP XR Block Type

The IANA registry for this section is [IANA-RTCP-XR-BT].¶

B.3. FMT Values for RTP Feedback (RTPFB) Payload Types

The IANA registry for this section is [IANA-RTCP-FMT-RTPFB-PT].¶

B.4. FMT Values for Payload-Specific Feedback (PSFB) Payload Types

The IANA registry for this section is [IANA-RTCP-FMT-PSFB-PT].¶

Because QUIC is a generic transport protocol, QUIC feedback cannot replace the following Payload-specific RTP Feedback (PSFB) feedback.¶

B.5. RTP Header extensions

Like the payload-specific feedback packets, QUIC cannot directly replace the control information in the following header extensions. RoQ does not place restrictions on sending any RTP header extensions. However, some extensions, such as Transmission Time offsets [RFC5450] are used to improve network jitter calculation, which can be done in QUIC if a timestamp extension is used.¶

B.6. Examples