Network Working Group P. Jones
Request for Comments: 4102 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track June 2005 Registration of the text/red MIME Sub-Type
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 (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document defines the text/red MIME sub-type. "Red" is short for
redundant. The actual RTP packetization for this MIME type is
specified in RFC 2198.
Text is an important component of any multimedia communication
system. Like audio, the transport of text can benefit from the use
of redundancy in order to improve reliability and end-user
RFC 2198  defines an RTP  payload format for redundant audio
data. The format defined in that document is quite suitable for
providing redundancy for text, as well as audio.
RFC 4103  specifies one usage of RFC 2198 and the text/red MIME
type for the transport of redundant text data.
This memo provides the MIME sub-type registration information for
text/red. While this document focuses on the use of this MIME sub-
type in SDP , the application of this MIME sub-type is not
restricted to SDP.
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 .
3. IANA Considerations
One new MIME sub-type has been registered by the IANA, as described
MIME media type name: text
MIME subtype name: RED
rate: the RTP clock rate of the payload carried within the RTP
packet. Typically, this rate is 1000, but other rates MAY be
specified. This parameter MUST be set equal to the clock rate of
the text payload format carried as the primary encoding.
pt: a comma-separated ordered list of RTP payload types
enumerating the primary, secondary, etc., in accordance with RFC
2198. Because comma is a special character, the list MUST be a
quoted-string (enclosed in double quotes). For static payload
types, each list element is simply the type number. For dynamic
payload types, each list element is a mapping of the dynamic
payload type number to an embedded MIME content-type specification
for the payload format corresponding to the dynamic payload type.
The format of the mapping is:
dynamic-payload-type "=" content-type
If the content-type string includes a comma, then the content-
type string MUST be a quoted-string. If the content-type string
does not include a comma, it MAY still be quoted. Because it is
part of the list, which must itself be a quoted-string, the
quotation marks MUST be quoted with backslash quoting as specified
in RFC 2045 . If the content-type string itself contains a
quoted-string, then the requirement for backslash quoting is
Optional parameters: ptime, maxptime (these attributes are originally
defined in RFC 2327  and RFC 3267 , respectively)
Restrictions on Usage:
This type is defined only for transfer via RTP.
It shall not be defined for a storage format.
See restrictions on Usage above; this section is included per
the requirements in RFC 3555 .
Security considerations: Refer to section 5 of RFC 4102.
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification: RFC 2198
Applications which use this media type:
Text streaming and conferencing tools.
Additional information: none
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Paul E. Jones
Intended usage: COMMON
Paul E. Jones
AVT Working Group delegated from the IESG
4. Mapping to SDP Parameters
The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a
specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
, which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions. When SDP is
used to specify sessions employing the RFC 2198 in a text session,
the mapping is as follows:
- The MIME type ("text") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.
- The value of the parameter "rate" goes in SDP "a=rtpmap".
- The MIME subtype (RED) goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding
- The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP "a=ptime" and
"a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.
- The pt parameter is mapped to an a=fmtp attribute by eliminating
the parameter name (pt) and changing the commas to slashes. For
example, 'pt="101,102"' maps to 'a=fmtp:99 101/102', where = '99'
is the payload type of the redundancy frames. Note that the
single quote marks (') used in this example are not present in the
actual message encoding, but are present here only for
readability. The level of redundancy is shown by the number of
elements in the payload type list.
Any dynamic payload type in the list MUST be represented by its
payload type number and not by its content-type. The mapping of
payload types to the content-type is done using the normal SDP
procedures with "a=rtpmap".
An example of SDP is:
m=text 11000 RTP/AVP 98 100
For each redundancy payload type defined, the ordering of the primary
and redundancy encoding(s) is fixed. If more than one combination of
primary and redundancy encoding(s) is desired, multiple redundancy
payload types needs to be defined.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in RFC 2198 apply. Further, it
should be understood that text data, perhaps even more so than audio
data, is susceptible to unwanted modification that may lead to
undesired results. To prevent modification of the primary,
secondary, or header information, payload integrity protection over
at least the complete RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example using
6. Normative References
 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.
 Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
 Handley, M., Jackson, V., "SDP: Session Description Protocol",
RFC 2327, April 1998.
 Sjoberg, J., Westerlund, M., Lakaniemi, A., and Q. Xie, "Real-
Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage
Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate
Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs", RFC 3267, June 2002.
 Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload
Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003.
7. Informative References
 Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text Conversation",
RFC 4103, June 2005.
 Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC
3711, March 2004.
Paul E. Jones
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Phone: +1 919 392 6948
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.
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
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-
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the