Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Watson Request for Comments: 6363 Netflix, Inc. Category: Standards Track A. Begen ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco V. Roca INRIA October 2011 Forward Error Correction (FEC) Framework
AbstractThis document describes a framework for using Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes with applications in public and private IP networks to provide protection against packet loss. The framework supports applying FEC to arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transport and is primarily intended for real-time, or streaming, media. This framework can be used to define Content Delivery Protocols that provide FEC for streaming media delivery or other packet flows. Content Delivery Protocols defined using this framework can support any FEC scheme (and associated FEC codes) that is compliant with various requirements defined in this document. Thus, Content Delivery Protocols can be defined that are not specific to a particular FEC scheme, and FEC schemes can be defined that are not specific to a particular Content Delivery Protocol. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363.
Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Definitions and Abbreviations ...................................5 3. Architecture Overview ...........................................7 4. Procedural Overview ............................................11 4.1. General ...................................................11 4.2. Sender Operation ..........................................13 4.3. Receiver Operation ........................................15 5. Protocol Specification .........................................19 5.1. General ...................................................19 5.2. Structure of the Source Block .............................19 5.3. Packet Format for FEC Source Packets ......................19 5.3.1. Generic Explicit Source FEC Payload ID .............21 5.4. Packet Format for FEC Repair Packets ......................21 5.4.1. Packet Format for FEC Repair Packets over RTP ......22 5.5. FEC Framework Configuration Information ...................22 5.6. FEC Scheme Requirements ...................................24 6. Feedback .......................................................26 7. Transport Protocols ............................................27 8. Congestion Control .............................................27 8.1. Motivation ................................................27 8.2. Normative Requirements ....................................29 9. Security Considerations ........................................29 9.1. Problem Statement .........................................29 9.2. Attacks against the Data Flows ............................31 9.2.1. Access to Confidential Content .....................31 9.2.2. Content Corruption .................................32 9.3. Attacks against the FEC Parameters ........................33 9.4. When Several Source Flows Are to Be Protected Together ....33 9.5. Baseline Secure FEC Framework Operation ...................34 10. Operations and Management Considerations ......................35 10.1. What Are the Key Aspects to Consider? ....................35 10.2. Operational and Management Recommendations ...............36 11. IANA Considerations ...........................................39 12. Acknowledgments ...............................................39 13. References ....................................................40 13.1. Normative References .....................................40 13.2. Informative References ...................................40
Forward Error Correction (FEC) is a well-known technique for improving the reliability of packet transmission over networks that do not provide guaranteed packet delivery, especially in multicast and broadcast applications. The FEC Building Block, defined in [RFC5052], provides a framework for the definition of Content Delivery Protocols (CDPs) for object delivery (including, primarily, file delivery) that make use of separately defined FEC schemes. Any CDP defined according to the requirements of the FEC Building Block can then easily be used with any FEC scheme that is also defined according to the requirements of the FEC Building Block. Note that the term "Forward Erasure Correction" is sometimes used, erasures being a type of error in which data is lost and this loss can be detected, rather than being received in corrupted form. The focus of this document is strictly on erasures, and the term "Forward Error Correction" is more widely used. This document defines a framework for the definition of CDPs that provide for FEC protection for arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transports such as UDP. As such, this document complements the FEC Building Block of [RFC5052], by providing for the case of arbitrary packet flows over unreliable transport, the same kind of framework as that document provides for object delivery. This document does not define a complete CDP; rather, it defines only those aspects that are expected to be common to all CDPs based on this framework. This framework does not define how the flows to be protected are determined, nor does it define how the details of the protected flows and the FEC streams that protect them are communicated from sender to receiver. It is expected that any complete CDP specification that makes use of this framework will address these signaling requirements. However, this document does specify the information that is required by the FEC Framework at the sender and receiver, e.g., details of the flows to be FEC protected, the flow(s) that will carry the FEC protection data, and an opaque container for FEC-Scheme-Specific Information. FEC schemes designed for use with this framework must fulfill a number of requirements defined in this document. These requirements are different from those defined in [RFC5052] for FEC schemes for object delivery. However, there is a great deal of commonality, and FEC schemes defined for object delivery may be easily adapted for use with the framework defined in this document.
Since RTP [RFC3550] is (often) used over UDP, this framework can be applied to RTP flows as well. FEC repair packets may be sent directly over UDP or RTP. The latter approach has the advantage that RTP instrumentation, based on the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), can be used for the repair flow. Additionally, the post-repair RTCP extended reports [RFC5725] may be used to obtain information about the loss rate after FEC recovery. The use of RTP for repair flows is defined for each FEC scheme by defining an RTP payload format for that particular FEC scheme (possibly in the same document).
FEC Repair Packet: At a sender (respectively, at a receiver), a payload submitted to (respectively, received from) the transport protocol containing one or more repair symbols along with a Repair FEC Payload ID and possibly an RTP header. FEC Scheme: A specification that defines the additional protocol aspects required to use a particular FEC code with the FEC Framework. FEC Source Packet: At a sender (respectively, at a receiver), a payload submitted to (respectively, received from) the transport protocol containing an ADU along with an optional Explicit Source FEC Payload ID. Protection Amount: The relative increase in data sent due to the use of FEC. Repair Flow: The packet flow carrying FEC data. Repair FEC Payload ID: A FEC Payload ID specifically for use with repair packets. Source Flow: The packet flow to which FEC protection is to be applied. A source flow consists of ADUs. Source FEC Payload ID: A FEC Payload ID specifically for use with source packets. Source Protocol: A protocol used for the source flow being protected, e.g., RTP. Transport Protocol: The protocol used for the transport of the source and repair flows, e.g., UDP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). The following definitions are aligned with [RFC5052]: Code Rate: The ratio between the number of source symbols and the number of encoding symbols. By definition, the code rate is such that 0 < code rate <= 1. A code rate close to 1 indicates that a small number of repair symbols have been produced during the encoding process. Encoding Symbol: Unit of data generated by the encoding process. With systematic codes, source symbols are part of the encoding symbols.
Packet Erasure Channel: A communication path where packets are either dropped (e.g., by a congested router, or because the number of transmission errors exceeds the correction capabilities of the physical-layer codes) or received. When a packet is received, it is assumed that this packet is not corrupted. Repair Symbol: Encoding symbol that is not a source symbol. Source Block: Group of ADUs that are to be FEC protected as a single block. Source Symbol: Unit of data used during the encoding process. Systematic Code: FEC code in which the source symbols are part of the encoding symbols. 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 [RFC2119]. RFC4588]). It is important to understand that the main purpose of the FEC Framework architecture is to allocate functional responsibilities to separately documented components in such a way that specific instances of the components can be combined in different ways to describe different protocols. The FEC Framework makes use of a FEC scheme, in a similar sense to that defined in [RFC5052], and uses the terminology of that document. The FEC scheme defines the FEC encoding and decoding, and it defines the protocol fields and procedures used to identify packet payload data in the context of the FEC scheme. The interface between the FEC
Framework and a FEC scheme, which is described in this document, is a logical one that exists for specification purposes only. At an encoder, the FEC Framework passes ADUs to the FEC scheme for FEC encoding. The FEC scheme returns repair symbols with their associated Repair FEC Payload IDs and, in some cases, Source FEC Payload IDs, depending on the FEC scheme. At a decoder, the FEC Framework passes transport packet payloads (source and repair) to the FEC scheme, and the FEC scheme returns additional recovered source packet payloads. This document defines certain FEC Framework Configuration Information that MUST be available to both sender and receiver(s). For example, this information includes the specification of the ADU flows that are to be FEC protected, specification of the ADU flow(s) that will carry the FEC protection (repair) data, and the relationship(s) between these source and repair flows (i.e., which source flow(s) are protected by repair flow(s)). The FEC Framework Configuration Information also includes information fields that are specific to the FEC scheme. This information is analogous to the FEC Object Transmission Information defined in [RFC5052]. The FEC Framework does not define how the FEC Framework Configuration Information for the stream is communicated from sender to receiver. This has to be defined by any CDP specification, as described in the following sections. In this architecture, we assume that the interface to the transport layer supports the concepts of data units (referred to here as Application Data Units (ADUs)) to be transported and identification of ADU flows on which those data units are transported. Since this is an interface internal to the architecture, we do not specify this interface explicitly. We do require that ADU flows that are distinct from the transport layer point of view (for example, distinct UDP flows as identified by the UDP source/destination addresses/ports) are also distinct on the interface between the transport layer and the FEC Framework. As noted above, RTP flows are a specific example of ADU flows that might be protected by the FEC Framework. From the FEC Framework point of view, RTP source flows are ADU flows like any other, with the RTP header included within the ADU. Depending on the FEC scheme, RTP can also be used as a transport for repair packet flows. In this case, a FEC scheme has to define an RTP payload format for the repair data.
The architecture outlined above is illustrated in Figure 1. In this architecture, two (optional) RTP instances are shown, for the source and repair data, respectively. This is because the use of RTP for the source data is separate from, and independent of, the use of RTP for the repair data. The appearance of two RTP instances is more natural when one considers that in many FEC codes, the repair payload contains repair data calculated across the RTP headers of the source packets. Thus, a repair packet carried over RTP starts with an RTP header of its own, which is followed (after the Repair Payload ID) by repair data containing bytes that protect the source RTP headers (as well as repair data for the source RTP payloads).
+--------------------------------------------+ | Application | +--------------------------------------------+ | | | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ | +--------------------------------------------+ | | Application Layer | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | | | + -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --+ | | | RTP (Optional) | | | | | |- Configuration/ +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | Coordination | | | | | ADU flows | | | v | +--------------------------------------------+ +------------+ | | FEC Framework (This document) |<--->| FEC Scheme | +--------------------------------------------+ +------------+ | | | | Source | Repair | | | | | +-- -- -- -- --|-- --+ -- -- -- -- -- + -- --+ | | RTP Layer | | RTP Processing | | | | (Optional) | +-- -- -- |- -- -+ | | | +-- -- -- -- -- -- -- |--+ | | | | RTP (De)multiplexing | | | +-- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | Transport Layer (e.g., UDP) | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | IP | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | Content Delivery Protocol | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + Figure 1: FEC Framework Architecture
The content of the transport payload for repair packets is fully defined by the FEC scheme. For a specific FEC scheme, a means MAY be defined for repair data to be carried over RTP, in which case, the repair packet payload format starts with the RTP header. This corresponds to defining an RTP payload format for the specific FEC scheme. The use of RTP for repair packets is independent of the protocols used for source packets: if RTP is used for source packets, repair packets may or may not use RTP and vice versa (although it is unlikely that there are useful scenarios where non-RTP source flows are protected by RTP repair flows). FEC schemes are expected to recover entire transport payloads for recovered source packets in all cases. For example, if RTP is used for source flows, the FEC scheme is expected to recover the entire UDP payload, including the RTP header. Section 7). The data can be from multiple source flows that are protected jointly. The FEC Framework handles the source flows as a sequence of source blocks each consisting of a set of ADUs, possibly from multiple source flows that are to be protected together. For example, each source block can be constructed from those ADUs related to a particular segment in time of the flow. At the sender, the FEC Framework passes the payloads for a given block to the FEC scheme for FEC encoding. The FEC scheme performs the FEC encoding operation and returns the following information: o Optionally, FEC Payload IDs for each of the source payloads (encoded according to a FEC-Scheme-Specific format). o One or more FEC repair packet payloads. o FEC Payload IDs for each of the repair packet payloads (encoded according to a FEC-Scheme-Specific format).
The FEC Framework then performs two operations. First, it appends the Source FEC Payload IDs, if provided, to each of the ADUs, and sends the resulting packets, known as "FEC source packets", to the receiver. Second, it places the provided FEC repair packet payloads and corresponding Repair FEC Payload IDs appropriately to construct FEC repair packets and send them to the receiver. This document does not define how the sender determines which ADUs are included in which source blocks or the sending order and timing of FEC source and repair packets. A specific CDP MAY define this mapping, or it MAY be left as implementation dependent at the sender. However, a CDP specification MUST define how a receiver determines a minimum length of time that it needs to wait to receive FEC repair packets for any given source block. FEC schemes MAY define limitations on this mapping, such as maximum size of source blocks, but they SHOULD NOT attempt to define specific mappings. The sequence of operations at the sender is described in more detail in Section 4.2. At the receiver, original ADUs are recovered by the FEC Framework directly from any FEC source packets received simply by removing the Source FEC Payload ID, if present. The receiver also passes the contents of the received ADUs, plus their FEC Payload IDs, to the FEC scheme for possible decoding. If any ADUs related to a given source block have been lost, then the FEC scheme can perform FEC decoding to recover the missing ADUs (assuming sufficient FEC source and repair packets related to that source block have been received). Note that the receiver might need to buffer received source packets to allow time for the FEC repair packets to arrive and FEC decoding to be performed before some or all of the received or recovered packets are passed to the application. If such a buffer is not provided, then the application has to be able to deal with the severe re-ordering of packets that can occur. However, such buffering is CDP- and/or implementation-specific and is not specified here. The receiver operation is described in more detail in Section 4.3. The FEC source packets MUST contain information that identifies the source block and the position within the source block (in terms specific to the FEC scheme) occupied by the ADU. This information is known as the Source FEC Payload ID. The FEC scheme is responsible for defining and interpreting this information. This information MAY be encoded into a specific field within the FEC source packet format defined in this specification, called the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field. The exact contents and format of the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field are defined by the FEC schemes. Alternatively, the
FEC scheme MAY define how the Source FEC Payload ID is derived from other fields within the source packets. This document defines the way that the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field is appended to source packets to form FEC source packets. The FEC repair packets MUST contain information that identifies the source block and the relationship between the contained repair payloads and the original source block. This is known as the Repair FEC Payload ID. This information MUST be encoded into a specific field, the Repair FEC Payload ID field, the contents and format of which are defined by the FEC schemes. The FEC scheme MAY use different FEC Payload ID field formats for source and repair packets. Figure 2 for the case of UDP repair flows and in Figure 3 for the case of RTP repair flows, describe a possible way to generate compliant source and repair flows: 1. ADUs are provided by the application. 2. A source block is constructed as specified in Section 5.2. 3. The source block is passed to the FEC scheme for FEC encoding. The Source FEC Payload ID information of each source packet is determined by the FEC scheme. If required by the FEC scheme, the Source FEC Payload ID is encoded into the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field. 4. The FEC scheme performs FEC encoding, generating repair packet payloads from a source block and a Repair FEC Payload ID field for each repair payload. 5. The Explicit Source FEC Payload IDs (if used), Repair FEC Payload IDs, and repair packet payloads are provided back from the FEC scheme to the FEC Framework. 6. The FEC Framework constructs FEC source packets according to Section 5.3, and FEC repair packets according to Section 5.4, using the FEC Payload IDs and repair packet payloads provided by the FEC scheme.
7. The FEC source and repair packets are sent using normal transport-layer procedures. The port(s) and multicast group(s) to be used for FEC repair packets are defined in the FEC Framework Configuration Information. The FEC source packets are sent using the same ADU flow identification information as would have been used for the original source packets if the FEC Framework were not present (for example, in the UDP case, the UDP source and destination addresses and ports on the IP datagram carrying the source packet will be the same whether or not the FEC Framework is applied). +----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ | |(1) ADUs | v +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | | | |-------------------------->| FEC Scheme | |(2) Construct source |(3) Source Block | | | blocks | |(4) FEC Encoding| |(6) Construct FEC |<--------------------------| | | source and repair | | | | packets |(5) Explicit Source FEC | | +----------------------+ Payload IDs +----------------+ | Repair FEC Payload IDs | Repair symbols | |(7) FEC source and repair packets v +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+ Figure 2: Sender Operation
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ | |(1) ADUs | v +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | | | |-------------------------->| FEC Scheme | |(2) Construct source |(3) Source Block | | | blocks | |(4) FEC Encoding| |(6) Construct FEC |<--------------------------| | | source packets and| | | | repair payloads |(5) Explicit Source FEC | | +----------------------+ Payload IDs +----------------+ | | Repair FEC Payload IDs | | Repair symbols | | |(7) Source |(7') Repair payloads | packets | | | | + -- -- -- -- -+ | | RTP | | +-- -- -- -- --+ v v +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+ Figure 3: Sender Operation with RTP Repair Flows Figures 4 and 5 for the case of UDP and RTP repair flows, respectively, when receiving a FEC source or repair packet: 1. FEC source packets and FEC repair packets are received and passed to the FEC Framework. The type of packet (source or repair) and the source flow to which it belongs (in the case of source packets) are indicated by the ADU flow information, which identifies the flow at the transport layer. In the special case that RTP is used for repair packets, and source and repair packets are multiplexed onto the same UDP flow, then RTP demultiplexing is required to demultiplex source and
repair flows. However, RTP processing is applied only to the repair packets at this stage; source packets continue to be handled as UDP payloads (i.e., including their RTP headers). 2. The FEC Framework extracts the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field (if present) from the source packets and the Repair FEC Payload ID from the repair packets. 3. The Explicit Source FEC Payload IDs (if present), Repair FEC Payload IDs, and FEC source and repair payloads are passed to the FEC scheme. 4. The FEC scheme uses the received FEC Payload IDs (and derived FEC Source Payload IDs in the case that the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field is not used) to group source and repair packets into source blocks. If at least one source packet is missing from a source block, and at least one repair packet has been received for the same source block, then FEC decoding can be performed in order to recover missing source payloads. The FEC scheme determines whether source packets have been lost and whether enough data for decoding of any or all of the missing source payloads in the source block has been received. 5. The FEC scheme returns the ADUs to the FEC Framework in the form of source blocks containing received and decoded ADUs and indications of any ADUs that were missing and could not be decoded. 6. The FEC Framework passes the received and recovered ADUs to the application. The description above defines functionality responsibilities but does not imply a specific set of timing relationships. Source packets that are correctly received and those that are reconstructed MAY be delivered to the application out of order and in a different order from the order of arrival at the receiver. Alternatively, buffering and packet re-ordering MAY be applied to re-order received and reconstructed source packets into the order they were placed into the source block, if that is necessary according to the application.
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ ^ | |(6) ADUs | +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | | | |<--------------------------| FEC Scheme | |(2)Extract FEC Payload|(5) ADUs | | | IDs and pass IDs & | |(4) FEC Decoding| | payloads to FEC |-------------------------->| | | scheme |(3) Explicit Source FEC | | +----------------------+ Payload IDs +----------------+ ^ Repair FEC Payload IDs | Source payloads | Repair payloads | |(1) FEC source and repair packets | +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+ Figure 4: Receiver Operation
+----------------------+ | Application | +----------------------+ ^ | |(6) ADUs | +----------------------+ +----------------+ | FEC Framework | | | | |<--------------------------| FEC Scheme | |(2)Extract FEC Payload|(5) ADUs | | | IDs and pass IDs & | |(4) FEC Decoding| | payloads to FEC |-------------------------->| | | scheme |(3) Explicit Source FEC | | +----------------------+ Payload IDs +----------------+ ^ ^ Repair FEC Payload IDs | | Source payloads | | Repair payloads | | |Source |Repair payloads |packets | | | +-- |- -- -- -- -- -- -+ |RTP| | RTP Processing | | | +-- -- -- --|-- -+ | +-- -- -- -- -- |--+ | | | RTP Demux | | +-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ ^ |(1) FEC source and repair packets | +----------------------+ | Transport Layer | | (e.g., UDP) | +----------------------+ Figure 5: Receiver Operation with RTP Repair Flows Note that the above procedure might result in a situation in which not all ADUs are recovered.
Figure 6, it consists of the original packet, optionally followed by the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field. The FEC scheme determines whether the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field is required. This determination is specific to each ADU flow.
+------------------------------------+ | IP Header | +------------------------------------+ | Transport Header | +------------------------------------+ | Application Data Unit | +------------------------------------+ | Explicit Source FEC Payload ID | +------------------------------------+ Figure 6: Structure of the FEC Packet Format for FEC Source Packets The FEC source packets MUST be sent using the same ADU flow as would have been used for the original source packets if the FEC Framework were not present. The transport payload of the FEC source packet MUST consist of the ADU followed by the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field, if required. The Explicit Source FEC Payload ID field contains information required to associate the source packet with a source block and for the operation of the FEC algorithm, and is defined by the FEC scheme. The format of the Source FEC Payload ID field is defined by the FEC scheme. In the case that the FEC scheme or CDP defines a means to derive the Source FEC Payload ID from other information in the packet (for example, a sequence number used by the application protocol), then the Source FEC Payload ID field is not included in the packet. In this case, the original source packet and FEC source packet are identical. In applications where avoidance of IP packet fragmentation is a goal, CDPs SHOULD consider the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID size when determining the size of ADUs that will be delivered using the FEC Framework. This is because the addition of the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID increases the packet length. The Explicit Source FEC Payload ID is placed at the end of the packet, so that in the case that Robust Header Compression (ROHC) [RFC3095] or other header compression mechanisms are used, and in the case that a ROHC profile is defined for the protocol carried within the transport payload (for example, RTP), then ROHC will still be applied for the FEC source packets. Applications that are used with this framework need to consider that FEC schemes can add this Explicit Source FEC Payload ID and thereby increase the packet size. In many applications, support for FEC is added to a pre-existing protocol, and in this case, use of the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID can break backward compatibility, since source packets are modified.
Figure 7. The transport payload consists of a Repair FEC Payload ID field followed by repair data generated in the FEC encoding process. +------------------------------------+ | IP Header | +------------------------------------+ | Transport Header | +------------------------------------+ | Repair FEC Payload ID | +------------------------------------+ | Repair Symbols | +------------------------------------+ Figure 7: Packet Format for FEC Repair Packets The Repair FEC Payload ID field contains information required for the operation of the FEC algorithm at the receiver. This information is defined by the FEC scheme. The format of the Repair FEC Payload ID field is defined by the FEC scheme.
Figure 8. +------------------------------------+ | IP Header | +------------------------------------+ | Transport Header (UDP) | +------------------------------------+ | RTP Header | +------------------------------------+ | Repair FEC Payload ID | +------------------------------------+ | Repair Symbols | +------------------------------------+ Figure 8: Packet Format for FEC Repair Packets over RTP
1. Identification of the repair flows. 2. For each source flow protected by the repair flow(s): A. Definition of the source flow. B. An integer identifier for this flow definition (i.e., tuple). This identifier MUST be unique among all source flows that are protected by the same FEC repair flow. Integer identifiers can be allocated starting from zero and increasing by one for each flow. However, any random (but still unique) allocation is also possible. A source flow identifier need not be carried in source packets, since source packets are directly associated with a flow by virtue of their packet headers. 3. The FEC Encoding ID, identifying the FEC scheme. 4. The length of the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID (in octets). 5. Zero or more FEC-Scheme-Specific Information (FSSI) elements, each consisting of a name and a value where the valid element names and value ranges are defined by the FEC scheme. Multiple instances of the FEC Framework, with separate and independent FEC Framework Configuration Information, can be present at a sender or receiver. A single instance of the FEC Framework protects packets of the source flows identified in (2) above; i.e., all packets sent on those flows MUST be FEC source packets as defined in Section 5.3. A single source flow can be protected by multiple instances of the FEC Framework. The integer flow identifier identified in (2B) above is a shorthand to identify source flows between the FEC Framework and the FEC scheme. The reason for defining this as an integer, and including it in the FEC Framework Configuration Information, is so that the FEC scheme at the sender and receiver can use it to identify the source flow with which a recovered packet is associated. The integer flow identifier can therefore take the place of the complete flow description (e.g., UDP 4-tuple). Whether and how this flow identifier is used is defined by the FEC scheme. Since repair packets can provide protection for multiple source flows, repair packets either would not carry the identifier at all or can carry multiple identifiers. However, in any case, the flow identifier associated with a particular source packet can be recovered from the repair packets as part of a FEC decoding operation.
A single FEC repair flow provides repair packets for a single instance of the FEC Framework. Other packets MUST NOT be sent within this flow; i.e., all packets in the FEC repair flow MUST be FEC repair packets as defined in Section 5.4 and MUST relate to the same FEC Framework instance. In the case that RTP is used for repair packets, the identification of the repair packet flow can also include the RTP payload type to be used for repair packets. FSSI includes the information that is specific to the FEC scheme used by the CDP. FSSI is used to communicate the information that cannot be adequately represented otherwise and is essential for proper FEC encoding and decoding operations. The motivation behind separating the FSSI required only by the sender (which is carried in a Sender- Side FEC-Scheme-Specific Information (SS-FSSI) container) from the rest of the FSSI is to provide the receiver or the third-party entities a means of controlling the FEC operations at the sender. Any FSSI other than the one solely required by the sender MUST be communicated via the FSSI container. The variable-length SS-FSSI and FSSI containers transmit the information in textual representation and contain zero or more distinct elements, whose descriptions are provided by the fully specified FEC schemes. For the CDPs that choose the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] for their multimedia sessions, the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for the SS-FSSI and FSSI containers is provided in Section 4.5 of [RFC6364]. Section 11. 2. The type, semantics, and encoding format of the Repair FEC Payload ID. 3. The name, type, semantics, and text value encoding rules for zero or more FEC-Scheme-Specific Information elements.
4. A full specification of the FEC code. This specification MUST precisely define the valid FEC-Scheme- Specific Information values, the valid FEC Payload ID values, and the valid packet payload sizes (where packet payload refers to the space within a packet dedicated to carrying encoding symbols). Furthermore, given a source block as defined in Section 5.2, valid values of the FEC-Scheme-Specific Information, a valid Repair FEC Payload ID value, and a valid packet payload size, the specification MUST uniquely define the values of the encoding symbols to be included in the repair packet payload of a packet with the given Repair FEC Payload ID value. A common and simple way to specify the FEC code to the required level of detail is to provide a precise specification of an encoding algorithm that -- given a source block, valid values of the FEC-Scheme-Specific Information, a valid Repair FEC Payload ID value, and a valid packet payload size as input -- produces the exact value of the encoding symbols as output. 5. A description of practical encoding and decoding algorithms. This description need not be to the same level of detail as for the encoding above; however, it has to be sufficient to demonstrate that encoding and decoding of the code are both possible and practical. FEC scheme specifications MAY additionally define the following: Type, semantics, and encoding format of an Explicit Source FEC Payload ID. Whenever a FEC scheme specification defines an 'encoding format' for an element, this has to be defined in terms of a sequence of bytes that can be embedded within a protocol. The length of the encoding format either MUST be fixed or it MUST be possible to derive the length from examining the encoded bytes themselves. For example, the initial bytes can include some kind of length indication.
FEC scheme specifications SHOULD use the terminology defined in this document and SHOULD follow the following format: 1. Introduction <Describe the use cases addressed by this FEC scheme> 2. Formats and Codes 2.1. Source FEC Payload ID(s) <Either define the type and format of the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID or define how Source FEC Payload ID information is derived from source packets> 2.2. Repair FEC Payload ID <Define the type and format of the Repair FEC Payload ID> 2.3. FEC Framework Configuration Information <Define the names, types, and text value encoding formats of the FEC-Scheme- Specific Information elements> 3. Procedures <Describe any procedures that are specific to this FEC scheme, in particular derivation and interpretation of the fields in the FEC Payload IDs and FEC-Scheme-Specific Information> 4. FEC Code Specification <Provide a complete specification of the FEC Code> Specifications can include additional sections including examples. Each FEC scheme MUST be specified independently of all other FEC schemes, for example, in a separate specification or a completely independent section of a larger specification (except, of course, a specification of one FEC scheme can include portions of another by reference). Where an RTP payload format is defined for repair data for a specific FEC scheme, the RTP payload format and the FEC scheme can be specified within the same document.
When used to provide instrumentation for engineering purposes, it is important to remember that FEC is generally applied to relatively small blocks of data (in the sense that each block is transmitted over a relatively small period of time). Thus, feedback information that is averaged over longer periods of time will likely not provide sufficient information for engineering purposes. More detailed feedback over shorter time scales might be preferred. For example, for applications using RTP transport, see [RFC5725]. Applications that use feedback for congestion control purposes MUST calculate such feedback on the basis of packets received before FEC recovery is applied. If this requirement conflicts with other uses of the feedback information, then the application MUST be enhanced to support information calculated both pre- and post-FEC recovery. This is to ensure that congestion control mechanisms operate correctly based on congestion indications received from the network, rather than on post-FEC recovery information that would give an inaccurate picture of congestion conditions. New applications that require such feedback SHOULD use RTP/RTCP [RFC3550]. Section 8.2.
o The authors of this document are primarily interested in applications where the application reliability requirements and end-to-end reliability of the network differ, such that it warrants higher-layer protection of the packet stream, e.g., due to the presence of unreliable links in the end-to-end path and where real-time, scalability, or other constraints prohibit the use of higher-layer (transport or application) feedback. A typical example for such applications is multicast and broadcast streaming or multimedia transmission over heterogeneous networks. In other cases, application reliability requirements can be so high that the required end-to-end reliability will be difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the end-to-end network reliability is not necessarily known in advance. o This FEC Framework is not defined as, nor is it intended to be, a quality-of-service (QoS) enhancement tool to combat losses resulting from highly congested networks. It should not be used for such purposes. o In order to prevent such misuse, one approach is to leave standardization to bodies most concerned with the problem described above. However, the IETF defines base standards used by several bodies, including the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) Project, the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), and 3GPP2, all of which appear to share the environment and the problem described. o Another approach is to write a clear applicability statement. For example, one could restrict the use of this framework to networks with certain loss characteristics (e.g., wireless links). However, there can be applications where the use of FEC is justified to combat congestion-induced packet losses -- particularly in lightly loaded networks, where congestion is the result of relatively rare random peaks in instantaneous traffic load -- thereby intentionally violating congestion control principles. One possible example for such an application could be a no-matter-what, brute-force FEC protection of traffic generated as an emergency signal. o A third approach is to require, at a minimum, that the use of this framework with any given application, in any given environment, does not cause congestion issues that the application alone would not itself cause; i.e., the use of this framework must not make things worse.
o Taking the above considerations into account, Section 8.2 specifies a small set of constraints for FEC; these constraints are mandatory for all senders compliant with this FEC Framework. Further restrictions can be imposed by certain CDPs.
o They can try to compromise the receiver's behavior (e.g., by making the decoding of an object computationally expensive), which is another form of DoS attack. o They can try to compromise the network's behavior (e.g., by causing congestion within the network), which potentially impacts a large number of nodes. These attacks can be launched either against the source and/or repair flows (e.g., by sending fake FEC source and/or repair packets) or against the FEC parameters that are sent either in-band (e.g., in the Repair FEC Payload ID or in the Explicit Source FEC Payload ID) or out-of-band (e.g., in the FEC Framework Configuration Information). Several dimensions to the problem need to be considered. The first one is the way the FEC Framework is used. The FEC Framework can be used end-to-end, i.e., it can be included in the final end-device where the upper application runs, or the FEC Framework can be used in middleboxes, for instance, to globally protect several source flows exchanged between two or more distant sites. A second dimension is the threat model. When the FEC Framework operates in the end-device, this device (e.g., a personal computer) might be subject to attacks. Here, the attacker is either the end- user (who might want to access confidential content) or somebody else. In all cases, the attacker has access to the end-device but does not necessarily fully control this end-device (a secure domain can exist). Similarly, when the FEC Framework operates in a middlebox, this middlebox can be subject to attacks or the attacker can gain access to it. The threats can also concern the end-to-end transport (e.g., through the Internet). Here, examples of threats include the transmission of fake FEC source or repair packets; the replay of valid packets; the drop, delay, or misordering of packets; and, of course, traffic eavesdropping. The third dimension consists in the desired security services. Among them, the content integrity and sender authentication services are probably the most important features. We can also mention DoS mitigation, anti-replay protection, or content confidentiality. Finally, the fourth dimension consists in the security tools available. This is the case of the various Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems, defined outside of the context of the IETF, that can be proprietary solutions. Otherwise, the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] and IPsec/Encapsulating Security Payload (IPsec/ESP) [RFC4303] are two tools that can turn out to be useful in the context of the FEC Framework. Note that using SRTP requires that the application generate RTP source flows and, when applied below the
FEC Framework, that both the FEC source and repair packets be regular RTP packets. Therefore, SRTP is not considered to be a universal solution applicable in all use cases. In the following sections, we further discuss security aspects related to the use of the FEC Framework. RFC3711]), or at the network layer on a per-packet basis when IPsec/ESP is used [RFC4303]. If confidentiality is a concern, it is RECOMMENDED that one of these solutions be used. Even if we mention these attacks here, they are neither related to nor facilitated by the use of FEC. Note that when encryption is applied, this encryption MUST be applied either on the source data before the FEC protection or, if done after the FEC protection, on both the FEC source packets and repair packets (and an encryption at least as cryptographically secure as the encryption applied on the FEC source packets MUST be used for the FEC repair packets). Otherwise, if encryption were to be performed only on the FEC source packets after FEC encoding, a non-authorized receiver could be able to recover the source data after decoding the FEC repair packets, provided that a sufficient number of such packets were available. The following considerations apply when choosing where to apply encryption (and more generally where to apply security services beyond encryption). Once decryption has taken place, the source data is in plaintext. The full path between the output of the deciphering module and the final destination (e.g., the TV display in the case of a video) MUST be secured, in order to prevent any unauthorized access to the source data. When the FEC Framework endpoint is the end-system (i.e., where the upper application runs) and if the threat model includes the possibility that an attacker has access to this end-system, then the end-system architecture is very important. More precisely, in order to prevent an attacker from getting hold of the plaintext, all processing, once deciphering has taken place, MUST occur in a protected environment. If encryption is applied after FEC protection
at the sending side (i.e., below the FEC Framework), it means that FEC decoding MUST take place in the protected environment. With certain use cases, this MAY be complicated or even impossible. In such cases, applying encryption before FEC protection is preferred. When the FEC Framework endpoint is a middlebox, the recovered source flow, after FEC decoding, SHOULD NOT be sent in plaintext to the final destination(s) if the threat model includes the possibility that an attacker eavesdrops on the traffic. In that case, it is preferable to apply encryption before FEC protection. In some cases, encryption could be applied both before and after the FEC protection. The considerations described above still apply in such cases. RFC3711] provides several solutions to check the integrity and authenticate the source of RTP and RTCP messages, among other services. For instance, when associated with the Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) [RFC4383], SRTP is an attractive solution that is robust to losses, provides a true authentication/integrity service, and does not create any prohibitive processing load or transmission overhead. Yet, with TESLA, checking a packet requires a small delay (a second or more) after its reception. Whether or not this extra delay, both in terms of startup delay at the client and end-to-end delay, is appropriate depends on the target use case. In some situations, this might degrade the user experience. In other situations, this will not be an issue. Other building blocks can be used within SRTP to provide content integrity/authentication services. o At the network layer, IPsec/ESP [RFC4303] offers (among other services) an integrity verification mechanism that can be used to provide authentication/content integrity services.
It is up to the developer and the person in charge of deployment, who know the security requirements and features of the target application area, to define which solution is the most appropriate. Nonetheless, it is RECOMMENDED that at least one of these techniques be used. Note that when integrity protection is applied, it is RECOMMENDED that it take place on both FEC source and repair packets. The motivation is to keep corrupted packets from being considered during decoding, as such packets would often lead to a decoding failure or result in a corrupted decoded source flow. Section 9.2.2 can be used.
There are also situations where the only insecure domain is the one over which the FEC Framework operates. In that case, this situation MAY be addressed at the network layer, using IPsec/ESP (see Section 9.5), even if only a subset of the source flows has strict security requirements. Since the use of the FEC Framework should not add any additional threat, it is RECOMMENDED that the FEC Framework aggregate flow be in line with the maximum security requirements of the individual source flows. For instance, if denial-of-service (DoS) protection is required, an integrity protection SHOULD be provided below the FEC Framework, using, for instance, IPsec/ESP. Generally speaking, whenever feasible, it is RECOMMENDED that FEC protecting flows with totally different security requirements be avoided. Otherwise, significant processing overhead would be added to protect source flows that do not need it. Section 5.1 of [RFC5775] defines a baseline secure Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) operation for sender-to-group transmissions, assuming the presence of a single sender and a source-specific multicast (SSM) or SSM-like operation. The proposed solution, based on IPsec/ESP, can be used to provide a baseline FEC Framework secure operation, for the downstream source flow. Second, Section 7.1 of [RFC5740] defines a baseline secure NACK- Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) operation, for sender-to-group transmissions as well as unicast feedback from receivers. Here, it is also assumed there is a single sender. The proposed solution is also based on IPsec/ESP. However, the difference with respect to [RFC5775] relies on the management of IPsec Security Associations (SAs) and corresponding Security Policy Database (SPD) entries, since NORM requires a second set of SAs and SPD entries to be defined to protect unicast feedback from receivers.
Note that the IPsec/ESP requirement profiles outlined in [RFC5775] and [RFC5740] are commonly available on many potential hosts. They can form the basis of a secure mode of operation. Configuration and operation of IPsec typically require privileged user authorization. Automated key management implementations are typically configured with the privileges necessary to allow the needed system IPsec configuration.
3. Non-FEC Framework Capable Receivers: With the one-to-many and many-to-many use cases, the receiver population might have different capabilities with respect to the FEC Framework itself and the supported FEC schemes. Some receivers might not be capable of decoding the repair packets belonging to a particular FEC scheme, while some other receivers might not support the FEC Framework at all. 4. Internet vs. Non-Internet Networks: The FEC Framework can be useful in many use cases that use a transport network that is not the public Internet (e.g., with IPTV or Mobile TV). In such networks, the operational and management considerations can be achieved through an open or proprietary solution, which is specified outside of the IETF. 5. Congestion Control Considerations: See Section 8 for a discussion on whether or not congestion control is needed, and its relationships with the FEC Framework. 6. Within End-Systems vs. within Middleboxes: The FEC Framework can be used within end-systems, very close to the upper-layer application, or within dedicated middleboxes (for instance, when it is desired to protect one or several flows while they cross a lossy channel between two or more remote sites). 7. Protecting a Single Flow vs. Several Flows Globally: The FEC Framework can be used to protect a single flow or several flows globally. Section 10.1, it is clear that the CDPs and FEC schemes compatible with the FEC Framework differ widely in their capabilities, application, and deployment scenarios such that a common operation and management method or protocol that works well for all of them would be too complex to define. Thus, as a design choice, the FEC Framework does not dictate the use of any particular technology or protocol for transporting FEC data, managing the hosts, signaling the configuration information, or encoding the configuration information. This provides flexibility and is one of the main goals of the FEC Framework. However, this section gives some RECOMMENDED guidelines.
1. A Single Small Generic Component within a Larger (and Often Legacy) Solution: It is anticipated that the FEC Framework will often be used to protect one or several RTP streams. Therefore, implementations SHOULD make feedback information accessible via RTCP to enable users to take advantage of the tools using (or used by) RTCP to operate and manage the FEC Framework instance along with the associated FEC schemes. 2. One-to-One with Feedback vs. One-to-Many with Feedback vs. One- to-Many without Feedback Scenarios: With use cases that are one-way, the FEC Framework sender does not have any way to gather feedback from receivers. With use cases that are bidirectional, the FEC Framework sender can collect detailed feedback (e.g., in the case of a one-to-one scenario) or at least occasional feedback (e.g., in the case of a multicast, one-to-many scenario). All these applications have naturally different operational and management aspects. They also have different requirements or features, if any, for collecting feedback, processing it, and acting on it. The data structures for carrying the feedback also vary. Implementers SHOULD make feedback available using either an in-band or out-of-band asynchronous reporting mechanism. When an out-of-band solution is preferred, a standardized reporting mechanism, such as Syslog [RFC5424] or Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) notifications [RFC3411], is RECOMMENDED. When required, a mapping mechanism between the Syslog and SNMP reporting mechanisms could be used, as described in [RFC5675] and [RFC5676]. 3. Non-FEC Framework Capable Receivers: Section 5.3 gives recommendations on how to provide backward compatibility in the presence of receivers that cannot support the FEC scheme being used or the FEC Framework itself: basically, the use of Explicit Source FEC Payload ID is banned. Additionally, a non-FEC Framework capable receiver MUST also have a means not to receive the repair packets that it will not be able to decode in the first place or a means to identify and discard them appropriately upon receiving them. This SHOULD be achieved by sending repair packets on a different transport-layer flow. In the case of RTP transport, and if both source and repair packets will be sent on the same transport-layer flow, this SHOULD be achieved by using an RTP framing for FEC repair packets with a different payload type. It is the responsibility of the sender to select the appropriate mechanism when needed.
4. Within End-Systems vs. within Middleboxes: When the FEC Framework is used within middleboxes, it is RECOMMENDED that the paths between the hosts where the sending applications run and the middlebox that performs FEC encoding be as reliable as possible, i.e., not be prone to packet loss, packet reordering, or varying delays in delivering packets. Similarly, when the FEC Framework is used within middleboxes, it is RECOMMENDED that the paths be as reliable as possible between the middleboxes that perform FEC decoding and the end-systems where the receiving applications operate. 5. Management of Communication Issues before Reaching the Sending FECFRAME Instance: Let us consider situations where the FEC Framework is used within middleboxes. At the sending side, the general reliability recommendation for the path between the sending applications and the middlebox is important, but it may not guarantee that a loss, reordering, or long delivery delay cannot happen, for whatever reason. If such a rare event happens, this event SHOULD NOT compromise the operation of the FECFRAME instances, at either the sending side or the receiving side. This is particularly important with FEC schemes that do not modify the ADU for backward-compatibility purposes (i.e., do not use any Explicit Source FEC Payload ID) and rely on, for instance, the RTP sequence number field to identify FEC source packets within their source block. In this case, packet loss or packet reordering leads to a gap in the RTP sequence number space seen by the FECFRAME instance. Similarly, varying delay in delivering packets over this path can lead to significant timing issues. With FEC schemes that indicate in the Repair FEC Payload ID, for each source block, the base RTP sequence number and number of consecutive RTP packets that belong to this source block, a missing ADU or an ADU delivered out of order could cause the FECFRAME sender to switch to a new source block. However, some FEC schemes and/or receivers may not necessarily handle such varying source block sizes. In this case, one could consider duplicating the last ADU received before the loss, or inserting zeroed ADU(s), depending on the nature of the ADU flow. Implementers SHOULD consider the consequences of such alternative approaches, based on their use cases. 6. Protecting a Single Flow vs. Several Flows Globally: In the general case, the various ADU flows that are globally protected can have different features, and in particular different real- time requirements (in the case of real-time flows). The process of globally protecting these flows SHOULD take into account the requirements of each individual flow. In particular, it would be counterproductive to add repair traffic to a real-time flow for
which the FEC decoding delay at a receiver makes decoded ADUs for this flow useless because they do not satisfy the associated real-time constraints. From a practical point of view, this means that the source block creation process at the sending FEC Framework instance SHOULD consider the most stringent real-time requirements of the ADU flows being globally protected. 7. ADU Flow Bundle Definition and Flow Delivery: By design, a repair flow might enable a receiver to recover the ADU flow(s) that it protects even if none of the associated FEC source packets are received. Therefore, when defining the bundle of ADU flows that are globally protected and when defining which receiver receives which flow, the sender SHOULD make sure that the ADU flow(s) and repair flow(s) of that bundle will only be received by receivers that are authorized to receive all the ADU flows of that bundle. See Section 9.4 for additional recommendations for situations where strict access control for ADU flows is needed. Additionally, when multiple ADU flows are globally protected, a receiver that wants to benefit from FECFRAME loss protection SHOULD receive all the ADU flows of the bundle. Otherwise, the missing FEC source packets would be considered lost, which might significantly reduce the efficiency of the FEC scheme. RFC5226]. Section 5.6 defines explicit requirements that documents defining new FEC Encoding IDs should meet. FEC-SF], and so thanks are due to the additional authors of that document: Mike Luby, Magnus Westerlund, and Stephan Wenger. That document was in turn based on the FEC Streaming Protocol defined by 3GPP in [MBMSTS], and thus, thanks are also due to the participants in 3GPP SA Working Group 4. Further thanks are due to the members of the FECFRAME Working Group for their comments and reviews.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002. [RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052, August 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009. [FEC-SF] Watson, M., Luby, M., Westerlund, M., and S. Wenger, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Streaming Framework", Work in Progress, July 2005. [MBMSTS] 3GPP, "Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols and codecs", 3GPP TS 26.346, March 2009, <http://ftp.3gpp.org/specs/html-info/26346.htm>. [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004. [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005. [RFC4383] Baugher, M. and E. Carrara, "The Use of Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 4383, February 2006. [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. [RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R. Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588, July 2006. [RFC5675] Marinov, V. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Mapping Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Notifications to SYSLOG Messages", RFC 5675, October 2009. [RFC5676] Schoenwaelder, J., Clemm, A., and A. Karmakar, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Mapping SYSLOG Messages to Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Notifications", RFC 5676, October 2009. [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, February 2010. [RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, "NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport Protocol", RFC 5740, November 2009. [RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775, April 2010. [RFC6364] Begen, A., "Session Description Protocol Elements for FEC Framework", RFC 6364, October 2011.