Internet Draft                                             K. Hedayat                                        H. Kaplan (ed.)
  Expires: March 6, August 12, 2012                                  Acme Packet
                                                             K. Hedayat
                                                                   EXFO
                                                               N. Venna
                                                                Saperix
                                                               P. Jones
                                                    Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        A. Roychowdhury
                                                  Hughes Systique Corp.
                                                         C. SivaChelvan
                                                    Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            N. Stratton
                                                        BlinkMind, Inc.
                                                      September 6, 2011
                                                         March 10, 2012

     An Extension to the Session Description Protocol (SDP) for Media
                                Loopback
                   draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-16
                   draft-ietf-mmusic-media-loopback-17

 Status of this Memo

    This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
    the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
    documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
    as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
    progress."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

    This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, August 12, 2012.

 Copyright Notice

    Copyright (c) 2009 2012 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.

 Abstract

    The wide deployment of Voice over IP (VoIP), Real-time Text and Video over IP
    services has introduced new challenges in managing and maintaining
    real-time voice/real-time Text/video quality, reliability, and
    overall performance.  In particular, media delivery is an area that
    needs attention.  One method of meeting these challenges is
    monitoring the media delivery performance by looping media back to
    the transmitter.  This is typically referred to as "active
    monitoring" of services.   Media loopback is especially popular in
    ensuring the quality of transport to the edge of a given VoIP,
    Real-time Text or Video over IP service.  Today in networks that
    deliver real-time media, short of running 'ping' and 'traceroute'
    to the edge, service providers are left without the necessary tools
    to actively monitor, manage, and diagnose quality issues with their
    service.  The extension defined herein adds new SDP media
    attributes which enables establishment of media sessions where the
    media is looped back to the transmitter. Such media sessions will
    serve as monitoring and troubleshooting tools by providing the
    means for measurement of more advanced VoIP, Real-time Text and
    Video over IP performance metrics.

 Table of Contents

    1. Introduction                     .................................................. 3 Introduction..................................................3
       1.1 Use Cases Supported                                ....................................... 4 Supported.......................................4
    2. Terminology                    ................................................... 6 Terminology...................................................5
    3. Offering Entity Behavior                                 ...................................... 6 Behavior......................................6
    4. Answering Entity Behavior                                  ..................................... 6 Behavior.....................................6
    5. SDP Constructs Syntax                              ......................................... 6 Syntax..............Error! Bookmark not defined.
       5.1 Loopback Type Attribute                                    ................................... 6 Attribute...................................7
       5.2 Loopback Mode Attribute                                    ................................... 7 Attribute...................................7
       5.3 Generating the Offer for Loopback Session Session.................8
       5.4 Generating the Answer for Loopback Session                                                       ................ 9 Session................9
       5.5 Offerer Processing of the Answer                                             ......................... 11 Answer.........................11
       5.6 Modifying the Session                                  .................................... 11 Session....................................11
       5.7 Establishing Sessions Between Entities Behind NAT                                                              ........ 11 NAT........12
    6. RTP Requirements                         ............................................. 11 Requirements.............................................12
    7. Payload formats for Packet loopback                                            .......................... 12 loopback..........................12
       7.1 Encapsulated Payload format                                        .............................. 12 format..............................13
       7.2 Direct loopback RTP payload format                                               ....................... 15 format.......................15
    8. RTCP Requirements                          ............................................ 16 Requirements............................................16
    9. Congestion Control                           ........................................... 16 Control...........................................17
    10. Examples                  .................................................... 17 Examples....................................................17
       10.1 Offer for specific media loopback type                                                    .................. 17 type..................17
       10.2 Offer for choice of media loopback type                                                     ................. 17 type.................18
       10.3 Response to INVITE request rejecting loopback media                                                                 ..... 18 media.....19
    11. Security Considerations                                 ..................................... 19 Considerations.....................................19
    12. Implementation Considerations                                       ............................... 19 Considerations...............................20
    13. IANA Considerations                             ......................................... 20 Considerations.........................................20
       13.1 SDP Attributes                            .......................................... 20 Attributes..........................................20
       13.2 MIME Types                        .............................................. 21 Types..............................................21
    14. Normative References                              ........................................ 30 References........................................30

 1.  Introduction

    The overall quality, reliability, and performance of VoIP,
    Real-time Text and Video over IP services rely on the performance
    and quality of the media path.  In order to assure the quality of
    the delivered media there is a need to monitor the performance of
    the media transport.  One method of monitoring and managing the
    overall quality of real-time VoIP, Real-time Text and Video over IP Services
    is through monitoring the quality of the media in an active
    session.  This type of "active monitoring" of services is a method
    of proactively managing the performance and quality of VoIP based
    services.

    The goal of active monitoring is to measure the media quality of a
    VoIP, Real-time Text or Video over IP session.  A way to achieve this goal is
    to request an endpoint to loop media back to the other endpoint and
    to provide media statistics (e.g., RTCP and RTCP XR information).
    Another method involves deployment of special endpoints that always
    loop incoming media back for sessions.  Although the latter method
    has been used and is functional, it does not scale to support large
    networks and introduces new network management challenges.
    Further, it does not offer the granularity of testing a specific
    endpoint that may be exhibiting problems.

    The extension defined in this memo introduces new SDP media
    attributes that enable establishment of media sessions where the
    media is looped back to the transmitter.  The offer/answer model
    [RFC3264] is used to establish a loopback connection.  Furthermore,
    this extension provides guidelines on handling RTP [RFC3550], as
    well as usage of RTCP [RFC3550] and RTCP XR [RFC3611] for reporting
    media related measurements.

 1.1       Use Cases Supported

    As a matter of terminology in this document, packets flow from one
    peer acting as a "loopback source", to the other peer acting as a
    "loopback mirror", which in turn returns packets to the loopback
    source. In advance of the session, the peers negotiate to determine
    which one acts in which role. The negotiation also includes details
    such as the type of loopback to be used.

    This specification supports three use cases: "encapsulated packet
    loopback", "direct loopback", and "media loopback". These are
    distinguished by the treatment of incoming RTP packets at the
    loopback mirror.

    As a supplement to these use cases, this specification also allows
    the loopback source to request the loopback mirror to begin sending
    a media stream to the loopback source, ending when the mirror
    begins to receive packets from the source. This facility is needed
    in some circumstances to establish the media path through
    middleboxes lying between the peers.

 1.1.1 Encapsulated Packet Loopback

    In the encapsulated packet loopback case, the entire incoming RTP
    packet is encapsulated as payload within an outer payload type that
    is specific to this use case and specified below (Section 7.1).
    The encapsulated packet is returned to the loopback source.  The
    loopback source can generate statistics for one-way path
    performance up to the RTP level for each direction of travel by
    examining sequence numbers and timestamps in the outer header and
    the encapsulated RTP packet payload. The loopback source can also
    play back the returned media content for evaluation.

    Because the encapsulating payload extends the packet size, it could
    encounter difficulties in an environment where the original RTP
    packet size is close to the path MTU size.  The encapsulating
    payload type therefore offers the possibility of RTP-level
    fragmentation of the returned packets.  The use of this facility
    could affect statistics derived for the return path.  In addition,
    the increased bit rate required in the return direction may affect
    these statistics more directly in a restricted-bandwidth situation.

 1.1.2 Direct Loopback

    In the direct loopback case, the loopback mirror copies the payload
    of the incoming RTP packet into a new packet, the payload type of
    which is again specific to this use case and specified below
    (Section 7.2).  The loopback mirror returns the new packet to the
    packet source. There is no provision in this case for RTP-level
    fragmentation.

    This use case has the advantage of keeping the packet size the same
    in both directions.  The packet source can compute only two-way
    path statistics from the direct loopback packet header, but can
    play back the returned media content.

    It has been suggested that the loopback source, knowing that the
    incoming packet will never be passed to a decoder, can store a
    timestamp and sequence number inside the payload of the packet it
    sends to the mirror, then extract that information from the
    returned direct loopback packet and compute one-way path statistics
    as in the previous case. Obviously, playout of returned content is
    no longer possible if this is done.

 1.1.3 Media Loopback

    In the media loopback case, the loopback mirror submits the
    incoming packet to a decoder appropriate to the incoming payload
    type. The packet is taken as close as possible to the analog level,
    then reencoded according to an outgoing format determined by
    negotiation. The reencoded content is returned to the loopback
    source as an RTP packet with payload type corresponding to the
    reencoding format.

    This usage allows trouble-shooting at the codec level. The
    capability for path statistics is limited to what is available from
    RTCP reports.

 2.     Terminology

    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.

    SDP: Session Description Protocol, as defined in [RFC4566].  This
    document assumes the SDP offer/answer model is followed, per
    [RFC3264], but does not assume any specific protocol for carrying
    the SDP.

    The following terms are borrowed from [RFC3264] definitions: offer,
    offerer, answer, answerer, and agent.

 3.      Offering Entity    SDP Offerer Behavior

    An offering entity SDP offerer compliant to this memo and attempting to establish a
    media session with media loopback MUST include "loopback" media
    attributes for each individual media description in the offer
    message.  The offering entity offerer MUST look for the "loopback" media attributes
    in the media description(s) of the response from the answering entity answer for
    confirmation that the request is accepted.

 4.      Answering Entity     SDP Answerer Behavior

    An answering entity SDP answerer compliant to this specification and receiving an
    offer containing media descriptions with the "loopback" media
    attributes MUST acknowledge the request by including the received
    "loopback" media attributes for each media description in its
    response
    asnwer if it agrees to do the loopback. If the answerer does not
    want to do loopback or wants to reject the "loopback" request for
    specific media types, it MAY do so as defined in section 5.4.1 Error!
    Reference source not found. of this specification.

    An answering entity answerer MAY reject an offered stream (either with loopback-
    source or loopback-mirror) if the loopback-type is not specified,
    the specified loopback-type is not supported, or the endpoint
    cannot honor the offer for any other reason.  The loopback request
    MUST be rejected by setting the stream's media port number to zero
    in the answer as defined in RFC 3264 [RFC3264], or by rejecting the
    entire offer (e.g., by rejecting the session request entirely).

    Note that an answerer that is not compliant to this specification
    and which receives an offer with the "loopback" media attributes MAY
    would ignore the attribute and treat the incoming offer as a normal
    request.  If the offerer does not wish to establish a "normal" RTP
    session, it would need to terminate the session upon receiving such
    an answer.

 5.     New SDP Constructs Syntax

    Two Attributes

    Three new media SDP media-level attributes are defined: one indicates the
    type of
    loopback loopback, and the other indicates two define the mode of the
    loopback.

 5.1      Loopback Type Attribute

    This specification defines a new 'loopback' attribute, which
    indicates the type of loopack that the agent is able to do.  The
    loopback type is a property media attribute with the following
    syntax:

       a=loopback:<loopback-type>

    Following is the Augmented BNF [RFC5234] for loopback-type:

    Loopback-attr          = "a=loopback:"
    loopback-type          = loopback-choice [1*SP loopback-choice]
    loopback-choice        = loopback-type-pkt / loopback-type-media
    loopback-type-pkt      = "rtp-pkt-loopback"
    loopback-type-media    = "rtp-media-loopback"

    The loopback type is used to indicate the type of loopback.  The
    loopback-type values are rtp-pkt-loopback, and rtp-media-loopback.

    rtp-pkt-loopback: In this mode, the RTP packets are looped back to
    the sender at a point before the encoder/decoder function in the
    receive direction to a point after the encoder/decoder function in
    the send direction. This effectively re-encapsulates the RTP
    payload with the RTP/UDP/IP headers appropriate for sending it in
    the reverse direction.  Any type of encoding related functions,
    such as packet loss concealment, MUST NOT be part of this type of
    loopback path. In this mode the RTP packets are looped back with a
    new payload type and format.  Section 7 describes the payload
    formats that MUST be used for this type of loopback.

    rtp-media-loopback: This loopback is activated as close as possible
    to the analog interface and after the decoder so that the RTP
    packets are subsequently re-encoded prior to transmission back to
    the sender.

 5.2      Loopback Mode Attribute

    The loopback mode is a defines two value media attribute attributes that is are used
    to indicate the mode of the loopback.  These attributes are
    additional mode attributes like sendonly, recvonly, etc.  The
    syntax of the loopback mode media attribute is: attributes are based on the
    following:

       a=<loopback-mode>:<fmt>...

    The loopback-mode values are loopback-source 'loopback-source' and loopback-mirror. 'loopback-
    mirror'.

    loopback-source: This attribute specifies that the entity that
    generated the SDP is the media source and expects the receiver of
    the SDP message to act as a loopback-mirror.

    loopback-mirror: This attribute specifies that the entity that
    generated the SDP will mirror (echo) all received media back to the
    sender of the RTP stream.  No media is generated locally by the
    looping back entity for transmission in the mirrored stream.

    <fmt> is a media format description. The format description has the
    semantics as defined in section 5.14 of RFC 4566[RFC4566]. When
    loopback-mode is specified as loopback-source, the media format
    corresponds to the RTP payload types the entity that generated the
    SDP is willing to send. When loopback-mode is specified as
    loopback-mirror, the media format corresponds to the RTP payload
    types the mirror is willing to receive. The "m=" line in the SDP
    MUST include all the payload types that will be used during the
    loopback session including those specified in the loopback-mode
    attribute line. The complete payload space for the call is
    specified in the "m=" line and the rtpmap attribute is used to map
    from the payload type number to an encoding name denoting the
    payload format to be used.

 5.3      Generating the Offer for Loopback Session

    If an offerer wishes to make a loopback request, it MUST include
    both the loopback-type and loopback-mode parameters attributes in a valid SDP
    offer:

    Example:   m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 100
               a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
               a=loopback-source:0 8 100
               a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
               a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000
               a=rtpmap:100 G7221/16000/1

    Note:

    A loopback offer in a given media description MUST NOT contain the
    standard mode attributes sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, or inactive.

    The loopback-mode attributes (loopback-source and loopback-mirror)
    replace the standard attributes.

    The offerer may offer more than one loopback-type in the SDP offer.
    The port number and the address in the offer (m= line) (m/c= lines) indicate
    where the offerer would like to send and receive the media stream.
    The payload type numbers indicate the value of the payload the
    offerer expects to send and receive.  If the offerer is the
    loopback-source, the subset of payload types indicated in the
    a=loopback-source line are the payload types for the codecs the
    offerer is willing to send.  However, the answer might indicate a
    different payload type number for the same codec in the loopback-
    mirror line.  In that case, the offerer MUST send the payload type
    received in the answer. If the offerer is the loopback-mirror, the
    subset of payload types indicated in the a=loopback-mirror line are
    the payload types for the codecs the offerer is willing to receive.

    If loopback-type is rtp-pkt-loopback, the loopback-mirror MUST send
    and the loopback-source MUST receive the looped back packets
    encoded in one of the two payload formats (encapsulated RTP or
    payload
    direct loopback) as defined in section 7.

    Example:   m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
               a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
               a=loopback-source:0 8
               a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

    Example:   m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
               a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
               a=loopback-source:0 8
               a=rtpmap:112 rtploopback/8000

 5.4      Generating the Answer for Loopback Session

    As with the offer, a loopback an SDP answer in a given media description for loopback MUST NOT contain the
    standard mode attributes sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, or inactive.
    The loopback-mode attributes (loopbackThe port number and the address in the answer (m= line) (m/c= lines) indicate
    where the answerer would like to receive the media stream.  The
    payload type numbers indicate the value of the payload types the
    answerer expects to send and receive.  The loopback-mode attributes
    (a=loopback-source or a=loopback-miror) MUST contain at least one
    codec the answerer is willing to send or receive depending on
    whether it is the loopback-source or the loopback-mirror. In
    addition, the "m=" line MUST contain at least one codec that the
    answerer is willing to send or receive depending on whether it is
    the loopback-mirror or the loopback-source.

    If the offerer is the loopback-
    source, loopback-source, the answerer MUST be a
    loopback-mirror and the subset of payload types indicated in the
    a=loopback-mirror line are the payload types for the codecs the
    answerer is willing to receive. Similarly, if the offerere offerer is the
    loopback-mirror, the answerer MUST be aloopback-source and the
    subset of payload types indicated in the a=loopback-source line are
    the payload types for the codecs the answerer is willing to send.

    If an answerer wishes to accept the loopback request it MUST
    include both the loopback mode and loopback type attribute attributes in the
    answer. When a stream is offered with the loopback-source
    attribute, the corresponding stream in the response MUST be
    loopback-mirror and vice versa, provided that answerer is capable
    of supporting the requested loopback-type.

    For example, if the offer contains the loopback-source attribute:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8
       a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
       a=loopback-source:0 8

    The answer that is capable of supporting the offer MUST contain the
    loopback-mirror attribute:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8
       a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8

    If a stream is offered with multiple loopback type attributes, the
    answer MUST include only one of the loopback types that are
    accepted by the answerer. The answerer SHOULD give preference to
    the first loopback-type in the SDP offer.

    For example, if the offer contains:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
       a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-source:0 8
       a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

    The answer that is capable of supporting the offer and chooses to
    loopback the media using the rtp-media-loopback type MUST contain:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8
       a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8

    As specified in section 7, if the loopback-type is
    rtp-pkt-loopback, either the encapsulated RTP payload format or
    direct loopback RTP payload format MUST be used for looped back
    packets.

    For example, if the offer contains:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112 113
       a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-source:0 8
       a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
       a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000

    The answer that is capable of supporting the offer must contain one
    of the following:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
       a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8
       a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 113
       a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8
       a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000

 5.4.1 Rejecting the Loopback Offer

    An offered stream (either with loopback-source or loopback-mirror)
    MAY be rejected if the loopback-type is not specified, the
    specified loopback-type is not supported, or the endpoint cannot
    honor the offer for any other reason.  The Loopback request may be
    rejected by setting the media port number to zero in the answer as
    per RFC 3264 [RFC3264].

 5.5       Offerer Processing of the Answer

    The answer to a loopback-source MUST be loopback-mirror.  The
    answer to a loopback-mirror MUST be loopback-source.  The
    loopback-mode line MUST contain at least one codec the answerer is
    willing to send or receive depending on whether it
       a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
       a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000

    The answer that is capable of supporting the loopback-
    source or the loopback-mirror. In addition, the "m=" line MUST offer must contain at least one codec that
    of the answerer is willing to send or
    receive depending on whether it is following:

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 112
       a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8
       a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

       m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 0 8 113
       a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
       a=loopback-mirror:0 8
       a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000

    The previous examples used the loopback-mirror or 'encaprtp' and 'rtploopback'
    encoding names, which will be defined in sections 7.1.3 and 7.2.3.

 5.5     Offerer Processing of the
    loopback-source. Answer

    If the received answer does not contain a=loopback-mirror or
    a=loopback-source, it is assumed that the loopback extensions are
    not supported by the target UA. remote agent.  This is not a protocol failure,
    and instead merely completes the SDP offer/answer exchange with
    whatever normal rules apply; the offerer MAY decide to end the
    established RTP session (if any) through normal means of the upper-
    layer signaling protocol (e.g., by sending a SIP BYE).

 5.6      Modifying the Session

    At any point during the loopback session, either participant may MAY
    issue a new offer to modify the characteristics of the previous
    session.  In case of SIP this is
    session, as defined in section 8 of RFC 3264 [RFC3264].  This also
    includes transitioning from a normal media processing mode to
    loopback mode, and vice a versa.

 5.7      Establishing Sessions Between Entities Behind NAT

    ICE/STUN/TURN provide a general solution to establishing media
    sessions between entities that are behind NATs. Loopback sessions
    that involve one or more end points behind NATs SHOULD use these
    general solutions wherever possible.

 6.     RTP Requirements

    A loopback-mirror that is compliant to this specification and
    accepting a media with rtp-pkt-loopback loopback-type MUST loopback
    the incoming RTP packets using either the encapsulated RTP payload
    format or the direct loopback RTP payload format as defined in
    section 7 of this specification.

    An answering entity that is compliant to this specification and
    accepting a media with the loopback type rtp-media-loopback MUST
    transmit all received media back to the sender. sender, unless congestion
    feedback or other lower-layer constraints prevent it from doing so.
    The incoming media MUST be treated as if it were to be played (e.g.
    the media stream MAY receive treatment from PLC algorithms).  The
    answering entity MUST re-generate all the RTP header fields as it
    would when transmitting media. The answering entity MAY choose to
    encode the loopback media according to any of the media
    descriptions supported by the offering entity. Furthermore, in
    cases where the same media type is looped back, the answering
    entity MAY choose to preserve number of frames/packet and bitrate
    of the encoded media according to the received media.

 7.     Payload formats for Packet loopback

    The payload formats described in this section MUST be used by a
    loopback-mirror when rtp-pkt-loopback is the specified
    loopback-type.  Two different formats are specified here - an
    encapsulated RTP payload format and a direct loopback RTP payload
    format.  The encapsulated RTP payload format should be used when
    the incoming RTP header information needs to be preserved during
    the loopback operation.  This is useful in cases where loopback
    source needs to measure performance metrics in both directions.
    However, this comes at the expense of increased packet size as
    described in section 7.1.  The direct loopback RTP payload format
    should be used when bandwidth requirement prevents the use of
    encapsulated RTP payload format.

    To keep the implementation of loopback-mirrors simple it is
    mandated that no payload format other than encapsulated or direct
    loopback formats can be used in the packets generated by a
    loopback-mirror. As described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550], sequence
    numbers and timestamps in the RTP header are generated with initial
    random values for security reasons. If this were not mandated and
    the source payload is sequence number aware, the loopback-mirror
    will be required to understand that payload format to generate
    looped back packets that do not violate RFC 3550 [RFC3550].
    Requiring looped back packets to be in one of the two formats means
    loopback-mirror does not have to look into the actual payload
    received before generating the loopback packets.

 7.1      Encapsulated Payload format

    A received RTP packet is encapsulated in the payload section of the
    RTP packet generated by a loopback-mirror.  Each received packet
    MUST be encapsulated in a different packet, the encapsulated packet
    MUST be fragmented only if required (for example: due to MTU
    limitations).

 7.1.1 Usage of RTP Header fields

    Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
    packet format is outside the scope of this document; it is either
    specified by the RTP profile under which this payload format is
    used or more likely signaled dynamically out-of-band (e.g., using
    SDP; section 7.1.3 defines the name binding).

    Marker (M) bit: If the received RTP packet is looped back in
    multiple RTP packets, the M bit is set to 1 in the last packet,
    otherwise it is set to 0.

    Extension (X) bit: Defined by the RTP Profile used.

    Sequence Number: The RTP sequence number SHOULD be generated by the
    loopback-mirror in the usual manner with a constant random offset
    as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].

    Timestamp: The RTP timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when
    the loopback-mirror is transmitting this packet to the loopback-
    source.  The RTP timestamp MUST use the same clock rate used by the
    loopback-source. The initial value of the timestamp SHOULD be
    random for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of RFC 3550
    [RFC3550]).

    SSRC: set as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].

    CC and CSRC fields are used as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].

 7.1.2 RTP Payload Structure

    The RTP header in the encapsulated packet MUST be followed by the
    payload header defined in this section. If the received RTP packet
    has to be looped back in multiple packets due to fragmentation, the
    RTP header in each packet MUST be followed by the payload header
    defined in this section.  The header is devised so that the
    loopback-source can decode looped back packets in the presence of
    moderate packet loss [RFC3550].

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         receive timestamp                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | F | R |  CC   |M|     PT      |       sequence number         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                           transmit timestamp                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |           synchronization source (SSRC) identifier            |
    +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    |            contributing source (CSRC) identifiers             |
    |                             ....                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    The 12 octets after the receive timestamp are identical to the RTP
    header in the received packet except for the first 4 bits of the
    first octet.

    Receive Timestamp: 32 bits

    The Receive timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when the
    last octet of the received media packet that is being encapsulated
    by the loopback-mirror is received from the loopback-source.  The
    Receive timestamp MUST be based on the same clock used by the
    loopback-source.  The initial value of the timestamp SHOULD be
    random for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of RFC 3550
    [RFC3550]).

    Fragmentation (F): 2 bits

    First Fragment (00) /Last Fragment (01) /No Fragmentation(10)/
    Intermediate Fragment (11).  This field identifies how much of the
    received packet is encapsulated in this packet by the loopback-
    mirror.  If the received packet is not fragmented, this field is
    set to 10; otherwise the packet that contains the first fragments
    sets this field to 00, the packet that contains the last fragment
    sets this field to 01, all other packets set this field to 11.

    Reserved: 2 bits

    This field is reserved for future definition. In the absence of
    such a definition, the bits in this field MUST be set to zero and
    MUST be ignored by the receiver.

    Any padding octets in the original packet MUST NOT be included in
    the loopback packet generated by a loopback-mirror. The
    loopback-mirror MAY add padding octets if required.

 7.1.3 Usage of SDP

    The payload type number for the encapsulated stream can be
    negotiated using a mechanism like SDP. There is no static payload
    type assignment for the encapsulated stream, so dynamic payload
    type numbers MUST be used.  The binding to the name is indicated by
    an rtpmap attribute.  The name used in this binding is "encaprtp".

    The following is an example SDP fragment for encapsulated RTP.

    m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 112
    a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

 7.2      Direct loopback RTP payload format

    The direct loopback RTP payload format can be used in scenarios
    where the 16 byte overhead of the encapsulated payload format is
    significant.  This payload format MUST NOT be used in cases where
    the MTU on the loopback path will cause fragmentation of looped
    back RTP packets.  When using this payload format, the receiver
    MUST loop back each received packet in a separate RTP packet.

 7.2.1 Usage of RTP Header fields

    Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
    packet format is outside the scope of this document; it is either
    specified by the RTP profile under which this payload format is
    used or more likely signaled dynamically out-of-band (e.g., using
    SDP; section 7.2.3 defines the name binding).

    Marker (M) bit: Set to the value in the received packet.

    Extension (X) bit: Defined by the RTP Profile used.

    Sequence Number: The RTP sequence number SHOULD be generated by the
    loopback-mirror in the usual manner with a constant random offset.

    Timestamp: The RTP timestamp denotes the sampling instant for when
    the loopback-mirror is transmitting this packet to the
    loopback-source.  The RTP timestamp MUST be based on the same clock
    used by the loopback-source.  The initial value of the timestamp
    SHOULD be random for security reasons (see Section 5.1 of RFC 3550
    [RFC3550]).

    SSRC: set as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].

    CC and CSRC fields are used as described in RFC 3550 [RFC3550].

 7.2.2 RTP Payload Structure

    This payload format does not define any payload specific headers.
    The loopback-mirror simply copies the payload data from the payload
    portion of the packet received from the loopback-source.

 7.2.3 Usage of SDP

    The payload type number for the payload loopback stream can be
    negotiated using a mechanism like SDP. There is no static payload
    type assignment for the stream, so dynamic payload type numbers
    MUST be used. The binding to the name is indicated by an rtpmap
    attribute.  The name used in this binding is "rtploopback".

    The following is an example SDP fragment for direct loopback RTP
    format.

    m=audio 41352 RTP/AVP 112
    a=rtpmap:112 rtploopback/8000

 8.     RTCP Requirements

    The use of the loopback attribute is intended for monitoring of
    media quality of the session.  Consequently the media performance
    information should be exchanged between the offering and the
    answering entities.  An offering or answering entity that is
    compliant to this specification SHOULD support RTCP per [RFC3550]
    and RTCP-XR per RFC 3611 [RFC3611].  Furthermore, if the client or
    the server choose to support RTCP-XR,  they SHOULD support RTCP-XR
    Loss RLE report block, Duplicate RLE report block, Statistics
    Summary report block, and VoIP Metric Reports Block per sections
    4.1, 4.2, 4.6, and 4.7 of RFC 3611 [RFC3611].  The client and the
    server MAY support other RTCP-XR reporting blocks as defined by RFC
    3611 [RFC3611].

 9.     Congestion Control

    All the participants in a loopback session SHOULD implement
    congestion control mechanisms as defined by the RTP profile under
    which the loopback mechanism is implemented. For audio video
    profiles, implementations SHOULD conform to the mechanism defined
    in Section 2 of RFC 3551.

 10.     Examples

    This section provides examples for media descriptions using SDP for
    different scenarios.  The examples are given for SIP-based
    transactions and are abbreviated and do not show the complete
    signaling for convenience.

 10.1       Offer for specific media loopback type

    A client

    An agent sends an INVITE request with offer SDP offer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=alice@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
    a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
    a=loopback-source:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000

    The client agent is offering to source the media and expects the server answering
    agent to mirror the RTP stream per rtp-media-loopback loopback
    type.

    A server

    An answering agent sends a response with answer an SDP answer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=bob 2890844526 2890842807 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=bob@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 49270 RTP/AVP 0
    a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
    a=loopback-mirror:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000

    The server answerer is accepting to mirror the media from the client offerer at
    the media level.

 10.2       Offer for choice of media loopback type
    A client

    An agent sends an INVITE request with offer SDP offer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=alice@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0 112 113
    a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback rtp-pkt-loopback
    a=loopback-source:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
    a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000
    a=rtpmap:113 rtploopback/8000

    The client offerer is offering to source the media and expects the server
    answerer to mirror the RTP stream at either the media or rtp level.

    A server

    An answering agent sends a response with answer an SDP answer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=box 2890844526 2890842807 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=bob@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 49270 RTP/AVP 0 112
    a=loopback:rtp-pkt-loopback
    a=loopback-mirror:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000
    a=rtpmap:112 encaprtp/8000

    The server answerer is accepting to mirror the media from the client offerer at
    the packet level using the encapsulated RTP payload format.

 10.3        Response to INVITE request       Answerer rejecting loopback media

    A client

    An agent sends an INVITE request with offer SDP offer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=alice 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=user@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
    a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
    a=loopback-source:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000

    The client offerer is offering to source the media and expects the server
    answerer to mirror the RTP stream at the media level.

    A server

    An answering agent sends a response with answer an SDP answer which looks like:

    v=0
    o=bob 2890844526 2890842807 1234567890 1122334455 IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    s=Example
    i=An example session
    e=user@example.com
    c=IN IP4 host.biloxi.example.com
    t=0 0
    m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0
    a=loopback:rtp-media-loopback
    a=loopback-mirror:0
    a=rtpmap:0 pcmu/8000

    NOTE: Loopback request may be rejected by either not including the
    loopback mode attribute (for backward compatibility) or setting the
    media port number to zero, or both, in the response.

 11.      Security Considerations

    The security considerations of [RFC3261] and [RFC3264] apply. Furthermore, given
    that media loopback may be automated without the end user's
    knowledge, the server of the media loopback should be aware of
    denial of service attacks. It is recommended that sessions with
    media loopback are authenticated and the frequency of such sessions
    is limited by the server.

 12.      Implementation Considerations

    The media loopback approach described in this document is a
    complete solution that would work under all scenarios. However, it
    is believed that the solution may not be light-weight enough for
    the common case. In light of this concern, this section clarifies
    which features of the loopback proposal MUST be implemented for all
    implementations and which features MAY be deferred if the complete
    solution is not desired.

    All implementations MUST support the rtp-pkt-loopback option for
    loopback-type attribute. In addition, for the loopback-mode
    attribute, all implementations of an offerer MUST at a minimum be
    able to act as a loopback-source. All implementation MUST also at a
    minimum support the direct media loopback payload type. The rtp-
    media-loopback attribute MAY be implemented in complete
    implementations of this draft.

 13.     IANA Considerations

 13.1       SDP Attributes

    This document defines three new media-level SDP attributes.  IANA
    has registered the following attributes:

       Contact name:             Kaynam Hedayat
    <kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com>.
       Attribute name:           "loopback".
       Type of attribute:        Media level.
       Subject to charset:       No.
       Purpose of attribute:     The 'loopback' attribute is used to
                                 indicate the type of media loopback.
       Allowed attribute values: The parameters to 'loopback' may be
                                 one or more of "rtp-pkt-loopback" and
                                 "rtp-media-loopback". See section 5
                                 of this document for syntax.

       Contact name:             Kaynam Hedayat
    <kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com>.
       Attribute name:           "loopback-source".
       Type of attribute:        Media level.
       Subject to charset:       No.
       Purpose of attribute:     The 'loopback-source' attribute
                                 specifies that the sender is the media
                                 source and expects the receiver to act
                                 as a loopback-mirror.
       Allowed attribute values: The parameter to 'loopback-source' is
                                 a media format ("<fmt>") description
                                 as defined in RFC 4566 Section 5.14.

       Contact name:             Kaynam Hedayat
    <kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com>.
       Attribute name:           "loopback-mirror".
       Type of attribute:        Media level.
       Subject to charset:       No.
       Purpose of attribute:     The 'loopback-mirror' attribute
                                 specifies that the receiver will
                                 mirror (echo) all received media back
                                 to the sender of the RTP stream.
       Allowed attribute values: The parameter to 'loopback-mirror' is
                                 a media format ("<fmt>") description
                                 as defined in RFC 4566 Section 5.14.

 13.2       MIME Types

    The IANA has registered the following MIME types:

 13.2.1    audio/encaprtp

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type audio/encaprtp

           Type name: audio

           Subtype name: encaprtp

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.2    video/encaprtp

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type video/encaprtp

           Type name: video

           Subtype name: encaprtp

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none
           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.3    text/encaprtp

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type text/encaprtp

           Type name: text

           Subtype name: encaprtp

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.4    application/encaprtp

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type
                application/encaprtp

           Type name: application

           Subtype name: encaprtp

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.5    audio/rtploopback
           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type audio/rtploopback

           Type name: audio

           Subtype name: rtploopback

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.6    video/rtploopback

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type video/rtploopback

           Type name: video

           Subtype name: rtploopback

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.7    text/rtploopback

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type text/rtploopback

           Type name: text

           Subtype name: rtploopback

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON
           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 13.2.8    application/rtploopback

           To: ietf-types@iana.org

           Subject: Registration of media type
                application/rtploopback

           Type name: application

           Subtype name: rtploopback

           Required parameters:

                rate:RTP timestamp clock rate, which is equal to the
                sampling rate. The typical rate is 8000; other rates
                may be specified.

           Optional parameters: none

           Encoding considerations: This media type is framed
                binary data.

           Security considerations: See Section 12 of this document.

           Interoperability considerations: none

           Published specification: This MIME type is described fully
                within this document.

           Applications which use this media type: Applications wishing
                to monitor and ensure the quality of transport to the
                edge of a given VoIP, Real-Time Text or Video Over IP
                Service.

           Additional information: none

           Person & email address to contact for further information:

                Kaynam Hedayat
                EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com

           Intended usage: COMMON

           Restrictions on usage: This media type depends on RTP
                framing, and hence is only defined for transfer via
                RTP. Transfer within other framing protocols is not
                defined at this time.

           Author:
                Kaynam Hedayat.

           Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport working
                group delegated from the IESG.

 14.       Normative References

       [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
                  Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M.
                  and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",
                  RFC 3261, June 2002.

       [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer
                  Model with the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
                  RFC 3264, June 2002.

       [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V.
                  Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
                  Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

       [RFC3611] Almeroth, K., Caceres, R., Clark, A., Cole, R.,
                  Duffield, N., Friedman, T., Hedayat, K., Sarac, K.
                  and M. Westerlund, "RTP Control Protocol Extended
                  Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November 2003.

       [RFC5234] Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented ABNF for Syntax
                  Specification: ABNF", RFC 5234, October 2005.

       [RFC2119] Bradner, S.,"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

       [RFC2736] Handley, M., Perkins, C., "Guidelines for Writers of
                  RTP Payload Format Specifications", RFC 2736, BCP
                  0036, December 1999.

       [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., "RTP Profile for Audio
                  and Video Conferences with Minimial Control", STD 65,
                  RFC 3551, July 2003.

       [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Perkins, C., "SDP: Session
                  Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

       [RFC4855] Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
                  Formats", RFC 4855, February 2007.

 Authors' Addresses

       Hadriel Kaplan
       Acme Packet
       100 Crosby Drive
       Bedford, MA  01730
       USA

       EMail: hkaplan@acmepacket.com
       URI:   http://www.acmepacket.com

       Kaynam Hedayat
       EXFO
       285 Mill Road
       Chelmsford, MA  01824
       US

       Phone: +1 978 367 5611
       EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com
       URI:   http://www.exfo.com/

       Nagarjuna Venna
       Saperix
       738 Main Street, #398
       Waltham, MA 02451
       US

       Phone: +1 978 367 5703
       EMail: vnagarjuna@saperix.com
       URI:   http://www.saperix.com/

       Paul E. Jones
       Cisco Systems, Inc.
       7025 Kit Creek Rd.
       Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
       US

       Phone: +1 919 392 6948
       EMail: paulej@packetizer.com
       URI:   http://www.cisco.com/

       Arjun Roychowdhury
       Hughes Systique Corp.
       15245 Shady Grove Rd, Ste 330
       Rockville MD 20850
       US

       Phone: +1 301 527 1629
       EMail: arjun@hsc.com
       URI:   http://www. hsc.com/

       Chelliah SivaChelvan
       Cisco Systems, Inc.
       2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
       Richardson, TX  75082
       US

       Phone: +1 972 813 5224
       EMail: chelliah@cisco.com
       URI:   http://www.cisco.com/

       Nathan Stratton
       BlinkMind, Inc.
       2027 Briarchester Dr.
       Katy, TX 77450

       Phone: +1 832 330 3810
       EMail: nathan@robotics.net
       URI:   http://www.robotics.net/