Subject: [payload] MMTP vs RTP

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:02:29 +0000

MMTP (MPEG Media Transport Protocol) aims to replace RTP and MPEG-2 TS for media streaming applications, both real-time and non-real-time. It integrates FEC, buffering, congestion control and other functions. It was presented in TSVAREA in IETF 93. See below for the slides and draft.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-tsvarea-1.pdf
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bouazizi-tsvwg-mmtp

I found slides 5 and 15 particularly relevant for AVT folks, so inlining them.

Why not RTP? (slide 5)
- Lack of  Multiplexing
  - One media session per component and without RTP multiplexing, 2 ports per session
- Server Maintenance
  - RTP Payload Format for every new media codec
  - Support needs to be added to the media server
?- Coupling of  Presentation and Delivery
  - RTP carries presentation and synchronization information at the transport level
- Limited support for Non-Real Time Media
  - Presentations consist of  timed and non-timed media
  - Need other protocol or countless number of  payload formats to support NRT

Why are we here? (slide 15)
- We want to develop MMTP further in the IETF
- We want to address the Internet (unicast and Multicast)
- We want to reuse existing components such as congestion control and security
- A protocol is needed by many SDOs: MPEG, ATSC, 3GPP, DVB, ...
?- Can we revive rmt?
?- Can we start a BoF or a new ad-hoc group?
?- Or can we do an informational RFC?

I think there should be some dialogue on RTP evolution with the MMTP folks. Some interesting points are raised in this work, such as generic packetization vs. specific RTP payload formats. Perhaps a generic payload draft can address this generic packetization (i.e. fragmentation and perhaps aggregation) in the absence of a specific RTP payload format for the elementary media stream.

Thanks to Gorry for bringing this to my attention.

Mo