Rfc3389
TitleReal-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Comfort Noise (CN)
AuthorR. Zopf
DateSeptember 2002
Format:TXT, HTML
Status:PROPOSED STANDARD






Network Working Group                                            R. Zopf
Request for Comments: 3389                           Lucent Technologies
Category: Standards Track                                 September 2002


   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Comfort Noise (CN)

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
   format for transporting comfort noise (CN).  The CN payload type is
   primarily for use with audio codecs that do not support comfort noise
   as part of the codec itself such as ITU-T Recommendations G.711,
   G.726, G.727, G.728, and G.722.

1. Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [7].

2. Introduction

   This document describes a RTP [1] payload format for transporting
   comfort noise.  The payload format is based on Appendix II of ITU-T
   Recommendation G.711 [8] which defines a comfort noise payload format
   (or bit-stream) for ITU-T G.711 [2] use in packet-based multimedia
   communication systems.  The payload format is generic and may also be
   used with other audio codecs without built-in Discontinuous
   Transmission (DTX) capability such as ITU-T Recommendations G.726
   [3], G.727 [4], G.728 [5], and G.722 [6].  The payload format
   provides a minimum interoperability specification for communication
   of comfort noise parameters.  The comfort noise analysis and
   synthesis as well as the Voice Activity Detection (VAD) and DTX
   algorithms are unspecified and left implementation-specific.




RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


   However, an example solution for G.711 has been tested and is
   described in the Appendix [8].  It uses the VAD and DTX of G.729
   Annex B [9] and a comfort noise generation algorithm (CNG) which is
   provided in the Appendix for information.

   The comfort noise payload, which is also known as a Silence Insertion
   Descriptor (SID) frame, consists of a single octet description of the
   noise level and MAY contain spectral information in subsequent
   octets.  An earlier version of the CN payload format consisting only
   of the noise level byte was defined in draft revisions of the RFC
   1890.  The extended payload format defined in this document should be
   backward compatible with implementations of the earlier version
   assuming that only the first byte is interpreted and any additional
   spectral information bytes are ignored.

3. CN Payload Definition

   The comfort noise payload consists of a description of the noise
   level and spectral information in the form of reflection coefficients
   for an all-pole model of the noise.  The inclusion of spectral
   information is OPTIONAL and the model order (number of coefficients)
   is left unspecified.  The encoder may choose an appropriate model
   order based on such considerations as quality, complexity, expected
   environmental noise, and signal bandwidth.  The model order is not
   explicitly transmitted since the number of coefficients can be
   derived from the length of the payload at the receiver.  The decoder
   may reduce the model order by setting higher order reflection
   coefficients to zero if desired to reduce complexity or for other
   reasons.

3.1 Noise Level

   The magnitude of the noise level is packed into the least significant
   bits of the noise-level byte with the most significant bit unused and
   always set to 0 as shown below in Figure 1.  The least significant
   bit of the noise level magnitude is packed into the least significant
   bit of the byte.

   The noise level is expressed in -dBov, with values from 0 to 127
   representing 0 to -127 dBov.  dBov is the level relative to the
   overload of the system.  (Note: Representation relative to the
   overload point of a system is particularly useful for digital
   implementations, since one does not need to know the relative
   calibration of the analog circuitry.)  For example, in the case of a
   u-law system, the reference would be a square wave with values +/-
   8031, and this square wave represents 0dBov.  This translates into
   6.18dBm0.




RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


                        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       |0|   level     |
                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 1: Noise Level Packing

3.2 Spectral Information

   The spectral information is transmitted using reflection coefficients
   [8].  Each reflection coefficient can have values between -1 and 1
   and is quantized uniformly using 8 bits.  The quantized value is
   represented by the 8 bit index N, where N=0..,254, and index N=255 is
   reserved for future use.  Each index N is packed into a separate byte
   with the MSB first.  The quantized value of each reflection
   coefficient, k_i, can be obtained from its corresponding index using:

        k_i(N_i) = 258*(N_i-127)     for N_i = 0...254; -1 < k_i < 1
                   -------------
                       32768

3.3 Payload Packing

   The first byte of the payload MUST contain the noise level as shown
   in Figure 1.  Quantized reflection coefficients are packed in
   subsequent bytes in ascending order as in Figure 2 where M is the
   model order.  The total length of the payload is M+1 bytes.  Note
   that a 0th order model (i.e., no spectral envelope information)
   reduces to transmitting only the energy level.

              Byte        1      2    3    ...   M+1
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                       |level|  N1 |  N2 | ... |  NM |
                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

                Figure 2: CN Payload Packing Format

4. Usage of RTP

   The RTP header for the comfort noise packet SHOULD be constructed as
   if the comfort noise were an independent codec.  Thus, the RTP
   timestamp designates the beginning of the comfort noise period.  When
   this payload format is used under the RTP profile specified in RFC
   1890 [10], a static payload type of 13 is assigned for RTP timestamp
   clock rate of 8,000 Hz; if other rates are needed, they MUST be
   defined through dynamic payload types.  The RTP packet SHOULD NOT
   have the marker bit set.




RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


   Each RTP packet containing comfort noise MUST contain exactly one CN
   payload per channel.  This is required since the CN payload has a
   variable length.  If multiple audio channels are used, each channel
   MUST use the same spectral model order 'M'.

5. Guidelines for Use

   An audio codec with DTX capabilities generally includes VAD, DTX, and
   CNG algorithms.  The job of the VAD is to discriminate between active
   and inactive voice segments in the input signal.  During inactive
   voice segments, the role of the CNG is to sufficiently describe the
   ambient noise while minimizing the transmission rate.  A CN payload
   (or SID frame) containing a description of the noise is sent to the
   receiver to drive the CNG.  The DTX algorithm determines when a CN
   payload is transmitted.  During active voice segments, packets of the
   voice codec are transmitted and indicated in the RTP header by the
   static or dynamic payload type for that codec.  At the beginning of
   an inactive voice segment (silence period), a CN packet is
   transmitted in the same RTP stream and indicated by the CN payload
   type.  The CN packet update rate is left implementation specific. For
   example, the CN packet may be sent periodically or only when there is
   a significant change in the background noise characteristics.  The
   CNG algorithm at the receiver uses the information in the CN payload
   to update its noise generation model and then produce an appropriate
   amount of comfort noise.

   The CN payload format provides a minimum interoperability
   specification for communication of comfort noise parameters.  The
   comfort noise analysis and synthesis as well as the VAD and DTX
   algorithms are unspecified and left implementation-specific.
   However, an example solution for G.711 has been tested and is
   described in Appendix II of ITU-T Recommendation G.711 [8].  It uses
   the VAD and DTX of G.729 Annex B [9] and a comfort noise generation
   algorithm (CNG), which is provided in the Appendix for information.
   Additional guidelines for use such as the factors affecting system
   performance in the design of the VAD/DTX/CNG algorithms are described
   in the Appendix.

5.1 Usage of SDP

   When using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [11] to specify RTP
   payload information, the use of comfort noise is indicated by the
   inclusion of a payload type for CN on the media description line.
   When using CN with the RTP/AVP profile [10] and a codec whose RTP
   timestamp clock rate is 8000 Hz, such as G.711 (PCMU, static payload
   type 0), the static payload type 13 for CN can be used:

         m=audio 49230 RTP/AVP 0 13



RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


   When using CN with a codec that has a different RTP timestamp clock
   rate, a dynamic payload type mapping (rtpmap attribute) is required.

   This example shows CN used with the G.722.1 codec (see RFC 3047
   [12]):

         m=audio 49230 RTP/AVP 101 102
         a=rtpmap:101 G7221/16000
         a=fmtp:121 bitrate=24000
         a=rtpmap:102 CN/16000

   Omission of a payload type for CN on the media description line
   implies that this comfort noise payload format will not be used, but
   it does not imply that silence will not be suppressed.  RTP allows
   discontinuous transmission (silence suppression) on any audio payload
   format.  The receiver can detect silence suppression on the first
   packet received after the silence by observing that the RTP timestamp
   is not contiguous with the end of the interval covered by the
   previous packet even though the RTP sequence number has incremented
   only by one.  The RTP marker bit is also normally set on such a
   packet.

6. IANA Considerations

   This section defines a new RTP payload name and associated MIME type,
   CN (audio/CN).  The payload format specified in this document is also
   assigned payload type 13 in the RTP Payload Types table of the RTP
   Parameters registry maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA).

6.1 Registration of MIME media type audio/CN

   MIME media type name: audio

   MIME subtype name: CN

   Required parameters: None

   Optional parameters:
   rate: specifies the RTP timestamp clock rate, which is usually (but
   not always) equal to the sampling rate.  This parameter should have
   the same value as the codec used in conjunction with comfort noise.
   The default value is 8000.








RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


   Encoding considerations:
   This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC 1889].

   Security considerations: see Section 7 "Security Considerations".

   Interoperability considerations: none

   Published specification:
   This document and Appendix II of ITU-T Recommendation G.711

   Applications which use this media type:
   Audio and video streaming and conferencing tools.

   Additional information: none

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
   Robert Zopf
   zopf@lucent.com

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Author/Change controller:
   Author: Robert Zopf
   Change controller: IETF AVT Working Group

7. Security Considerations

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
   specification [1].  This implies that confidentiality of the media
   streams is achieved by encryption.  Because the payload format is
   arranged end-to-end, encryption MAY be performed after encapsulation
   so there is no conflict between the two operations.

   As this format transports background noise, there are no significant
   security, confidentiality, or authentication concerns.

8. References

   [1]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson,
        "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
        1889, January 1996.

   [2]  ITU Recommendation G.711 (11/88) - Pulse code modulation (PCM)
        of voice frequencies.






RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


   [3]  ITU Recommendation G.726 (12/90) - 40, 32, 24, 16 kbit/s
        Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation (ADPCM).

   [4]  ITU Recommendation G.727 (12/90) - 5-, 4-, 3- and 2-bits sample
        embedded adaptive differential pulse code modulation (ADPCM).

   [5]  ITU Recommendation G.728 (09/92) - Coding of speech at 16
        kbits/s using low-delay code excited linear prediction.

   [6]  ITU Recommendation G.722 (11/88) - 7 kHz audio-coding within 64
        kbit/s.

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

   [8]  Appendix II to Recommendation G.711 (02/2000) - A comfort noise
        payload definition for ITU-T G.711 use in packet-based
        multimedia communication systems.

   [9]  Annex B (08/97) to Recommendation G.729 - C source code and test
        vectors for implementation verification of the algorithm of the
        G.729 silence compression scheme.

   [10] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences
        with Minimal Control", RFC 1890, January 1996.

   [11] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
        Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [12] Luthi, P., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation
        G.722.1", RFC 3047, January 2001.

9. Author's Address

   Robert Zopf
   Lucent Technologies
   INS Access VoIP Networks
   2G-234A
   101 Crawfords Corner Rd
   Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030  US

   Phone:   1-732-949-1667
   Fax:   1-732-949-7016
   EMail: zopf@lucent.com







RFC 3389             RTP Payload for Comfort Noise        September 2002


10. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.