Internet-Draft | whip | July 2023 |
Murillo & Gouaillard | Expires 25 January 2024 | [Page] |
This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow WebRTC-based ingestion of content into streaming services and/or CDNs.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://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."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 January 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The IETF RTCWEB working group standardized JSEP ([RFC8829]), a mechanism used to control the setup, management, and teardown of a multimedia session. It also describes how to negotiate media flows using the Offer/Answer Model with the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC3264] as well as the formats for data sent over the wire (e.g., media types, codec parameters, and encryption). WebRTC intentionally does not specify a signaling transport protocol at application level.¶
Unfortunately, the lack of a standardized signaling mechanism in WebRTC has been an obstacle to adoption as an ingestion protocol within the broadcast/streaming industry, where a streamlined production pipeline is taken for granted: plug in cables carrying raw media to hardware encoders, then push the encoded media to any streaming service or Content Delivery Network (CDN) ingest using an ingestion protocol.¶
While WebRTC can be integrated with standard signaling protocols like SIP [RFC3261] or XMPP [RFC6120], they are not designed to be used in broadcasting/streaming services, and there also is no sign of adoption in that industry. RTSP [RFC7826], which is based on RTP, is not compatible with the SDP offer/answer model [RFC3264].¶
This document proposes a simple protocol for supporting WebRTC as media ingestion method which:¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The WebRTC-HTTP Ingest Protocol (WHIP) uses an HTTP POST request to perform a single-shot SDP offer/answer so an ICE/DTLS session can be established between the encoder/media producer (WHIP client) and the broadcasting ingestion endpoint (Media Server).¶
Once the ICE/DTLS session is set up, the media will flow unidirectionally from the encoder/media producer (WHIP client) to the broadcasting ingestion endpoint (Media Server). In order to reduce complexity, no SDP renegotiation is supported, so no "m=" sections can be added once the initial SDP offer/answer over HTTP is completed.¶
In order to set up an ingestion session, the WHIP client will generate an SDP offer according to the JSEP rules and perform an HTTP POST request to the configured WHIP endpoint URL.¶
The HTTP POST request will have a content type of "application/sdp" and contain the SDP offer as the body. The WHIP endpoint will generate an SDP answer and return a "201 Created" response with a content type of "application/sdp", the SDP answer as the body, and a Location header field pointing to the newly created resource.¶
The SDP offer SHOULD use the "sendonly" attribute and the SDP answer MUST use the "recvonly" attribute in any case.¶
Once a session is setup, ICE consent freshness [RFC7675] SHALL be used to detect non graceful disconnection and DTLS teardown for session termination by either side.¶
To explicitly terminate a session, the WHIP client MUST perform an HTTP DELETE request to the resource URL returned in the Location header field of the initial HTTP POST. Upon receiving the HTTP DELETE request, the WHIP resource will be removed and the resources freed on the Media Server, terminating the ICE and DTLS sessions.¶
A Media Server terminating a session MUST follow the procedures in [RFC7675] Section 5.2 for immediate revocation of consent.¶
The WHIP endpoints MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response for any HTTP GET, HEAD or PUT requests on the endpoint URL in order to reserve its usage for future versions of this protocol specification.¶
The WHIP endpoints MUST support OPTIONS requests for Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) as defined in [FETCH] and it SHOULD include an "Accept-Post" header with a mime type value of "application/sdp" on the "200 OK" response to any OPTIONS request received as per [W3C.REC-ldp-20150226].¶
The WHIP resources MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response for any HTTP GET, HEAD, POST or PUT requests on the resource URL in order to reserve its usage for future versions of this protocol specification.¶
The initial offer by the WHIP client MAY be sent after the full ICE gathering is complete with the full list of ICE candidates, or it MAY only contain local candidates (or even an empty list of candidates) as per [RFC8863].¶
In order to simplify the protocol, there is no support for exchanging gathered trickle candidates from Media Server ICE candidates once the SDP answer is sent. The WHIP Endpoint SHALL gather all the ICE candidates for the Media Server before responding to the client request and the SDP answer SHALL contain the full list of ICE candidates of the Media Server. The Media Server MAY use ICE lite, while the WHIP client MUST implement full ICE.¶
The WHIP client MAY perform trickle ICE or ICE restarts as per [RFC8838] by sending an HTTP PATCH request to the WHIP resource URL with a body containing a SDP fragment with MIME type "application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag" as specified in [RFC8840]. When used for trickle ICE, the body of this PATCH message will contain the new ICE candidate; when used for ICE restarts, it will contain a new ICE ufrag/pwd pair.¶
Trickle ICE and ICE restart support is RECOMMENDED for a WHIP resource.¶
If the WHIP resource supports either Trickle ICE or ICE restarts, but not both, it MUST return a "405 Not Implemented" response for the HTTP PATCH requests that are not supported.¶
If the WHIP resource does not support the PATCH method for any purpose, it MUST return a "501 Not Implemented" response, as described in [RFC9110] Section 6.6.2.¶
As the HTTP PATCH request sent by a WHIP client may be received out-of-order by the WHIP resource, the WHIP resource MUST generate a unique strong entity-tag identifying the ICE session as per [RFC9110] Section 2.3. The initial value of the entity-tag identifying the initial ICE session MUST be returned in an ETag header field in the "201 Created" response to the initial POST request to the WHIP endpoint. It MUST also be returned in the "200 OK" of any PATCH request that triggers an ICE restart. Note that including the ETag in the original "201 Created" response is only REQUIRED if the WHIP resource supports ICE restarts and OPTIONAL otherwise.¶
A WHIP client sending a PATCH request for performing trickle ICE MUST include an "If-Match" header field with the latest known entity-tag as per [RFC9110] Section 3.1. When the PATCH request is received by the WHIP resource, it MUST compare the indicated entity-tag value with the current entity-tag of the resource as per [RFC9110] Section 3.1 and return a "412 Precondition Failed" response if they do not match.¶
WHIP clients SHOULD NOT use entity-tag validation when matching a specific ICE session is not required, such as for example when initiating a DELETE request to terminate a session. WHIP resources MUST ignore any entity-tag value sent by the WHIP client when ICE session matching is not required, as in the HTTP DELETE request.¶
A WHIP resource receiving a PATCH request with new ICE candidates, but which does not perform an ICE restart, MUST return a "204 No Content" response without body. If the Media Server does not support a candidate transport or is not able to resolve the connection address, it MUST accept the HTTP request with the "204 No Content" response and silently discard the candidate.¶
A WHIP client sending a PATCH request for performing ICE restart MUST contain an "If-Match" header field with a field-value "*" as per [RFC9110] Section 3.1.¶
If the HTTP PATCH request results in an ICE restart, the WHIP resource SHALL return a "200 OK" with an "application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag" body containing the new ICE username fragment and password and OPTIONALLY a new set of ICE candidates for the WHIP client . Also, the "200 OK" response for a successful ICE restart MUST contain the new entity-tag corresponding to the new ICE session in an ETag response header field and MAY contain a new set of ICE candidates for the Media Server.¶
If the ICE request cannot be satisfied by the WHIP resource, the resource MUST return an appropriate HTTP error code and MUST NOT terminate the session immediately. The WHIP client MAY retry performing a new ICE restart or terminate the session by issuing an HTTP DELETE request instead. In either case, the session MUST be terminated if the ICE consent expires as a consequence of the failed ICE restart as per [RFC7675] Section 5.1.¶
Because the WHIP client needs to know the entity-tag associated with the ICE session in order to send new ICE candidates, it MUST buffer any gathered candidates before it receives the HTTP response to the initial POST request or the PATCH request with the new entity-tag value. Once it knows the entity-tag value, in order to lower the HTTP traffic and processing time required, the WHIP client SHOULD send a single aggregated HTTP PATCH request with all the ICE candidates it has buffered so far.¶
In case of unstable network conditions, the ICE restart HTTP PATCH requests and responses might be received out of order. In order to mitigate this scenario, when the client performs an ICE restart, it MUST discard any previous ICE username and passwords fragments and ignore any further HTTP PATCH response received from a pending HTTP PATCH request. WHIP clients MUST apply only the ICE information received in the response to the last sent request. If there is a mismatch between the ICE information at the client and at the server (because of an out-of-order request), the STUN requests will contain invalid ICE information and will be rejected by the server. When this situation is detected by the WHIP Client, it MUST send a new ICE restart request to the server.¶
In the specific case of media ingestion into a streaming service, some assumptions can be made about the server-side which simplifies the WebRTC compliance burden, as detailed in WebRTC-gateway document [I-D.draft-ietf-rtcweb-gateways].¶
In order to reduce the complexity of implementing WHIP in both clients and Media Servers, WHIP imposes the following restrictions regarding WebRTC usage:¶
Both the WHIP client and the WHIP endpoint SHALL use SDP bundle [RFC9143]. Each "m=" section MUST be part of a single BUNDLE group. Hence, when a WHIP client sends an SDP offer, it MUST include a "bundle-only" attribute in each bundled "m=" section. The WHIP client and the Media Server MUST support multiplexed media associated with the BUNDLE group as per [RFC9143] Section 9. In addition, per [RFC9143] the WHIP client and Media Server will use RTP/RTCP multiplexing for all bundled media. In order to reduce the network resources required at the Media Server, both The WHIP client and Media Server SHOULD include the "rtcp-mux-only" attribute in each bundled "m=" sections as per [RFC8858] i.¶
This version of the specification only supports, at most, a single audio and video MediaStreamTrack in a single MediaStream as defined in [[!RFC8830]] and therefore, all "m=" sections MUST contain an "msid" attribute with the same value. However, it would be possible for future revisions of this spec to allow more than a single MediaStream or MediaStreamTrack of each media kind, so in order to ensure forward compatibility, if the number of audio and or video tracks or number streams is not supported by the WHIP Endpoint, it MUST reject the HTTP POST request with a "406 Not Acceptable" error response.¶
Furthermore, the WHIP Endpoint SHOULD NOT reject individual "m=" sections as per [RFC8829] Section 5.3.1 in case there is any error processing the "m=" section, but reject the HTTP POST request with a "406 Not Acceptable" error response to prevent having partially successful WHIP sessions which can be misleading to end users.¶
When a WHIP client sends an SDP offer, it SHOULD insert an SDP "setup" attribute with an "actpass" attribute value, as defined in [RFC8842]. However, if the WHIP client only implements the DTLS client role, it MAY use an SDP "setup" attribute with an "active" attribute value. If the WHIP endpoint does not support an SDP offer with an SDP "setup" attribute with an "active" attribute value, it SHOULD reject the request with a "422 Unprocessable Entity" response.¶
NOTE: [RFC8842] defines that the offerer must insert an SDP "setup" attribute with an "actpass" attribute value. However, the WHIP client will always communicate with a Media Server that is expected to support the DTLS server role, in which case the client might choose to only implement support for the DTLS client role.¶
Trickle ICE and ICE restarts support is OPTIONAL for both the WHIP clients and Media Servers as explained in section 4.1.¶
WHIP endpoints and Media Servers might not be colocated on the same server, so it is possible to load balance incoming requests to different Media Servers. WHIP clients SHALL support HTTP redirection via the "307 Temporary Redirect" response as described in [RFC9110] Section 6.4.7. The WHIP resource URL MUST be a final one, and redirections are not required to be supported for the PATCH and DELETE requests sent to it.¶
In case of high load, the WHIP endpoints MAY return a "503 Service Unavailable" response indicating that the server is currently unable to handle the request due to a temporary overload or scheduled maintenance, which will likely be alleviated after some delay. The WHIP endpoint might send a Retry-After header field indicating the minimum time that the user agent ought to wait before making a follow-up request.¶
The WHIP endpoint MAY return STUN/TURN server configuration URLs and credentials usable by the client in the "201 Created" response to the HTTP POST request to the WHIP endpoint URL.¶
A reference to each STUN/TURN server will be returned using the "Link" header field [RFC8288] with a "rel" attribute value of "ice-server". The Link target URI is the server URI as defined in [RFC7064] and [RFC7065]. The credentials are encoded in the Link target attributes as follows:¶
NOTE: The naming of both the "rel" attribute value of "ice-server" and the target attributes follows the one used on the W3C WebRTC recommendation [W3C.REC-webrtc-20210126] RTCConfiguration dictionary in section 4.2.1. "rel" attribute value of "ice-server" is not prepended with the "urn:ietf:params:whip:" so it can be reused by other specifications which may use this mechanism to configure the usage of STUN/TURN servers.¶
NOTE: Depending on the ICE Agent implementation, the WHIP client may need to call the setConfiguration method before calling the setLocalDescription method with the local SDP offer in order to avoid having to perform an ICE restart for applying the updated STUN/TURN server configuration on the next ICE gathering phase.¶
There are some WebRTC implementations that do not support updating the STUN/TURN server configuration after the local offer has been created as specified in [RFC8829] Section 4.1.18. In order to support these clients, the WHIP endpoint MAY also include the STUN/TURN server configuration on the responses to OPTIONS request sent to the WHIP endpoint URL before the POST request is sent. However, this method is not NOT RECOMMENDED and if supported by the underlying WHIP Client's webrtc implementation, the WHIP Client SHOULD wait for the information to be returned by the WHIP Endpoint on the response of the HTTP POST request instead.¶
The generation of the TURN server credentials may require performing a request to an external provider, which can both add latency to the OPTIONS request processing and increase the processing required to handle that request. In order to prevent this, the WHIP Endpoint SHOULD NOT return the STUN/TURN server configuration if the OPTIONS request is a preflight request for CORS, that is, if The OPTIONS request does not contain an Access-Control-Request-Method with "POST" value and the the Access-Control-Request-Headers HTTP header does not contain the "Link" value.¶
It might be also possible to configure the STUN/TURN server URIs with long term credentials provided by either the broadcasting service or an external TURN provider on the WHIP client, overriding the values provided by the WHIP endpoint.¶
Simulcast as per [RFC8853] MAY be supported by both the Media Servers and WHIP clients through negotiation in the SDP offer/answer.¶
If the client supports simulcast and wants to enable it for publishing, it MUST negotiate the support in the SDP offer according to the procedures in [RFC8853] Section 5.3. A server accepting a simulcast offer MUST create an answer according to the procedures [RFC8853] Section 5.3.2.¶
It is possible for both Media Servers and WHIP clients to support Scalable Video Coding (SVC). However, as there is no universal negotiation mechanism in SDP for SVC, the encoder must consider the negotiated codec(s), intended usage, and SVC support in available decoders when configuring SVC.¶
In order to support future extensions to be defined for the WHIP protocol, a common procedure for registering and announcing the new extensions is defined.¶
Protocol extensions supported by the WHIP server MUST be advertised to the WHIP client in the "201 Created" response to the initial HTTP POST request sent to the WHIP endpoint. The WHIP endpoint MUST return one "Link" header field for each extension, with the extension "rel" type attribute and the URI for the HTTP resource that will be available for receiving requests related to that extension.¶
Protocol extensions are optional for both WHIP clients and servers. WHIP clients MUST ignore any Link attribute with an unknown "rel" attribute value and WHIP servers MUST NOT require the usage of any of the extensions.¶
Each protocol extension MUST register a unique "rel" attribute value at IANA starting with the prefix: "urn:ietf:params:whip:ext" as defined in Section 6.3.¶
For example, considering a potential extension of server-to-client communication using server-sent events as specified in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/server-sent-events.html#server-sent-events, the URL for connecting to the server side event resource for the published stream could be returned in the initial HTTP "201 Created" response with a "Link" header field and a "rel" attribute of "urn:ietf:params:whip:ext:example:server-sent-events". (This document does not specify such an extension, and uses it only as an example.)¶
In this theoretical case, the "201 Created" response to the HTTP POST request would look like:¶
HTTP/1.1 201 Created Content-Type: application/sdp Location: https://whip.example.com/resource/id Link: <https://whip.ietf.org/publications/213786HF/sse>; rel="urn:ietf:params:whip:ext:example:server-side-events"¶
This document specifies a new protocol on top of HTTP and WebRTC, thus, security security protocols and considerations from related specifications apply to the WHIP specidifcation. These include:¶
On top of that, the WHIP protocol exposes a thin new attack surface expecific of the REST API methods used within it:¶
This specification adds a new link relation type and a registry for URN sub-namespaces for WHIP protocol extensions.¶
The link relation type below has been registered by IANA per Section 4.2 of [RFC8288].¶
Relation Name: ice-server¶
Description: For the WHIP protocol, conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.¶
Reference: TBD¶
IANA is asked to add an entry to the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry and create a sub-namespace for the Registered Parameter Identifier as per [RFC3553]: "urn:ietf:params:whip".¶
To manage this sub-namespace, IANA is asked to created the "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs" registry, which is used to manage entries within the "urn:ietf:params:whip" namespace. The registry description is as follows:¶
WHIP Endpoint utilizes URIs to identify the supported WHIP protocol extensions on the "rel" attribute of the Link header as defined in Section 4.7.¶
This section creates and registers an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use in the WHIP specifications and future extensions.¶
Namespace ID:¶
Registration Information:¶
Declared registrant of the namespace:¶
Declaration of Syntactic Structure:¶
The keywords have the following meaning:¶
Relevant Ancillary Documentation:¶
Identifier Uniqueness Considerations:¶
Identifier Persistence Considerations:¶
Process of Identifier Assignment:¶
Process of Identifier Resolution:¶
Rules for Lexical Equivalence:¶
Conformance with URN Syntax:¶
Validation Mechanism:¶
Scope:¶
This section defines the process for registering new WHIP protocol extensions URIs with IANA in the "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs" registry (see Section 6.3).¶
A WHIP Protocol Extension URI is used as a value in the "rel" attribute of the Link header as defined in Section 4.7 for the purpose of signaling the WHIP protocol extensions supported by the WHIP Endpoints.¶
WHIP Protocol Extensions URIs have a "ext" type as defined in Section 6.3.¶
The IETF has created a mailing list, "[email protected]", which can be used for public discussion of WHIP protocol extensions proposals prior to registration. Use of the mailing list is strongly encouraged. The IESG has appointed a designated expert RFC8126 who will monitor the [email protected] mailing list and review registrations.¶
Registration of new "ext" type URI (in the namespace "urn:ietf:params:whip:ext") belonging to a WHIP Protocol Extension MUST be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible and reviewed by the designated expert as per [BCP26] Section 4.6. An RFC is REQUIRED for the registration of new value data types that modify existing properties. An RFC is also REQUIRED for registration of WHIP Protocol Extensions URIs that modify WHIP Protocol Extensions previously documented in an existing RFC.¶
The registration procedure begins when a completed registration template, defined in the sections below, is sent to [email protected]. Decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed to an Applications and Real Time (ART) Area Director, then to the IESG. The normal appeals procedure described in [BCP9] is to be followed.¶
Once the registration procedure concludes successfully, IANA creates or modifies the corresponding record in the WHIP Protocol Extension registry.¶
An RFC specifying one or more new WHIP Protocol Extension URIs MUST include the completed registration templates, which MAY be expanded with additional information. These completed templates are intended to go in the body of the document, not in the IANA Considerations section. The RFC SHOULD include any attributes defined.¶
The Designated Expert (DE) is expected to ascertain the existence of suitable documentation (a specification) as described in RFC8126 and to verify that the document is permanently and publicly available.¶
The DE is also expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the requested registration.¶
Additionally, the DE must verify that any request for one of these registrations has been made available for review and comment within the IETF: the DE will post the request to the WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS (wish) Working Group mailing list (or a successor mailing list designated by the IESG).¶
If the request comes from within the IETF, it should be documented in an Internet-Draft. Lastly, the DE must ensure that any other request for a code point does not conflict with work that is active or already published within the IETF.¶
A WHIP Protocol Extension URI is defined by completing the following template:¶
The authors wish to thank Lorenzo Miniero, Juliusz Chroboczek, Adam Roach, Nils Ohlmeier, Christer Holmberg, Cameron Elliott, Gustavo Garcia, Jonas Birme, Sandro Gauci and everyone else in the WebRTC community that have provided comments, feedback, text and improvement proposals on the document and contributed early implementations of the spec.¶