wdiff rfc9223.original rfc9223.txt

Internet Draft Waqar Zia,
Thomas Stockhammer,
Lenaig Chaponniere,
Giridhar Mandyam,
Qualcomm Incorporated
Michael Luby,
Intended status:

Independent Submission W. Zia
Request for Comments: 9223 T. Stockhammer
Category: Informational Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
ISSN: 2070-1721 L. Chaponniere
G. Mandyam
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
M. Luby
BitRipple, Inc.
Expires: August 2022 February 4,
April 2022

Real-time

Real-Time Transport Object delivery Delivery over Unidirectional Transport
(ROUTE)
draft-zia-route-06.txt

Abstract

The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
(ROUTE) protocol (ROUTE protocol) is specified for robust delivery of Application
Objects, including Application Objects with real-time delivery
constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, receivers; for
example, it can be a file, or a DASH Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP
(DASH) or HLS HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) segment, a WAV audio clip, etc.
The ROUTE protocol also supports low-latency streaming applications.

The ROUTE protocol is suitable for unicast, broadcast, and multicast
transport. Therefore, it can be run over UDP/IP UDP/IP, including multicast
IP. The ROUTE protocol can leverage the features of the underlying
protocol layer, e.g. e.g., to provide security security, it can leverage IP
security protocols such as IPSec. IPsec.

This document specifies the ROUTE protocol such that it could be used
by a variety of services for delivery of Application Objects by
specifying their own profiles of this protocol (e.g. (e.g., by adding or
constraining some features).

This is not an IETF specification and does not have IETF consensus.

Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Memo

This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may is not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Internet Standards Process, except to format Track specification; it is
published for publication as an RFC or informational purposes.

This is a contribution to translate it into languages other
than English.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its areas, discretion and makes no statement about its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid value for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced,
implementation or obsoleted deployment. Documents approved for publication by other documents at
the RFC Editor are not candidates for any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list level of Internet Standard;
see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2022.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9223.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(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 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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...................................................4 Introduction
1.1. Overview..................................................4 Overview
1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE..................................6 ROUTE
1.3. Data Model................................................6 Model
1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification...................7 Specification
1.5. Intellectual Property.....................................9
1.6. Conventions used Used in this document.........................9 This Document
2. ROUTE Packet Format............................................9 Format
2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields........................9 Fields
2.2. LCT Header Extensions....................................11 Extensions
2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows..........................11 Flows
2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows..........................12 Flows
3. Session Metadata..............................................12 Metadata
3.1. Generic Metadata.........................................12 Metadata
3.2. Session Metadata for Source Flows........................13 Flows
3.3. Session metadata Metadata for Repair Flows........................14 Flows
4. Delivery Object Mode..........................................15 Mode
4.1. File Mode................................................15 Mode
4.1.1. Extensions to FDT...................................15 FDT
4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT.........................16 FDT
4.2. Entity Mode..............................................16 Mode
4.3. Unsigned Package Mode....................................17 Mode
4.4. Signed Package Mode......................................18 Mode
5. Sender Operation..............................................18 Operation
5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow.....................18 Flow
5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow......................19 Flow
5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization...........................20 Packetization
5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content........20 Content
5.3. Timing of Packet Emission................................21 Emission
5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending..............21 Sending
5.5. FEC Framework Considerations.............................21 Considerations
5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction........................22 Construction
5.7. Super-Object Construction................................24 Construction
5.8. Repair Packet Considerations.............................24 Considerations
5.9. Summary FEC Information..................................25 Information
6. Receiver operation............................................26 Operation
6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows.......26 Flows
6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition..................................28 Acquisition
6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance for File Mode...........28 Mode
6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location
Derivation.................................................28
Derivation
6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation.....................29 Derivation
6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation.....................29 Derivation
7. FEC Application...............................................30 Application
7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines.......................30 Guidelines
7.2. TOI Mapping..............................................30 Mapping
7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout........................31 Timeout
7.4. Example FEC Operation....................................31 Operation
8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles....................32 Profiles
9. ROUTE Concepts................................................33 Concepts
9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery..................................33 Delivery
9.2. File Mode Optimizations..................................33 Optimizations
9.3. In Band In-Band Signaling of Object Transfer Length..............33 Length
9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts.................................34 Concepts
10. Interoperability Chart.......................................35 Chart
11. Security and Privacy Considerations..........................37 Considerations
11.1. Security Considerations.................................37 Considerations
11.2. Privacy Considerations..................................38 Considerations
12. IANA Considerations..........................................38 Considerations
13. References...................................................39 References
13.1. Normative References....................................39 References
13.2. Informative References..................................40
14. Acknowledgments..............................................41 References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

The Real-time Transport Object delivery over Unidirectional Transport
(ROUTE) protocol (ROUTE protocol) can be used for robust delivery of Application
Objects, including Application Objects with real-time delivery
constraints, to receivers over a unidirectional transport.
Unidirectional transport in this document has identical meaning as to
that in RFC 6726 [RFC6726], i.e., transport in the direction of
receiver(s) from a sender. The robustness is enabled by a built-in mechanism e.g.
mechanism, e.g., signaling for loss detection, enabling loss
recovery, and optionally integrating application-layer Forward Error
Correction (FEC).

Application Objects consist of data that has meaning to applications
that use the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers, e.g.,
an Application Object can be a file, or an MPEG Dynamic Adaptive
Streaming over HTTP (DASH)[DASH] (DASH) [DASH] video segment, a WAV audio clip, an
MPEG Common Media Application Format (CMAF) [CMAF] addressable
resource, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.

The ROUTE protocol is designed to enable delivery of sequences of
related Application Objects in a timely manner to receivers, e.g., a
sequence of DASH video segments associated to a Representation or a
sequence of CMAF addressable resources associated to a CMAF Track.
The applications of this protocol target services enabled on media
consumption devices such as smartphones, tablets, television sets sets,
and so on. Most of these applications are real-time in the sense
that they are sensitive to and reply rely upon such timely reception of
data. The ROUTE protocol also supports chunked delivery of real-time
Application Objects to enable low latency low-latency streaming applications
(similar in its properties to chunked delivery using HTTP). The
protocol also enables low-latency delivery of DASH and Apple HTTP
Live Streaming (HLS) content with CMAF Chunks.

Content not intended for rendering in real time as it is received
e.g.
(e.g., a downloaded application, or application), a file comprising continuous or
discrete media and belonging to an app-based feature, or a file
containing (opaque) data to be consumed by a Digital Rights
Management (DRM) system client can also be delivered by ROUTE.

The ROUTE protocol supports a caching model, model where Application Objects
are recovered into a cache at the receiver and may be made available
to applications via standard HTTP requests from the cache. Many
current day applications rely on using HTTP to access content,
and hence content; hence,
this approach enables such applications in broadcast/multicast
environments.

ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport
(FLUTE) as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726] as well as the extensions
defined in MBMS Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) [MBMS], but
it also makes use of some principles of FCAST (Object Delivery for
the ALC Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Reliable
Multicast (NORM) Protocols) as defined in RFC 6968 [RFC6968]; for
example, object metadata and the object content may be sent together
in a compound object.

The alignment to FLUTE is enabled since in addition to reusing
several of the basic FLUTE protocol features, as referred to by this
document, certain optimizations and restrictions are added that
enable optimized support for real-time delivery of media data; hence,
the name of the protocol. Among others, the source ROUTE protocol
enables or enhances the following functionalities:

* Real-time delivery of object-based media data

* Flexible packetization, including enabling media-aware
packetization as well as transport-aware packetization of delivery
objects

* Independence of Application Objects and delivery objects, i.e. i.e., a
delivery object may be a part of a file or may be a group of
files.

Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) 3.0 specifies the ROUTE
protocol integrated with an ATSC 3.0 services layer. That
specification will be referred to as ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] for the
remainder of this document. DVB Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) has
specified a profile of ATSC-ROUTE in DVB Adaptive Media Streaming
over IP Multicast (DVB-MABR) [DVBMABR]. This document specifies the
Application Object delivery aspects (delivery protocol) for such
services, as the corresponding delivery protocol could be used as a
reference by a variety of services by specifying profiles of ROUTE in
their respective fora,
e.g. e.g., by adding new optional features atop or
by restricting various optional features specified in this document
in a specific service standard. Hence Hence, in the context of this
document, the aforementioned ATSC-ROUTE and DVB-MABR are the services
using ROUTE. The definition of profiles by the services also have to
give due consideration to compatibility issues, and some related
guidelines are also provided in this document.

This document is not an IETF specification and does not have IETF
consensus. It is provided here to aid the production of
interoperable implementations.

1.2. Protocol Stack for ROUTE

ROUTE delivers Application Objects such as MPEG DASH or HLS segments
and optionally the associated repair data, operating over UDP/IP
networks, as depicted in Figure Table 1. The session metadata signaling to
realize a ROUTE session as specified in this document MAY be
delivered
out-of-band out of band or in-band in band as well. Since ROUTE delivers
objects in an application cache at the receiver from where the
application can access them using HTTP, an application like DASH may
use its standardized unicast streaming mechanisms in conjunction with
ROUTE over broadcast/multicast to augment the services.

+-----------------------------------+
|Application

+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Application (DASH and HLS segments,|
| segments, CMAF chunks Chunks, etc.) |
+-----------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| ROUTE |
+-----------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP |
+-----------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| IP |
+-----------------------------------+

Figure 1
+--------------------------------------------------------+

Table 1: Protocol Layering

1.3. Data Model

The ROUTE data model is constituted by the following key concepts.

Application Object - Object: data that has meaning to the application that
uses the ROUTE protocol for delivery of data to receivers,
e.g., an Application Object can be a file, or a DASH video
segment, a WAV audio clip, an MPEG-4 video clip, etc.

Delivery Object - An Object: an object on course of delivery to the application
from the ROUTE sender to ROUTE receiver.

Transport Object - Object: an object identified by the Transport Object
Identifier (TOI)in (TOI) in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. It MAY be a either a
source or a repair object, depending on if it is carried by a
Source Flow or a Repair Flow, respectively.

Transport Session - An Session: a Layered Coding Transport (LCT) channel, as
defined by RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. A Transport session Session SHALL be
uniquely identified by a unique Transport Session Identifier
(TSI) value in the LCT header. The TSI is scoped by the IP
address of the sender, and the IP address of the sender
together with the TSI uniquely identify the session. Transport sessions
Sessions are a subset of a ROUTE session. For media delivery,
a Transport Session would typically carry a media component,
for example example, a DASH Representation. Within each transport session, Transport
Session, one or more objects are carried, typically objects
that are related, e.g. e.g., DASH Segments segments associated to one
Representation.

ROUTE Session - An Session: an ensemble or multiplex of one or more Transport
Sessions. Each ROUTE Session session is associated with an IP address/port address/
port combination. A ROUTE session typically carries one or
more media components of streaming media e.g. e.g., Representations
associated with a DASH Media Presentation.

Source Flow - Flow: a Transport session Session carrying source data. Source Flow
is independent of the repair Repair Flow, i.e. i.e., the Source Flow MAY be
used by a ROUTE receiver without the ROUTE Repair Flows.

Repair Flow - Flow: a Transport session Session carrying repair data for one or
more Source Flows.

1.4. Architecture and Scope of Specification

The scope of the ROUTE protocol is to enable robust and real-time
transport of delivery objects using LCT packets. This architecture
is depicted in Figure 2. 1.

The normative aspects of the ROUTE protocol focus on the following
aspects:

* The format of the LCT packets that carry the transport objects.

* The robust transport of the delivery object using a repair
protocol based on Forward Error Correction (FEC).

* The definition and possible carriage of object metadata along with
the delivery objects. Metadata may be conveyed in LCT packets
and/or separate objects.

* The ROUTE session, LCT channel channel, and delivery object description
provided as service metadata signaling to enable the reception of
objects.

* The normative aspects (formats, semantics) of the delivery objects
conveyed as a content manifest to be delivered along with the
objects to optimize the performance for specific applications; applications
e.g., real-time delivery. The objects and manifest are made
available to the application through an Application Object cache.
The interface of this cache to the application is not specified in
this document, however document; however, it will typically be enabled by the
application acting as an HTTP Client client and the cache as the HTTP
server.

Figure 2 Architecture/functional block diagram 1: Architecture/Functional Block Diagram

1.5. Intellectual Property

The protocol described in this document may be subject to
intellectual property rights disclosed to the IETF in accordance with
BCP 78 and recorded in the datatracker entry for this document.

1.6. Conventions used Used in this document This Document

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.

2. ROUTE Packet Format

2.1. Packet Structure and Header Fields

The packet format used by ROUTE Source Flows and Repair Flows follows
the ALC packet format specified in RFC 5775 [RFC5775], [RFC5775] with the UDP
header followed by the default LCT header and the source FEC Payload
ID followed by the packet payload. The overall ROUTE packet format
is as depicted in Figure 3 below. 2.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Header |
| |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| Default LCT header |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Payload ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Data |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3 2: Overall ROUTE packet format Packet Format

The Default LCT header is as defined in the LCT building block in RFC
5651 [RFC5651].

The LCT packet header fields SHALL be used as defined by the LCT
building block in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The semantics and usage of the
following LCT header fields SHALL be further constrained in ROUTE as
follows:

Version number (V) - (V): This 4-bit field indicates the protocol version
number. The version number SHALL be set to '0001', as specified
in RFC 5651 [RFC5651].

Congestion Control flag (C) field - field: This 2-bit field, as defined in
RFC 5651 [RFC5651], SHALL be set to '00'.

Protocol-Specific Indication (PSI) - (PSI): The most significant bit of this
two bit
2-bit flag is called the Source Packet Indicator (SPI) and
indicates whether the current packet is a source packet or an a FEC
repair packet. The SPI SHALL be set to '1' to indicate a source
packet,
packet and SHALL bet set to '0' to indicate a repair packet.

Transport Session Identifier flag (S) - (S): This 1-bit field SHALL be set
to '1' to indicate a 32-bit word in the TSI field.

Transport Object Identifier flag (O) - (O): This 2-bit field SHALL be set
to '01' to indicate the number of full 32-bit words in the TOI
field.

Half-word flag (H) - (H): This 1-bit field SHALL be set to '0' to indicate
that no half-word field sizes are used.

Codepoint (CP) - (CP): This 8-bit field is used to indicate the type of the
payload that is carried by this packet, and packet; for ROUTE, it is defined
as shown below to indicate the type of delivery object carried in
the payload of the associated ROUTE packet. The remaining, remaining
unmapped Codepoint values can be used by a service using ROUTE.
In this case, the Codepoint values SHALL follow the semantics
specified in the following table. "IS" stands for Initialization
Segment of the media content such as the DASH Initialization
Segment [DASH]. The various modes of operation in the table
(File/Entity/Package Mode) are specified in Section 4. The table
also lists a Codepoint value range that is reserved for future
service-specific uses.

+=================+=================================+
| Codepoint value | Semantics
---------------------------------------------------- |
+=================+=================================+
| 0 | Reserved (not used) |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 1 | Non Real Time (NRT) - File Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 2 | NRT - Entity Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 3 | NRT - Unsigned Package Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 4 | NRT - Signed Package Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 5 | New IS, timeline changed |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 6 | New IS, timeline continued |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 7 | Redundant IS |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 8 | Media Segment, File Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 9 | Media Segment, Entity Mode |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 10 | Media Segment, File Mode with |
| | CMAF Random
| Access Chunk chunk |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+
| 11 - 255 | Reserved, service-specific |
+-----------------+---------------------------------+

Table 2: Codepoint Values

Congestion Control Information (CCI) - (CCI): For packets carrying DASH
segments, CCI MAY convey the 32-bit earliest presentation time
[DASH] of the DASH segment contained in the ROUTE packet. In this
case, this information can be used by a ROUTE receiver for fast
stream acquisition (details in Section 6.2). Otherwise Otherwise, this
field SHALL be set to 0.

Transport Session Identifier (TSI) - (TSI): This 32-bit field identifies the
Transport Session in ROUTE. The context of the Transport Session
is provided by signaling metadata. The value TSI = 0 SHALL only
be used for service-specific signaling.

Transport Object Identifier (TOI) - (TOI): This 32-bit field SHALL identify
the object within this session to which the payload of the current
packet belongs. The mapping of the TOI field to the object is
provided by the Extended File Delivery Table (FDT).

2.2. LCT Header Extensions

The following LCT header extensions are defined or used by ROUTE:

EXT_FTI -

EXT_FTI: as specified in RFC 5775.

EXT_TOL - The

EXT_TOL: the length in bytes of the multicast transport object shall
be signaled using EXT_TOL as specified by ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331]
with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of Transfer Length. The
frequency of using the EXT_TOL header extension is determined by
channel conditions that may cause the loss of the packet carrying
the Close Object (B) flag (B) [RFC5651].

NOTE: The transport object length can also be determined without
the use of EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close
Object (B)
flag. flag (B). However, if this packet is lost, then the
EXT_TOL information can be used by the receiver to determine the
transport object length.

EXT_TIME Header - Header: as specified in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]. The Sender
Current Time SHALL be signaled using EXT_TIME.

2.3. FEC Payload ID for Source Flows

The syntax of the FEC Payload ID for the Compact No-Code FEC Scheme
used in ROUTE Source Flows is a 32-bit unsigned integer value that
SHALL express the start_offset, start_offset as an octet number corresponding to
the first octet of the fragment of the delivery object carried in
this packet. The start_offset value for the first fragment of any
delivery object SHALL be set to 0. Figure 4 3 shows the 32-bit
start_offset field.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| start_offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 4 3: FEC Payload ID for Source Flows. Flows

2.4. FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows

FEC Payload ID for Repair Flows is specified in RFC 6330 [RFC6330].

3. Session Metadata

The required session metadata for Source and Repair Flows is
specified in the following sections. The list specified here is not
exhaustive; a service MAY signal more metadata to meet its needs.
The data format is also not specified beyond its cardinality; the
exact format of specifying the data is left for the service, e.g. e.g., by
using XML encoding format, as has been done by [DVBMABR] and
[ATSCA331]. It is specified in the following if an attribute is
mandatory (m), conditional mandatory (cm) or optional (o) to realize
a basic ROUTE session. A mandatory filed field SHALL always be present in
the session metadata, and a conditional mandatory field SHALL be
present if the specified condition is true. The delivery of the
session metadata to the ROUTE receiver is beyond the scope of this
document.

3.1. Generic Metadata

Generic metadata is applicable to both Source and Repair Flows as
follows. Before a receiver can join a ROUTE session, the receiver
needs to obtain this generic metadata that contains at least the
following information:

ROUTE version number (m): The the version number of ROUTE used in this
session. The version number conforming to this document SHALL be
1.

Connection ID (m): the unique identifier of a Connection, usually
consisting of the following 4-tuple: source IP address/source port
number, destination IP address/destination port number. The IP
addresses can be IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, addresses depending upon which IP
version is used by the deployment.

3.2. Session Metadata for Source Flows

stsi (m) - (m): The LCT TSI value corresponding to the transport session Transport Session
for the Source Flow.

rt (o) - (o): A Boolean flag which that SHALL indicate whether the content
component carried by this Source Flow corresponds to real-time
streaming media, media or non-real-time content. When set to "true", it
SHALL be an indication of real-time content, and when absent or
set to "false", it SHALL be an indication of non-real-time (NRT)
content.

minBufferSize (o) - (o): A 32-bit unsigned integer which that SHALL represent,
in kilobytes, the minimum required storage size of the receiver
transport buffer, buffer for the parent LCT channel of this Source Flow.
The buffer holds the data belonging to a Source Object till source object until its
complete reception. This attribute is only applicable when rt =
"true".

A service which that chooses not to signal this attribute relies on the
receiver implementation, which must discard the received data
beyond its buffering capability. Such discarding of data will
impact the service quality.

EFDT (cm) - when (cm): When present, SHALL contain a single instance of an FDT-
Instance element per RFC 6726 FLUTE [RFC6726], which MAY contain
the optional FDT extensions as defined in Section 4.1. The
optional EFDT element MAY only be present for File Mode of
delivery. In File Mode, it SHALL be present if this Source Flow
transports streaming media segments.

contentType (o) - (o): A string that SHALL represent the media type for
the media content. It SHALL obey the semantics of the Content-Type Content-
Type header as specified by the HTTP/1.1 protocol in RFC 7231
[RFC7231]. This document does not define any new contentType
strings. In its absence, the signalling signaling of media type for the
media content is beyond the scope of this document.

applicationMapping (m) - (m): A set of identifiers that provide an
application-specific mapping of the received Application Objects
to the Source Flows. For example, for DASH, this would provide
the mapping of a Source Flow to a specific DASH representation Representation
from a Media Presentation Description (MPD), the latter identified
by its Representation and corresponding Adaptation Set and Period
IDs.

3.3. Session metadata Metadata for Repair Flows

minBuffSize (o) - (o): A 32-bit unsigned integer whose value SHALL
represent a required size of the receiver transport buffer for
AL-FEC decoding processing. When present, this attribute SHALL
indicate the minimum buffer size that is required to handle all
associated objects that are assigned to a super-object i.e. super-object, i.e., a
delivery object formed by the concatenation of multiple FEC
transport objects in order to bundle these FEC transport objects
for AL-FEC protection.

A service which that chooses not to signal this attribute relies on the
receiver implementation, which must discard the received repair
data beyond its buffering capability. Such discarding of data
will impact the service quality.

fecOTI (m) - (m): A parameter consisting of the concatenation of Common
and Scheme-Specific FEC Object Transmission Information (FEC OTI)
as defined in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of RFC 6330 [RFC6330], [RFC6330] and which that
corresponds to the delivery objects carried in the Source Flow to
which this Repair Flow is associated, with the following
qualification. The
qualification: the 40-bit Transfer Length (F) field may either
represent the actual size of the object, or it is encoded as all
zeroes. In the latter case, it means that the FEC transport object size is either unknown,
is unknown or cannot be represented by this attribute. In other
words, for the all-zeroes format, the delivery objects in the
Source flow Flow correspond to streaming content - content, either a live Service
whereby content encoding has not yet occurred at the time this
session data was generated, generated or pre-recorded streaming content whose
delivery object sizes, albeit known at the time of session data
generation, are variable and cannot be represented as a single
value by the fecOTI attribute.

ptsi (m) - (m): TSI value(s) of each Source Flow protected by this Repair
Flow.

mappingTOIx (o) - (o): Values of the constant X for use in deriving the
TOI of the delivery object of each protected Source Flow from the
TOI of the FEC (super-)object. The default value is "1".
Multiple mappingTOIx values MAY be provided for each protected
Source Flow, Flow depending upon the usage of FEC (super-)object.

mappingTOIy (o) - (o): The corresponding constant Y to each mappingTOIx,
when present, for use in deriving the parent SourceTOI value from
the above equation. The default value is "0".

4. Delivery Object Mode

ROUTE provides several different delivery object modes, and one of
these modes may suite suit the application needs better for a given
transport session.
Transport Session. A delivery object is self-contained self contained for the
application, typically associated with certain properties, metadata metadata,
and timing-related information that are of relevance for relevant to the application. The
signaling of the delivery object mode is done on an object based basis
using Codepoint as specified in Section 2.1.

4.1. File Mode

File mode Mode uses an out-of-band Extended FDT (EDFT) (EFDT) signaling for
recovery of delivery objects with the following extensions and
considerations.

4.1.1. Extensions to FDT

Following

The following extensions are specified to FDT FDT, as specified in RFC
6726 [RFC6726]. An Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance is an instance of FLUTE FDT
FDT, as specified in [RFC6726], plus optionally one or more of the
following
extensions.

efdtVersion - extensions:

efdtVersion: A value that SHALL represent the version of this
Extended FDT Instance.

maxExpiresDelta - FDT-Instance.

maxExpiresDelta: Let "tp" represent the wall clock time at the
receiver when the receiver acquires the first ROUTE packet
carrying data of the object described by this Extended FDT FDT-
Instance. maxExpiresDelta, when present, SHALL represent a time
interval which that when added to "tp" SHALL represent the expiration
time of the associated Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance "te". The time
interval is expressed in number of seconds. When maxExpiresDelta
is not present, the expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance
SHALL be given by the sum of a) the value of the ERT field in the
EXT_TIME LCT header extension in the first ROUTE packet carrying
data of that file, and b) the current receiver time when parsing
the packet header of that ROUTE packet. See Sections 5.4 and
6.3.3 on additional rules for deriving the Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance
expiration time. Hence te__= Hence, te = tp + maxExpiresDelta

maxTransportSize -

maxTransportSize: An attribute that SHALL represent the maximum
transport size in bytes of any delivery object described by this
Extended FDT Instance. FDT-Instance. This attribute SHALL be present if a) the
fileTemplate is present in Extended FDT-Instance; FDT-Instance, or b) one or
more File elements, if present in this Extended FDT Instance, FDT-Instance, do
not include the Transfer-Length attribute. When maxTransportSize
is not present, the maximum transport size is not signaled, while
other
signalling signaling such as the Transfer-Length attribute signal the
exact
transfer length Transfer Length of the object.

fileTemplate -

fileTemplate: A string value, which when present and in conjunction
with parameter substitution, is used in deriving the Content-Location
attribute, Content-
Location attribute for the delivery object described by this
Extended FDT
Instance. FDT-Instance. It SHALL include the "$TOI$" identifier.
Each identifier MAY be suffixed as needed by specific file names, names
within the enclosing '$' characters following this prototype:
%0[width]d

The width parameter is an unsigned integer that provides the minimum
number of characters to be printed. If the value to be printed is
shorter than this number, the result SHALL be padded with leading
zeroes. The value is not truncated even if the result is larger.
When no format tag is present, a default format tag with width=1
SHALL be used.

Strings other than identifiers SHALL only contain characters that are
permitted within URIs according to RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

$$ Is is an escape sequence in fileTemplate value, i.e. i.e., "$$" is non-
recursively replaced with a single "$" "$".

The usage of fileTemplate is described in Sender and Receiver
operations in Sections 5.4 and 6.3, respectively.

4.1.2. Constraints on Extended FDT

The Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance SHALL conform to an FDT Instance FDT-Instance according
to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], [RFC6726] with the following constraints: at least one
File element and the @Expires attribute SHALL be present.

Content encoding MAY be used for delivery of any file described by an
FDT-Instance.File element in the Extended FDT Instance. FDT-Instance. The content
encoding defined in the present document is gzip [RFC1952]. When
content encoding is used, the File@Content-Encoding and File@Content-
Length attributes SHALL be present in the Extended FDT Instance. FDT-Instance.

4.2. Entity Mode

For Entity Mode, the following applies:

* Delivery Object object metadata SHALL be expressed in the form of entity
headers as defined in HTTP/1.1, and which correspond to one or more of
the representation header fields, payload header fields fields, and
response header fields as defined in Sections 3.1, 3.3 3.3, and 7,
respectively, of RFC 7231. Additionally, a Digest HTTP response
header [RFC7231] MAY be included to enable a receiver to verify
the integrity of the multicast transport object. [RFC7231].

* The entity headers sent along with the delivery object provide all
information about that multicast transport object.

* Sending a media object (if the object is chunked) in Entity Mode
may result in one of the following options:

- If the length of the chunked object is known at the sender, the
ROUTE Entity Mode delivery object MAY be sent without using
HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer coding, i.e. i.e., the object starts with
an HTTP header containing the Content Length field, field followed by
the concatenation of CMAF chunks: Chunks:

|HTTP Header+Length||---chunk ----||---chunk ----||---chunk --
--||---chunk ----|

- If the length of the chunked object is unknown at the sender
when starting to send the object, HTTP/1.1 chunked transfer
coding format SHALL be used:

|HTTP Header||Separator+Length||---chunk ----
||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length||---chunk
----||Separator+Length||---chunk ----||Separator+Length=0|

Note, however, that it is not required to send a CMAF chunk Chunk in
exactly one HTTP chunk.

4.3. Unsigned Package Mode

In this delivery mode, the delivery object consists of a group of
files that are packaged for delivery only. If applied, the client is
expected to unpack the package and provide each file as an
independent object to the application. Packaging is supported by
Multipart Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2557],
where objects are packaged into one document for transport, with
Content-Type set to multipart/related. When binary files are
included in the package, Content-Transfer-Encoding of "binary" should
be used for those files.

4.4. Signed Package Mode

In Signed Package Mode delivery, the delivery object consists of a
group of files that are packaged for delivery, and the package
includes one or more signatures for validation. Signed packaging is
supported by RFC 8551 Secure MIME (S/MIME) [RFC8551], where objects
are packaged into one document for transport and the package includes
objects necessary for validation of the package.

5. Sender Operation

5.1. Usage of ALC and LCT for Source Flow

ROUTE Source Flow carry carries the source data as specified in RFC 5775
[RFC5775]. There are several special considerations that ROUTE
introduces to the usage of the LCT building block as outlined in the
following:

* ROUTE limits the usage of the LCT building block to a single
channel per session. Congestion control is thus sender-driven sender driven in
ROUTE. It also signifies that there is no specific congestion
control related signalling congestion-
control-related signaling from the sender to the receiver; the CCI
field is either set to 0 or used for other purposes as specified
in Section 2.1. The functionality of receiver-driven layered
multicast may still be offered by the application, allowing the
receiver application to select the appropriate delivery session
based on the bandwidth requirement of that session.

Further, the following details apply to LCT:

* The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in
RFC 5651 [RFC5651] is used with the following constraints:

- The TSI in the LCT header SHALL be set equal to the value of
the stsi attribute in Section 3.2.

- The Codepoint (CP) in the LCT header SHALL be used to signal
the applied formatting as defined in the signaling metadata.

- In accordance to with ALC, a source FEC Payload ID header is used
to identify, for FEC purposes, the encoding symbols of the
delivery object, or a portion thereof, carried by the
associated ROUTE packet. This information may be sent in
several ways:

o As a simple new null FEC scheme with the following usage:

+ The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL be
set to 0, 0 in case the ROUTE packet contains the entire
delivery object, or

+ The value of the source FEC Payload ID header SHALL be
set as a direct address (start offset) corresponding to
the starting byte position of the portion of the object
carried in this packet using a 32-bit field.

o In a compatible manner to RFC 6330 [RFC6330] where the SBN
and ESI defines the start offset together with the symbol
size T.

o The signaling metadata provides the appropriate parameters
to indicate any of the above modes using the srcFecPayloadId
attribute.

* The LCT Header EXT_TIME extension as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651]
MAY be used by the sender in the following manner:

- The Sender Current Time (SCT), depending on the application,
MAY be used to occasionally or frequently signal the sender
current time, time possibly for reliever time synchronization.

- The Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used to indicate the
expected remaining time for transmission of the current
object, object
in order to optimize detection of a lost delivery object.

- The Sender Last Changed (SLC) flag is typically not utilized, utilized
but MAY be used to indicate the addition/removal of Segments.

Additional extension headers MAY be used to support real-time
delivery. Such extension headers are defined in Section 2.1.

5.2. ROUTE Packetization for Source Flow

The following description of the ROUTE sender operation on the
mapping of the Application Object to the ROUTE packet payloads
logically represents an extension of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], which in
turn inherits the context, language, declarations declarations, and restrictions
of the FEC building block in RFC 5052 [RFC5052].

The data carried in the payload of a given ROUTE packet constitute constitutes a
contiguous portion of the Application Object. ROUTE source delivery
can be considered as a special case of the use of the Compact No-Code
Scheme associated with FEC Encoding ID = 0 according to Sections
3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of RFC 5445 [RFC5445], in which the encoding symbol size is
exactly one byte. As specified in Section 2.1, for ROUTE Source
Flows, the FEC Payload ID SHALL deliver the 32-bit start_offset. All
receivers are expected to support, at minimum, operation with this
special case of the Compact No-Code FEC.

Note that in the event the source object size is greater than 2^32
bytes (approximately 4.3 GB), the applications (in the broadcaster
server and the receiver) are expected to perform segmentation/re-
assembly segmentation/
reassembly using methods beyond the scope of this document.

Finally, in some special cases cases, a ROUTE sender MAY need to produce
ROUTE packets that do not contain any payload. This may be required,
for example, to signal the end of a session. These data-less dataless packets
do not contain FEC Payload ID or payload data, but only the LCT
header fields. The total datagram length, conveyed by outer protocol
headers (e.g., the IP or UDP header), enables receivers to detect the
absence of the LCT header, FEC Payload ID ID, and payload data.

5.2.1. Basic ROUTE Packetization

In the basic operation, it is assumed that the Application Object is
fully available at the ROUTE sender.

1. The amount of data to be sent in a single ROUTE packet is limited
by the maximum transfer unit of the data packets or the size of
the remaining data of the Application Object being sent,
whichever is smaller. The transfer unit is determined either by
knowledge of underlying transport block sizes or by other
constraints.

2. The start_offset field in the LCT header of the ROUTE packet
indicates the byte offset of the carried data in the Application
Object being sent.

3. The Close Object (B) flag (B) is set to 1 if this is the last ROUTE
packet carrying the data of the Application Object.

The order of packet delivery is arbitrary, but in the absence of
other constraints constraints, delivery with increasing start_offset value is
recommended.

5.2.2. ROUTE Packetization for CMAF Chunked Content

Following

The following additional guidelines should be followed for ROUTE
packetization of CMAF Chunked Content in addition to the guideline guidelines
of Section 5.2.1:

1. If it is the first ROUTE packet carrying a CMAF Random Access
chunk, except for the first CMAF chunk Chunk in the segment, the
Codepoint value MAY be set to 10, as specified in the Codepoint
value table in Section 2.1. The receiver MAY use this
information for optimization of random access.

2. As soon as the total length of the media object is known,
potentially with the packaging of the last CMAF chunk Chunk of a
segment, the EXT_TOL extension header MAY be added to the LCT
header to signal the Transfer Length, so that the receiver may
know this information in a timely fashion.

5.3. Timing of Packet Emission

The sender SHALL use the timing information provided by the
application to time the emission of packets for a timely reception.
This information may be contained in the Application Objects e.g. e.g.,
DASH Segments segments and/or the presentation manifest. Hence Hence, such packets
of streaming media with real time real-time constraints SHALL be sent in such a
way as to enable their timely reception with respect to the
presentation timeline.

5.4. Extended FDT Encoding for File Mode Sending

For File Mode Sending:

o sending:

* The TOI field in the ROUTE packet header SHALL be set such that
Content-Location can be derived at the receiver according to File
Template substitution specified in Section 6.3.1.

* After sending the first packet with a given TOI value, none of the
packets pertaining to this TOI SHALL be sent later than the wall
clock time as derived from maxExpiresDelta. The EXT_TIME header
with Expected Residual Time (ERT) MAY be used in order to convey
more accurate expiry time.

5.5. FEC Framework Considerations

The FEC framework uses concepts of the FECFRAME work as defined in
RFC 6363 [RFC6363], as well as the FEC building block, RFC 5052
[RFC5052], which is adopted in the existing FLUTE/ALC/LCT
specifications.

The FEC design adheres to the following principles:

* FEC-related information is provided only where needed.

* Receivers not capable of this framework can ignore repair packets.

* The FEC is symbol-based symbol based with fixed symbol size per protected
Source Flow. The ALC protocol and existing FEC schemes are
reused.

* A FEC Repair Flow provides protection of delivery objects from one
or more Source Flows.

The FEC-specific components of the FEC framework are:

* FEC Repair Flow declaration including all FEC-specific
information.

* A FEC transport object that is the concatenation of a delivery
object, padding octets octets, and size information in order to form an N-
symbol-sized a
chunk of data, data that has a size in symbols of N, where N >= 1.

* A FEC super-object that is the concatenation of one or more FEC
transport objects in order to bundle FEC transport objects for FEC
protection.

* A FEC protocol and packet structure.

A receiver needs to be able to recover delivery objects from repair
packets based on available FEC information.

5.6. FEC Transport Object Construction

In order to identify a delivery object in the context of the Repair repair
protocol, the following information is needed:

* TSI and TOI of the delivery object. In this case, the FEC object
corresponds to the (entire) delivery object.

* Octet range of the delivery object, i.e. i.e., start offset within the
delivery object and number of subsequent and contiguous octets of
delivery object that constitutes the FEC object (i.e., the FEC-
protected portion of the source object). In this case, the FEC
object corresponds to a contiguous byte range portion of the
delivery object.

Typically, for real-time object delivery with smaller delivery object
sizes, the first mapping is applied; applied, i.e., the delivery object is an a
FEC object.

Assuming that the FEC object is the delivery object, for each
delivery object, the associated FEC transport object is comprised of
the concatenation of the delivery object, padding octets (P) (P), and the
FEC object size (F) in octets, where F is carried in a 4-octet field.

The FEC transport object size S, in FEC encoding symbols, SHALL be an
integer multiple of the symbol size Y. S is determined from the
session information and/or the repair packet headers.

F is carried in the last 4 octets of the FEC transport object.
Specifically, let:

* F be the size of the delivery object in octets,

* F' be the F octets of data of the delivery object,

* f' denote the four octets of data carrying the value of F in
network octet order (high-order octet first),

* S be the size of the FEC transport object with S=ceil((F+4)/Y),
where the ceil() function rounds the result upward to its nearest
integer,

* P' be S*Y-4-F octets of data, i.e. i.e., padding placed between the
delivery object and the 4-byte field conveying the value of F and
located at the end of the FEC transport object, and

* O' be the concatenation of F', P' P', and f'.

O' then constitutes the FEC transport object of size S*Y octets.
Note that padding octets and the object size F are not sent in source
packets of the delivery object, object but are only part of an a FEC transport
object that FEC decoding recovers in order to extract the FEC object
and thus the delivery object or portion of the delivery object that
constitutes the FEC object. In the above context, the FEC transport
object size in symbols is S.

The general information about an a FEC transport object that is conveyed
to an a FEC-enabled receiver is the source TSI, source TOI TOI, and the
associated octet range within the delivery object comprising the
associated FEC object. However, as the size in octets of the FEC
object is provided in the appended field within the FEC transport
object, the remaining information can be conveyed as:

* The TSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC object
associated with the FEC transport object is generated

o Start

* The start octet within the delivery object for the associated FEC
object

o Size

* The size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S

5.7. Super-Object Construction

From the FEC Repair Flow declaration, the construction of an a FEC
super-object as the concatenation of one or more FEC transport
objects can be determined. The FEC super-object includes the general
information about the FEC transport objects as described in the
previous sections, as well as the placement order of FEC transport
objects within the FEC super-object.

Let:
o

* N be the total number of FEC transport objects for the FEC super-
object construction.

* For i = 0,..., 0, ..., N-1, let S[i] be the size in symbols of FEC
transport object i.

* B' be the FEC super-object which that is the concatenation of the FEC
transport objects in numerical order, comprised of K = Sum of N
source symbols, each symbol denoted as S[i].

For each FEC super-object, the remaining general information that
needs to be conveyed to an a FEC-enabled receiver, beyond what is
already carried in the FEC transport objects that constitute the FEC
super-object, comprises:

* The total number of FEC transport objects N.

* For each FEC transport object, the:

o object:

- The TSI and TOI of the delivery object from which the FEC
object associated with the FEC transport object is generated,

o Start

- The start octet within the delivery object for the associated
FEC object, and

o Size

- The size in symbols of the FEC transport object.

The carriage of the FEC repair information is discussed below.

5.8. Repair Packet Considerations

The repair protocol is based on Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) as
defined in RFC 5775 [RFC5775] and the Layered Coding Transport (LCT)
Building Block as defined in RFC 5651 [RFC5651] with the following
details:

* The Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block as defined in
RFC 5651 [RFC5651] is used as defined in Asynchronous Layered
Coding (ALC), Section 2.1. In addition, the following constraints
apply:

o constraint
applies:

- The TSI in the LCT header SHALL identify the Repair Flow to
which this packet applies, applies by the matching the value of the ptsi
attribute in the signaling metadata among the LCT channels
carrying Repair Flows.

* The FEC building block is used according to RFC 6330 [RFC6330],
but only repair packets are delivered.

- Each repair packet within the scope of the Repair Flow (as
indicated by the TSI field in the LCT header) SHALL carry the
repair symbols for a corresponding FEC transport object/super-
object as identified by its TOI. The repair object/super-
object TOI SHALL be unique for each FEC super-object that is
created within the scope of the TSI.

5.9. Summary FEC Information

For each super-object (identified by a unique TOI within a Repair
Flow that is in turn identified by the TSI in the LCT header) that is
generated, the following information needs to be communicated to the
receiver:

* The FEC configuration consisting of:

- FEC Object Transmission Information (OTI) per RFC 5052
[RFC5052].

- Additional FEC information (see Section 3.3).

- The total number of FEC objects included in the FEC super-
object, N.

* For each FEC transport object:

- TSI and TOI of the delivery object used to generate the FEC
object associated with the FEC transport object,

o Start

- The start octet within the delivery object of the associated
FEC object, if applicable, and

- The size in symbols of the FEC transport object, S.

The above information is delivered:

* Statically in the session metadata as defined in Section 3.3, and

* Dynamically in an LCT extension header.

6. Receiver operation Operation

The receiver receives packets and filters those packets according to
the following. From the ROUTE session and each contained LCT
channel, the receiver regenerates delivery objects from the ROUTE
session and each contained LCT channel.

In the event that the receiver receives data that does not conform to
the ROUTE protocol specified in this document, the receiver SHOULD
attempt to recover gracefully by e.g. e.g., informing the application
about the issues using means beyond the scope of this document. The
ROUTE
Packetization packetization specified in Section 5.2.1 implies that the
receiver SHALL NOT receive overlapping data: data; if such a condition is
encountered at the receiver, the packet SHALL be assumed to be
corrupted.

The basic receiver operation is provided below, it below (it assumes an error-
free scenario, scenario), while repair considerations are provided in
Section 7.

6.1. Basic Application Object Recovery for Source Flows

Upon receipt of each ROUTE packet of a Source Flow, the receiver
proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.

1) The ROUTE receiver is expected to parse the LCT and FEC Payload
ID to verify that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then
the payload is discarded without further processing.

2) All ROUTE packets used to recover a specific delivery object
carry the same TOI value in the LCT header.

3) The ROUTE receiver is expected to assert that the TSI and the
Codepoint represent valid operation points in the signaling
metadata, i.e. i.e., the signaling contains a matching entry to the
TSI value provided in the packet header, as well as for this TSI,
and the Codepoint field in the LCT header has a valid Codepoint
mapping.

4) The ROUTE receiver should process the remainder of the payload,
including the appropriate interpretation of the other payload
header fields, and using the source FEC Payload ID (to determine the
start_offset) and the payload data to reconstruct the
corresponding object as follows:

a. For File Mode, upon receipt of the first ROUTE packet payload
for an object, the ROUTE receiver uses the
File@Transfer-Length File@Transfer-
Length attribute of the associated Extended FDT
Instance, FDT-Instance,
when present, to determine the length T of the object. When
the File@Transfer-Length attribute is not present in the
Extended FDT Instance, FDT-Instance, the receiver uses the maxTransportSize
attribute of the associated Extended FDT
Instance FDT-Instance to
determine the maximum length T' of the object.
Alternatively, and specifically for delivery modes other than
File Mode, the EXT_TOL header can be used to determine the
length T of the object.

b. The ROUTE receiver allocates buffer space for the T or T'
bytes that the object will or may occupy.

c. The ROUTE receiver computes the length of the payload, Y, by
subtracting the payload header length from the total length
of the received payload.

d. The ROUTE receiver allocates a Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T-
1] RECEIVED[0..T-1]
or RECEIVED[0..T'-1], as appropriate, with all entries
initialized to false to track received object symbols. The
ROUTE receiver continuously acquires packet payloads for the
object as long as all of the following conditions are
satisfied: i)

i. there is at least one entry in RECEIVED still set to false; ii)
false,

ii. the object has not yet expired; expired, and iii)

iii. the application has not given up on reception of this
object.

More details are provided below.

e. For each received ROUTE packet payload for the object
(including the first payload), the steps to be taken to help
recover the object are as follows:

i. If the packet includes an EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI header,
modify the Boolean array RECEIVED[0..T'-1] to become
RECEIVED[0..T-1].

ii. Let X be the value of the start_offset field in the
ROUTE packet header and let Y be the length of the
payload, Y, computed by subtracting the LCT header size
and the FEC Payload ID size from the total length of
the received packet.

iii. The ROUTE receiver copies the data into the appropriate
place within the space reserved for the object and sets
RECEIVED[X ... X+Y-1] = true.

iv. If all T entries of RECEIVED are true, then the
receiver has recovered the entire object.

Upon recovery of both the complete set of packet payloads for the
delivery object associated with a given TOI value, and the metadata
for that delivery object, the reception of the delivery object, now a
fully received Application Object, is complete.

Given the timely reception of ROUTE packets belonging to an
Application Object, the receiver SHALL make the Application Objects
available to the application in a timely fashion, fashion using the
application-provided timing data (e.g. (e.g., the timing data signaled via
the presentation manifest file). For example, HTTP/1.1 chunked
transfer may need to be enabled to transfer the Application Objects
if MPD@availabilityTimeOffset is signaled in the DASH presentation
manifest,
manifest in order to allow for the timely sending of segment data to
the application.

6.2. Fast Stream Acquisition

When the receiver initially starts reception of ROUTE packets, it is
likely that the reception does not start from the very first packet
carrying the data of a multicast transport object, and object; in this case case, such
a partially received object is normally discarded. However, the
channel acquisition or "tune-in" times can be improved if the
partially received object is usable by the application. One example
realization for this is as follows:

* The receiver checks for the first received packet with the
Codepoint value set to 10, indicating the start of a CMAF Random
Access chunk.

* The receiver MAY make the partially received object (a partial
DASH segment starting from the packet above) available to the
application for fast stream acquisition.

* It MAY recover the earliest presentation time of this CMAF Random
Access chunk from the ROUTE packet LCT Congestion Control
Information (CCI) field as specified in Section 2.1 to be able to
add a new Period element in the MPD exposed to the application
containing just the partially received DASH segment with period
continuity signaling.

6.3. Generating Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance for File Mode

An Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance conforming to RFC 6726 [RFC6726], is
produced at the receiver using the service metadata and in band in-band
signaling in the following steps:

6.3.1. File Template Substitution for Content-Location Derivation

The Content-Location element of the Extended FDT for a specific
Application Object is derived as follows:

"$TOI$" is substituted with the unique TOI value in the LCT header of
the ROUTE packets used to recover the given delivery object (as
specified in Section 6.1).

After the substitution, the fileTemplate SHALL be a valid URL
corresponding to the Content-Location attribute of the associated
Application Object.

An example @fileTemplate using a width of 5 is:
fileTemplate="myVideo$TOI%05d$.mps", resulting in file names with
exactly five digits in the number portion. The Media Segment file
name for TOI=33 using this template is myVideo00033.mps.

6.3.2. File@Transfer-Length Derivation

Either the EXT_FTI header (per RFC 5775 [RFC5775]) or the EXT_TOL
header, when present, is used to derive the Transport Object Length
(TOL) of the File. If the File@Transfer-Length parameter in the
Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance is not present, then the EXT_TOL header or the
or EXT_FTI header SHALL be present. Note that a header containing
the transport object length (EXT_TOL or EXT_FTI) need not be present
in each packet header. If the broadcaster does not know the length
of the transport object at the beginning of the transfer, an EXT_TOL
or EXT_FTI header SHALL be included in at least the last packet of
the file and should be included in the last few packets of the
transfer.

6.3.3. FDT-Instance@Expires Derivation

When present, the maxExpiresDelta attribute SHALL be used to generate
the value of the FDT-Instance@Expires attribute. The receiver is
expected to add this value to its wall clock time when acquiring the
first ROUTE packet carrying the data of a given delivery object to
obtain the value for @Expires.

When maxExpiresDelta is not present, the EXT_TIME header with
Expected Residual Time (ERT) SHALL be used to derive the expiry time
of the Extended FDT Instance. FDT-Instance. When both maxExpiresDelta and the ERT
of EXT_TIME are present, the smaller of the two values should be used
as the incremental time interval to be added to the receiver's
current time to generate the effective value for @Expires. When
neither maxExpiresDelta nor the ERT field of the EXT_TIME header is
present, then the expiration time of the Extended FDT Instance FDT-Instance is
given by its @Expires attribute.

7. FEC Application

7.1. General FEC Application Guidelines

It is up to the receiver to decide to use zero, one one, or more of the
FEC streams. Hence, the application assigns a recovery property to
each flow, which defines aspects such as the delay and the required
memory if one or the other is chosen. The receiver MAY decide
whether or not to utilize Repair Flows based on the following
considerations:

* The desired start-up and end-to-end latency. If a Repair Flow
requires a significant amount of buffering time to be effective,
such Repair Flow might only be used in time-shift operations or in
poor reception conditions, since use of such Repair Flow trades
off end-to-end latency against DASH Media Presentation quality.

* FEC capabilities, i.e. i.e., the receiver MAY pick only the FEC
algorithm that it supports.

* Which Source Flows are being protected; for example, if the Repair
Flow protects Source Flows that are not selected by the receiver,
then the receiver may not select the Repair Flow.

* Other considerations such as available buffer size, reception
conditions, etc.

If a receiver decides to acquire a certain Repair Flow Flow, then the
receiver must receive data on all Source Flows that are protected by
that Repair Flow to collect the relevant packets.

7.2. TOI Mapping

When mappingTOIx/mappingTOIy are used to signal X and Y values, then the
TOI value(s) of the one or more source objects (sourceTOI) protected
by a given FEC transport object or FEC super-object with a TOI value
rTOI is derived through an equation sourceTOI = X*rTOI + Y.

When neither mappingTOIx nor mappingTOIy is present present, there is a 1:1
relationship between each delivery object carried in the Source Flow
as identified by ptsi to an a FEC object carried in this Repair Flow.
In this case case, the TOI of each of those delivery objects SHALL be
identical to the TOI of the corresponding FEC object.

7.3. Delivery Object Reception Timeout

The permitted start and end times for the receiver to perform the
file repair procedure, in case of unsuccessful broadcast file
reception, and associated rules and parameters are as follows:

* The latest time that the file repair procedure may start is bound
by the @Expires attribute of the FDT-Instance.

* The receiver may choose to start the file repair procedure
earlier, earlier
if it detects the occurrence of any of the following events:

- Presence of the Close Object flag (B) in the LCT header
[RFC5651] for the file of interest;

- Presence of the Close Session flag (A) in the LCT header
[RFC5651] before the nominal expiration of the Extended FDT FDT-
Instance as defined by the @Expires attribute.

7.4. Example FEC Operation

To be able to recover the delivery objects that are protected by a
Repair Flow, a receiver needs to obtain the necessary Service
signaling metadata fragments that describe the corresponding
collection of delivery objects that are covered by this Repair Flow.
A Repair Flow is characterized by the combination of an LCT channel,
a unique TSI number, as well as the corresponding protected Source
Flows.

If a receiver acquires data of a Repair Flow, the receiver is
expected to collect all packets of all protected Transport Sessions.
Upon receipt of each packet, whether it is a source or repair packet,
the receiver proceeds with the following steps in the order listed.

1. The receiver is expected to parse the packet header and verify
that it is a valid header. If it is not valid, then the packet
SHALL be discarded without further processing.

2. The receiver is expected to parse the TSI field of the packet
header and verify that a matching value exists in the Service
signaling for the Repair Flow or the associated Protected Source
Flow. If no match is found, the packet SHALL be discarded
without further processing.

3. The receiver processes the remainder of the packet, including
interpretation of the other header fields, and using the source
FEC Payload ID (to determine the start_offset byte position
within the source object), the Repair FEC Payload ID, as well as
the payload data, reconstructs the decoding blocks corresponding
to a FEC super-object as follows:

a. For a source packet, the receiver identifies the delivery
object to which the received packet is associated, associated using the
session information and the TOI carried in the payload
header. Similarly, for a repair object object, the receiver
identifies the FEC super-object to which the received packet
is associated, associated using the session information and the TOI
carried in the payload header.

b. For source packets, the receiver collects the data for each
FEC super-object and recovers FEC super-objects in the same
way as a Source Flow in Section 6.1. The received FEC super-object super-
object is then mapped to a source block and the corresponding
encoding symbols are generated.

c. With the reception of the repair packets, the FEC super-
object can be recovered.

d. Once the FEC super-object is recovered, the individual
delivery objects can be extracted.

8. Considerations for Defining ROUTE Profiles

Services (e.g. (e.g., ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331], DVB-MABR [DVBMABR] [DVBMABR], etc.) may
define specific ROUTE "profiles" based on this document in their
respective standards organizations. An example is noted in the
overview section: DVB has specified a profile of ATSC-ROUTE in DVB
Adaptive Media Streaming over IP Multicast (DVB-MABR) [DVBMABR]. The
definition with has the following considerations. Services MAY

* Restrict the signaling of certain values signaled in the LCT
header and/or provision unused fields in the LCT header.

* Restrict using certain LCT header extensions and/or add new LCT
header extensions.

* Restrict or limit usage of some Codepoints, Codepoints and/or assign semantics
to service-specific Codepoints marked as reserved in this
document.

* Restrict usage of certain service Service signaling attributes and/or add
their own service metadata.

Services SHALL NOT redefine the semantics of any of the ROUTE
attributes in LCT headers and extension, and service extensions, as well as Service
signaling attributes already specified in this document.

By following these guidelines, services can define profiles that are
interoperable.

9. ROUTE Concepts

9.1. ROUTE Modes of Delivery

Different ROUTE delivery modes specified in Section 4 are optimized
for delivery of different types of media data. For example, File
Mode is specifically optimized for delivering DASH content using
Segment Template with number substitution. Using File Template in
EFDT avoids the need of for the repeated sending of metadata as outlined
in the following section. Same optimizations however optimizations, however, cannot be
used for time substitution and segment timeline where the addressing
of each segment is time dependent and in general does not follow a
fixed or repeated pattern. In this case, Entity mode Mode is more
optimized which since it carries the file location in band. Also, Entity mode
Mode can be used to deliver a file or part of the file using HTTP
Partial Content response headers.

9.2. File Mode Optimizations

In the file mode, File Mode, the delivery object represents an Application Object.
This mode replicates FLUTE as defined in RFC 6726 [RFC6726], [RFC6726] but with
the ability to send static and pre-known file metadata out of band.

In FLUTE, FDT Instances FDT-Instances are delivered in-band in band and need to be
generated and delivered in real-time real time if objects are generated in
real-time real
time at the sender. These FDT Instances FDT-Instances have some differences as
compared to the FDT specified in Section 3.4.2 of RFC 6726 [RFC6726] and
Section 7.2.10 of MBMS [MBMS]. The key difference is that besides
separated delivery of file metadata from the delivery object it
describes, the FDT functionality in ROUTE may be extended by
additional file metadata and rules that enable the receiver to
generate the Content-Location attribute of the File element of the
FDT, on-the-fly. on the fly. This is done by using information in both the
extensions to the FDT and the LCT header. The combination of pre-
delivery of static file metadata and receiver self-generation self generation of
dynamic file metadata avoids the necessity of continuously sending
the FDT Instances FDT-Instances for real-time objects. Such modified FDT
functionality in ROUTE is referred to as the Extended FDT.

9.3. In Band In-Band Signaling of Object Transfer Length

As an extension to FLUTE, ROUTE allows for using EXT_TOL LCT header
extension with 24 bits or, if required, 48 bits of to signal the
Transfer Length directly within the ROUTE packet.

The transport object length can also be determined without the use of
EXT_TOL by examining the LCT packet with the Close Object (B) flag. flag (B).
However, if this packet is lost, then the EXT_TOL information can be
used by the receiver to determine the transport object length.

Applications using ROUTE for delivery of low-latency streaming
content may make use of this feature for sender-end latency
optimizations: the sender does not have to wait for the completion of
the packaging of a whole Application Object to find its transfer
length Transfer
Length to be included in the FDT before the sending can start.
Rather, partially encoded data can already be started to be sent via
the ROUTE sender. As the time approaches when the encoding of the
Application Object is nearing completion, and the length of the
object becomes known (e.g. (e.g., the time of writing the last CMAF Chunk
of a DASH segment), only then the sender can signal the object length
using the EXT TOL LCT header. For example, for a 2 seconds 2-second DASH
segment with 100 millisecond 100-millisecond chunks, it may result in saving up to
1.9 second latency at the sending end.

9.4. Repair Protocol Concepts

The ROUTE repair protocol is FEC-based and is enabled as an
additional layer between the transport layer (e.g., UDP) and the
object delivery layer protocol. The FEC reuses concepts of the FEC
Framework defined in RFC 6363 [RFC6363], but in contrast to the FEC
Framework in RFC 6363 [RFC6363] [RFC6363], the ROUTE repair protocol does not
protect packets, packets but instead it protects delivery objects as delivered in
the source protocol. In addition, as an extension to FLUTE, it
supports the protection of multiple objects in one source block which
is in alignment with the FEC Framework as defined in RFC 6363
[RFC6363]. Each FEC source block may consist of parts of a delivery
object, as a single delivery object (similar to FLUTE) or multiple
delivery objects that are bundled prior to FEC protection. ROUTE FEC
makes use of FEC schemes in a similar way as those defined in RFC
5052 [RFC5052] and uses the terminology of that document. The FEC
scheme defines the FEC encoding and decoding, decoding as well as the protocol
fields and procedures used to identify packet payload data in the
context of the FEC scheme.

In ROUTE ROUTE, all packets are LCT packets as defined in RFC 5651
[RFC5651]. Source and repair packets may be distinguished by:

* Different ROUTE sessions; sessions, i.e., they are carried on different
UDP/IP UDP/
IP port combinations.

* Different LCT channels; channels, i.e., they use different TSI values in the
LCT header.

* The most significant PSI bit in the LCT, if carried in the same
LCT channel. This mode of operation is mostly suitable for FLUTE-
compatible deployments.

10. Interoperability Chart

As noted in prevision sections, ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] and DVB-MABR
[DVBMABR] are considered services using this document that constrain
specific features as well as add new ones. In this context, the
following table is an informative comparison of the interoperability
of ROUTE as specified in this document, document with the ATSC-ROUTE [ATSCA331] and
DVB-MABR [DVBMABR]:

+---------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+

Table 3: Interoperability Chart

11. Security and Privacy Considerations

11.1. Security Considerations

As noted in Section 9, ROUTE is aligned with FLUTE as specified in
RFC 6726 [RFC6726] (see Section 9), and only diverges in certain signaling
optimizations, especially for the real-time object delivery case. Hence
Hence, most of the security considerations documented in RFC 6726
[RFC6726] for the data flow itself, the session metadata (session
control parameters in RFC 6726 [RFC6726]), and the associated
building blocks apply directly to ROUTE, ROUTE as elaborated in the
following along with some additional considerations.

Both encryption and integrity protection applied either on file or
packet level, as recommended in the file corruption considerations of
RFC 6726 [RFC6726] [RFC6726], SHOULD be used for ROUTE. Additionally, RFC 3740
[RFC3740] documents multicast security architecture in great detail
with clear security recommendations which that SHOULD be followed.

When ROUTE is carried over UDP and a reverse channel from receiver to
sender is available, the security mechanisms provided in RFC 6347
[RFC6347] SHALL apply. At the time, draft DTLS 1.3 based on TSL 1.3
[DTLS13] is pending publication, and may 9147
[RFC9147] SHOULD be considered as the
alternate means for security post publication. applied.

In regard to considerations for attacks against session description,
this document does not specify the semantics or mechanism of delivery
of session metadata, though the same threats apply for service using
ROUTE as well. Hence Hence, a service using ROUTE SHOULD take these
threats into consideration and address them appropriately following
the
guideline guidelines provided by RFC 6726 [RFC6726]. Additionally Additionally, to the
recommendations of RFC 6726 [RFC6726], for Internet connected
devices, services SHOULD enable clients to access the session
description information using HTTPS with customary
authentication/authorization, authentication/
authorization, instead of sending this data via multicast/broadcast,
since considerable security work has been done already in this
unicast domain domain, which can enable highly secure access of session
description data. Accessing via unicast however unicast, however, will have
different privacy considerations, noted in Section 11.2. Note that
in general the multicast/broadcast stream is delayed with respect to
the unicast stream. Therefore, the session description protocol
SHOULD be time-synchronized time synchronized with the broadcast stream, particularly
if the session description contains security-related information.

In regard to FDT, there is one key difference for File Mode when
using File Template in EFDT, which avoids repeated sending of FDT
instance FDT-
Instances and hence hence, the corresponding threats noted in RFC 6726
[RFC6726] do not apply directly to ROUTE in this case. The threat
however threat,
however, is shifted to the ALC/LCT headers, since they carry the
additional signaling that enables determining Content-Location and
File@Transfer-Length in this case. Hence Hence, integrity protection
recommendations of ALC/LCT header SHOULD be considered with higher
emphasis in this case for ROUTE.

Finally, attacks against the congestion control building block for
the case of ROUTE can impact the optional fast stream acquisition
specified in Section 6.2. Receivers SHOULD have robustness against
timestamp values that are suspicious, e.g. e.g., by comparing the signaled
time in the LCT headers with the approximate time signaled by the
MPD, and SHOULD discard outlying values. Additionally, receivers
MUST adhere to the expiry timelines as specified in Section 6.
Integrity protection mechanisms documented in RFC 6726 [RFC6726]
SHOULD be used to address this threat.

11.2. Privacy Considerations

Encryption mechanisms recommended for security considerations in
Section 11.1 SHOULD also be applied to enable privacy and protection
from snooping attacks.

Since this protocol is primarily targeted for IP multicast/broadcast
environment
environments where the end user is mostly listening, identity
protection and user data retention considerations are more protected
than in the unicast case. Best practices for enabling privacy on IP
multicast/broadcast SHOULD be applied by the operators, e.g.
Recommendations e.g.,
"Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators Operators" in RFC 8932
[RFC8932].

However, if clients access session description information via HTTPS,
the same privacy considerations and solutions SHALL apply to this
access as for regular HTTPS communication, an area which that is very well
studied and the concepts of which are being integrated directly into
newer transport protocols such as IETF QUIC [RFC9000] enabling HTTP/3
[HTTP3]. Hence Hence, such newer protocols SHOULD be used to foster
privacy.

Note that streaming services MAY contain content that may only be
accessed via DRM (digital rights management) systems. DRM systems
can prevent unauthorized access to content delivered via ROUTE.

12. IANA Considerations

This document makes has no requests for IANA action. actions.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

[ATSCA331] Advanced Television Systems Committee, "Signaling,
Delivery, Synchronization, and Error Protection", ATSC
Standard A/331:2022-03, March 2022.

[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3",
RFC 1952, DOI 10.17487/RFC1952, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1952>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC2557] Palme, J., Hopmann, A., and N. Shelness, "MIME
Encapsulation of Uppercase vs Lowercase in Aggregate Documents, such as HTML
(MHTML)", RFC 2119
Key Words", BCP 14, FC 8174, 2557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174 10.17487/RFC2557, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2557>.

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and L. Vicisano, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Building Block", RFC 5052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5052, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5052>.

[RFC5445] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Schemes", RFC 5445, DOI 10.17487/RFC5445, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5445>.

[RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding
Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5651, October 2009.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5651 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5651>.

[RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5775, April 2010.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5775

[RFC6726] Paila, T., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., Roca, V., Walsh, R.,
"FLUTE-File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport." 2012.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6726 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5775>.

[RFC6330] Luby, M., Shokrollahi, A., Watson, M., Stockhammer, T.,
and
Minder, L. Minder, "RaptorQ forward error correction scheme for object
delivery", 2011.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6330

[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and Masinter, L., "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", January 2005.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

[RFC1952] Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3,"
Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, May, 1996.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952

[RFC2557] Palme, J., Hopmann, A. and Shelness, N., "MIME
Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", Internet
Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March 1999.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557

[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner,
"Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2
Message Specification," Internet Engineering Task Force, Fremont, CA,
January 2010.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8551
[RFC5445] Watson, M., "Basic Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes,"
Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston, VA, March, 2009.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5445

[RFC5052] Watson, M., Luby, M., and Vicisano, L., "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Building Block," Internet Engineering Task Force,
Reston, VA, Scheme
for Object Delivery", RFC 6330, DOI 10.17487/RFC6330,
August 2007. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5052 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6330>.

[RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A. A., and V. Roca, V., "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Framework," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
VA, October, 2011. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6363

[RFC7231] IETF Framework", RFC 7231 6363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363>.

[RFC6726] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.

[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231

[ATSCA331] ATSC A/331:2019: "ATSC Standard: Signaling, Delivery,
Synchronization, 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and Error Protection", 20 June 2019. S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.

13.2. Informative References

[RFC6968] Roca, V. and Adamson, B., "FCAST: Object Delivery

[CMAF] International Organization for the
Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Reliable
Multicast (NORM) Protocols," Internet Engineering Task Force, Reston,
VA, July, 2013. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6968

[DVBMABR] ETSI: "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Adaptive Standardization,
"Information technology -- Multimedia application format
(MPEG-A) -- Part 19: Common media
streaming over IP multicast", ETSI TS 103 769 V1.1.1 (2020-11)
November 2020.

[DASH] application format
(CMAF) for segmented media", First edition, ISO/IEC 23009-1:2019:
FDIS 23000-19, January 2018,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/71975.html>.

[DASH] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology - Dynamic adaptive streaming over
HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media presentation description and
segment formats", Fourth edition, December 2019.

[CMAF] ISO/IEC 23000-19:2018: "Information technology - Multimedia
application format (MPEG-A) - Part 19: Common 23009-1:2019,
December 2019, <https://www.iso.org/standard/79329.html>.

[DVBMABR] ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Adaptive media application
format (CMAF) for segmented media", First edition, January 2018.
streaming over IP multicast", version 1.1.1, ETSI TS 103
769, November 2020.

[HTTP3] Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
http-34>.

[MBMS] ETSI: ETSI, "Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS);
LTE; 5G; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS);
Protocols and
codecs (3GPP TS 26.346 codecs", version 13.3.0 Release 13)," Doc. 16.9.1, ETSI TS 126
346 v13.3.0 (2016-01), European Telecommunications Standards
Institute, January 2016. 346,
May 2021.

[RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
Architecture", RFC 3740, DOI 10.17487/RFC3740, March 2004,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3740.

[HTTP3] M. Bishop, Ed, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-34, February 2021.

[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed., and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3740>.

[RFC6968] Roca, V. and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

[RFC6347] Rescorla E. B. Adamson, "FCAST: Object Delivery for the
Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and N. Modadugu. "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", NACK-Oriented
Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocols", RFC 6347, 6968,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January 2012,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347. 10.17487/RFC6968, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6968>.

[RFC8932] Dickinson, S., Overeinder, B., van Rijswijk-Deij, R., and
A. Mankin, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service
Operators", BCP 232, RFC 8932, DOI 10.17487/RFC8932,
October 2020, https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8932.

[DTLS13] <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8932>.

[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, N., "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-tls-dtls13, February 2022.

14. RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.

Acknowledgments

As outlined in the introduction and in ROUTE concepts in Section 9,
the concepts specified in this document are the culmination of the
collaborative work of several experts and organizations over the
years. The authors would especially like to acknowledge the work and
efforts of the following people and organizations to help realize the
technologies described in this document (in no specific order): Mike
Luby, Kent Walker, Charles Lo, and other colleagues from Qualcomm
Incorporated, LG Electronics, Nomor Research, Sony, and BBC R&D.

Authors' Addresses

Waqar Zia
Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, 13
81671 Munich
Germany
Email: wzia@qti.qualcomm.com

Thomas Stockhammer
Qualcomm CDMA Technologies GmbH
Anzinger Str. 13, 81671, Munich, 13
81671 Munich
Germany
Email: tsto@qti.qualcomm.com

Lenaig Chaponniere
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California CA 92121
USA
United States of America
Email: lguellec@qti.qualcomm.com

Giridhar Mandyam
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California CA 92121
USA
United States of America
Email: mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com

Michael Luby
BitRipple, Inc.
1133 Miller Ave
Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94708
USA
United States of America
Email: luby@bitripple.com