Overview | | Project Title | Specifications for Real-time Protocol as transport for voice & video | Approval | Approved | Document Number | 766.3 | Charter | 6.08 Motion Imagery and Applications Working Group | Document Type | Blue | Description of Document | When the MIA blue book was originally defined, the broadcast industry had centered on the MPEG-2 transport stream (M2TS) standard, originally released in 1995, as a method to send pseudo-packetized video over satellite networks. As the industry settled upon IP-based systems, M2TS was adopted as the de facto standard for transmission of compressed video via IP systems.
The nature of Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) showcases the limitations of the M2TS standard. As M2TS performs interleaving and packetization with a very strict limit on packet-by-packet jitter, it becomes imperative that bundles are received in-order at a consistent rate, something which DTN does not excel at. RTP is designed for the internet environment, and allows for variable sized packets, amongst other advantages with regards to synchronization of multiple sources, etc. DLR experimentation has shown that a system designed along the lines of RTP is well-suited to DTN networks.
Therefore, MIA proposes a blue book outlining the specifications for RTP as a transport for voice, video, and optional metadata in space-based DTN networks. | Applicable Patents | There are no patent issues for this technology that are known by the CCSDS community | Patent Comments | Similar to the previous video and voice Blue Books, this book will specify application of other existing protocols and standards for use in the space application. | Survey of Similar Standards
Documents or Projects
Undertaken in Other Bodies
and elsewhere in CCSDS | While there aren't any space-link/BP specific variants of RTP within CCSDS, most RTP related work is done under the IETF & IANA. A brief overview of RTP-related IETF RFC's comes up empty. However, since it is very likely that the Session Description Protocol (SDP) may also come into play as a media description syntax, those standards must also be checked out. IANA is responsible for the registration of various values within SDP, including the couple we will interact with:
· Nettype – The network type. IN is reserved for internet destinations, but ATM and PSTN are also allocated. We might need to allocate CCSDS or BP.
· Addrtype – The address type, such as IP4 and IP6. Similarly, we might have to allocate a special type for this.
Otherwise, within CCSDS, there was a showcase of RTP over IP over CCSDS completed in 2009 by Loren Clare from JPL, which used suggestions from the CCSDS standard for space link identifiers (CCSDS 135.0-B-4). Namely, they compressed RTP headers (via IETF RFC 2508) and piped it over various space-link doohickies. | Resources | | Book Editor | NASA | Book Editor Resources | 6 Man Months | Prototype 1 | DLR | Prototype 1 Resources | 3 Man Months | Prototype 2 | NASA | Prototype 2 Resources | 3 Man Months | Prototype 3 | | Prototype 3 Resources | | Contribute | DLR, ESA, FSA, NASA | Monitor Only | CNES, JAXA | Resource Comments | There may be some contributions from DTN Working Group members depending on the availability of their time and the amount of DTN related content in our Blue Book. |
| | Schedule | |
Legend for Schedule Milestones
= Required for Orange Books
= Required for Green Books
= Required for Magenta Books
= Required for Blue Books
Note - Red Books are Draft Blue/Magenta Books
Schedule Milestones |  |  |  |  | Original Completion Date
(Date in M/D/YYYY format.) | Estimated Completion Date
(Date in M/D/YYYY format.) | Actual Completion Date
(Date in M/D/YYYY format.) | Comments
(Date in M/D/YYYY format.) | | Project Approved | | | | | 10/16/2017 | | 10/3/2017 | | | Project Start Date | | | | | 11/6/2017 | | 11/6/2017 | | | Internal WG Review | | | | | | | | | | First Draft Circulated to WG | | | | | 4/16/2018 | 4/27/2018 | 2/15/2018 | | | First Draft Comments Due | | | | | 5/18/2018 | 5/18/2018 | 5/18/2018 | | | Second draft circulated to WG | | | | | 12/10/2018 | 12/10/2018 | 12/10/2018 | | | Second Draft Comments Due | | | | | 1/21/2019 | 3/15/2019 | 3/15/2019 | | | Final WB Submitted to AD for Further Processing | | | | | 6/14/2019 | 8/16/2019 | 8/15/2019 | | | External Milestones | | | | | | | | | | Secretariat Document Processing | | | | | 8/2/2019 | 9/27/2019 | 10/22/2019 | | | First Agency Review | | | | | 6/10/2019 | 3/2/2020 | 3/6/2020 | | | RID Resolution | | | | | 9/30/2019 | 5/8/2020 | 5/4/2020 | | | Secretariat Document Processing 2 | | | | | 11/4/2019 | 8/14/2020 | 8/14/2020 | | | Final Agency Review | | | | | 1/6/2020 | 10/1/2020 | 10/20/2020 | | | RID Resolution | | | | | 3/2/2020 | 7/31/2021 | 11/4/2021 | | | First Prototype Development | | | | | 5/13/2019 | 6/14/2019 | 5/2/2019 | | | Second Prototype Development | | | | | 5/13/2019 | 3/2/2020 | 3/2/2020 | | | CMC Approval | | | | | 5/1/2020 | 6/1/2022 | | | Total Time to Complete
(in months) | | | | | 29 | 1,445 | | |
|
