WebRTC RTP Transport

Unofficial Proposal Draft,

More details about this document
This version:
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-rtptransport
Latest published version:
https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc-rtptransport/
Feedback:
public-webrtc@w3.org with subject line “[webrtc-rtptransport] … message topic …” (archives)
GitHub
Editors:
(Microsoft Corporation)
(Microsoft Corporation)
Participate:
Git Repository.
File an issue.
Version History:
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-rtptransport/commits

Abstract

The WebRTC-RtpTransport API allows web applications to send and receive RTP/RTCP packets using the protocol defined in [RFC3550].

Status of this document

1. Introduction

This section is non-normative.

This specification uses [RFC3550] to send and receive RTP and RTCP packets.

Note: The API presented in this specification represents a preliminary proposal based on work-in-progress within the W3C WEBRTC WG. As a result, the API is likely to change significantly going forward.

2. Conformance

As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

This specification defines conformance criteria that apply to a single product: the user agent that implements the interfaces that it contains.

Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent. (In particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are intended to be easy to follow, and not intended to be performant.)

Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined in this specification MUST implement them in a manner consistent with the ECMAScript Bindings defined in the Web IDL specification [WEBIDL], as this specification uses that specification and terminology.

3. Terminology

Terminology definitions go here.

4. RTCRtpTransport Interface

4.1. Internal slots

4.2. Constructor

4.3. Attributes

4.4. Methods

5. Privacy and security considerations

5.1. Confidentiality of Communications

5.2. State Persistence

5.3. Protocol Security

5.4. Fingerprinting and Tracking

6. Examples

See the explainer document.

7. Acknowledgements

The editors wish to thank the WEBRTC Working Group chairs and Team Contact for their support.

References

Normative References

[RFC2119]
S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997. Best Current Practice. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119
[RFC3550]
H. Schulzrinne; et al. RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications. July 2003. RFC. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3550
[RFC8174]
B. Leiba. Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words. May 2017. Best Current Practice. URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174
[WEBIDL]
Edgar Chen; Timothy Gu. Web IDL Standard. Living Standard. URL: https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/