Network Working Group                                           P. Jones
Request for Comments: 4612                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Historic                                             H. Tamura
                                                    Ricoh Company, LTD.
                                                            August 2006

               Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38
                      MIME Sub-type Registration

Status of This Memo

  This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.  It
  does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
  this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

  This document defines the MIME sub-type audio/t38.  The usage of this
  MIME type, which is intended for use within Session Description
  Protocol (SDP), is specified within ITU-T Recommendation T.38.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
  2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
  3. Mechanisms for Transporting T.38 over an IP Network .............2
  4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
  5. SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters ..................................5
  6. Security Considerations .........................................6
  7. Normative References ............................................6
  8. Informative References ..........................................6
















Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 1]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


1.  Introduction

  ITU-T Recommendation T.38 [1] defines the Internet Facsimile Protocol
  (IFP) for carriage of facsimile data over IP networks.  As one
  option, IFP packets may be carried within an RTP [3] stream, either
  as the only content within the media stream or switched with other
  audio payload types.

  This memo provides rationale for using RTP as a transport for fax
  signaling and specifies the MIME type associated with said signaling.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].

3.  Mechanisms for Transporting T.38 over an IP Network

  When T.38 was first approved in 1998, it allowed for the transport of
  T.38 via UDP (using UDP Transport Layer (UDPTL), rather than RTP) or
  TCP.  As of the time of this publication, UDPTL is the predominant
  means for transporting T.38 data over an IP network.  In support of
  that, RFC 3362 [11] was published in order to allow devices to signal
  their desire to use UDPTL to transport T.38.

  A number of issues were raised with respect to the usage of UDPTL for
  the long-term, though.  Specifically, there were concerns over the
  fact that UDPTL does not provide the same kind of statistics
  reporting as RTP Control Protocol (RTCP).  Further, there are no
  procedures in place for encrypting and protecting the integrity of
  the UDPTL stream.  While the latter could be addressed in UDPTL,
  doing so would require a lot of effort and would largely be a
  duplication of the security work already completed within the IETF;
  e.g., Secure RTP (SRTP) [10].

  There are clear advantages in using RTP for T.38 today.  For example,
  using RTP allows one to take advantage of the redundancy [12], header
  compression [13][14], and other RTP-related work within the IETF.
  Using RTP, as opposed to UDPTL, for transport provides better
  interoperability with a wider range of devices that know and
  understand RTP.  This includes applications such as firewalls,
  Network Address Translation (NAT) devices, and gateways that bridge
  two IP networks, which generally support RTP before most other real-
  time media.






Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 2]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


  Lastly, since today most T.38 data is generated by gateways that
  bridge two Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) networks, it is
  quite natural to expect that the transition from audio to fax should
  happen within the same media stream.  The reason is that the T.38
  data is simply an alternative representation of information received
  on the PSTN circuit.  If the T.38 data is encapsulated in RTP, the
  gateways can easily transition from audio to fax and back again and
  can simply use the payload type to indicate the type of media that it
  is currently transmitting.

  With these considerations in mind, the ITU-T amended T.38 [1] to
  allow RTP to be used to transport T.38.  With that, a new MIME
  registration (audio/t38) is needed to allow for T.38 to be switched
  along with audio within the same RTP session.

4.  IANA Considerations

  One new MIME type and associated RTP payload format has been
  registered, by the IANA as described below.

  To: [email protected] Subject: Registration of Standard MIME media
  type audio/t38

  MIME media type name: audio

  MIME subtype name: t38

  Required parameters:

     rate:  The RTP timestamp clock rate, which SHOULD be 8000Hz.  The
     clock frequency MAY be set to any value, but it SHOULD be set to
     the same value as that for any audio packets in the same RTP
     stream in order to avoid RTP timestamp rate switching.

     T38FaxRateManagement: Indicates the fax rate management model as
     defined in T.38.  Values may be "localTCF" or "transferredTCF".
     This parameter is defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.38.

  Optional parameters:

     T38FaxFillBitRemoval: Indicates the capability to remove and
     insert fill bits in Phase C (refer to [6]), non-ECM data to reduce
     bandwidth.  This is a boolean parameter (inclusion = true,
     exclusion = false).  This parameter is defined in ITU-T
     Recommendation T.38.






Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 3]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


     T38FaxTranscodingMMR: Indicates the ability to convert to/from MMR
     from/to the line format for increasing the compression of the data
     and reducing the bandwidth in the packet network.  This is a
     boolean parameter (inclusion = true, exclusion = false).  This
     parameter is defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.38.

     T38FaxTranscodingJBIG: Indicates the ability to convert to/from
     JBIG to reduce bandwidth.  This is a boolean parameter (inclusion
     = true, exclusion = false).  This parameter is defined in ITU-T
     Recommendation T.38.

     T38FaxVersion: This is the version number of ITU-T Rec. T.38.  New
     versions shall be compatible with previous versions.  Absence of
     this parameter indicates version 0.  The version is expressed as
     an integer value.  This parameter is defined in ITU-T
     Recommendation T.38.

     T38FaxMaxBuffer: Indicates the maximum number of octets that can
     be stored on the remote device before an overflow condition
     occurs.  It is the responsibility of the transmitting application
     to limit the transfer rate to prevent an overflow.  The negotiated
     data rate should be used to determine the rate at which data is
     being removed from the buffer.  Value is an integer.  This
     parameter is defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.38.

     T38FaxMaxDatagram: The maximum size of the payload within an RTP
     packet that can be accepted by the remote device.  This is an
     integer value.  This parameter is defined in ITU-T Recommendation
     T.38.

  Encoding considerations:

     The encoding of the IFP RTP packets is defined in ITU-T
     Recommendation T.38.  This sub-type is not intended for use with
     e-mail.

  Security considerations:

     See Section 6 of RFC 4612.

  Interoperability considerations:

     ITU-T Recommendation T.38 defines the procedures, syntax, and
     parameters for the carriage of T.38 over RTP within the context of
     H.323 [8], SIP [9], and H.248 [7] systems.






Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 4]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


  Published specification:

     ITU-T Recommendation T.38, "Procedures for real-time Group 3
     facsimile communication over IP networks", September 2005

  Applications which use this media type:

     Real-time facsimile (fax)

  Additional information:

     Magic number(s):  File extension(s):  Macintosh File Type Code(s):

  Person & email address to contact for further information:

     Paul E. Jones [email protected]

     Intended usage: COMMON

     Author/Change controller: Paul E. Jones

5.  SDP Mapping of MIME Parameters

  The MIME information described in Section 4 is utilized in SDP in
  order to establish T.38 media streams.  Specifically:

  o  The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

  o  The MIME subtype ("t38") goes in SDP "a=rtpmap" as the encoding
     name.

  o  The parameter "rate" also goes in "a=rtpmap" as clock rate.

  The MIME type defines several required and optional parameters to
  qualify the operation of T.38; these are to be used as defined in RFC
  3555 [5], Section 2.  The parameters are provided as a semi-colon
  separated list of "parameter" or "parameter=value" pairs using the
  "a=fmtp" parameter defined in SDP [2]; the "parameter" form is used
  for boolean values, where presence equals "true" and absence "false".

  Consider the following example, which describes a media stream that
  allows the transport of G.711 audio and T.38 fax information:

  m=audio 6800 RTP/AVP 0 98 a=rtpmap:98 t38/8000 a=fmtp:98
  T38FaxVersion=2;T38FaxRateManagement=transferredTCF






Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 5]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


6.  Security Considerations

  T.38 is vulnerable to attacks that are common to other types of RTP
  and SRTP payloads.  However, unlike audio, T.38 data may be
  manipulated in ways that are more obtrusive than audio.  For example,
  rogue packets may cause transmission failure, and manipulated packets
  may alter terminal identity.

  The security considerations discussed in the RTP specification and
  any applicable RTP profile (for example, [10]) are applicable to
  T.38.  Regarding SRTP configuration, fax payloads SHOULD NOT use an
  HMAC-SHA1 authentication tag that is shorter than 80 bits.

7.  Normative References

  [1]  ITU-T Recommendation T.38, "Procedures for real-time Group 3
       facsimile communication over IP networks", September 2005.

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

  [3]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
       "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
       RFC 3550, July 2003.

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

  [5]  Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP
       Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003.

  [6]  ITU-T Recommendation T.30, "Procedures for document facsimile
       transmission in the general switched telephone network", July
       2003.

8.  Informative References

  [7]  ITU-T Recommendation H.248, "Gateway Control Protocol", May
       2002.

  [8]  ITU-T Recommendation H.323, "Packet-based multimedia
       communications systems", May 2003.

  [9]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
       Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
       Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.





Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 6]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


  [10] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
       Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC
       3711, March 2004.

  [11] Parsons, G., "Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - image/t38 MIME Sub-
       type Registration", RFC 3362, August 2002.

  [12] Perkins, C., et al., "RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data", RFC
       2198, September 1997.

  [13] Casner, S. and V. Jacobson, "Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for
       Low-Speed Serial Links", RFC 2508, February 1999.

  [14] Koren, T., Casner, S., Geevarghese, J., Thompson, B., and P.
       Ruddy, "Enhanced Compressed RTP (CRTP) for Links with High
       Delay, Packet Loss and Reordering", RFC 3545, July 2003.

Authors' Addresses

  Paul E. Jones
  Cisco Systems, Inc.
  7025 Kit Creek Rd.
  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

  Phone: +1 919 392 6948
  EMail: [email protected]


  Hiroshi Tamura
  Ricoh Company, LTD.
  1-3-6 Nakamagome, Ohta-ku,
  Tokyo 143-8555 Japan

  Phone: +81-3-3777-8124
  Fax: +81-3-5742-8859
  EMail: [email protected]















Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 7]

RFC 4612        Real-time Facsimile (T.38) - audio /t38      August 2006


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

  This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
  contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
  retain all their rights.

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
  OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
  ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
  INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
  INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
  WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
  made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
  on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
  found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
  such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
  http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
  Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Jones & Tamura                  Historic                        [Page 8]