Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                            R. EvenRequest for Comments: 4628                                       PolycomCategory: Informational                                     January 2007RTP Payload Format for H.263 MovingRFC 2190 to Historic StatusStatus of This Memo   This memo provides information 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 IETF Trust (2007).Abstract   The first RFC that describes an RTP payload format for ITU   Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendation H.263   isRFC 2190.  This specification discusses why to moveRFC 2190 to   historic status.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Terminology .....................................................23. Recommendation ..................................................24. Security Considerations .........................................35. Normative References ............................................36. Informative References ..........................................3Even                         Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4628RFC 2190 to Historic              January 20071.  Introduction   The ITU-T recommendation H.263 [H263] specifies the encoding used by   ITU-T-compliant video-conference codecs.  The first version (version   1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU, and a payload format for   encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-time Transport   Protocol (RTP) is inRFC 2190 [RFC2190].  In 1998 the ITU approved a   new version of H.263 [H263P] that is also known as H.263 plus.  This   version added optional features, and a new payload format is now inRFC 2429 [RFC2429].RFC 2429 is capable of carrying encoded video   bit streams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options.RFC 2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replaceRFC 2190, which   continues to be used by existing implementations and may be required   for backward compatibility in new implementations.  Implementations   using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 and later   versions shall use the format described inRFC 2429.RFC 2429 is now being revised and will include language that will   make it clear that all new implementations MUST useRFC 4629   [RFC4629] for encoding of any version of H.263.2.  Terminology   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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119] and   indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.3.  RecommendationRFC 2429 andRFC 4629 [RFC4629] can be used to carry new H.263   payloads even if they are using only the features defined in the 1996   version.  All the H.263 features that are part of the 1996 version   are also part of the 1998 version and later versions.   It is recommended thatRFC 2190 be moved to historic status and that,   as stated inRFC 4629 [RFC4629], new implementations use theRFC 4629   and the H263-1998 and H263-2000 Media Types.   This recommendation will come into effect at the publication or as   soon as possible after the publication ofRFC 4629 [RFC4629].Even                         Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4628RFC 2190 to Historic              January 20074.  Security Considerations   Security considerations for the H263 video RTP payload can be found   in theRFC 4629 [RFC4629].  Using the payload specification inRFC4629 instead of that inRFC 2190 does not affect the security   consideration since both of them refer toRFC 3550 [RFC3550] andRFC3551 [RFC3551] for security considerations.5.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.6.  Informative References   [H263]     International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for              low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,              March 1996.   [H263P]    International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for              low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,              January 2005.   [RFC2190]  Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams",RFC2190, September 1997.   [RFC2429]  Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco,              C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C.              Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T              Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)",RFC 2429, October 1998.   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time              Applications", STD 64,RFC 3550, July 2003.   [RFC3551]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and              Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65,RFC 3551,              July 2003.   [RFC4629]  Ott, J., Borman, C., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R.              Even, Ed., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263              Video",RFC 4629, January 2007.Even                         Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4628RFC 2190 to Historic              January 2007Author's Address   Roni Even   Polycom   94 Derech Em Hamoshavot   Petach Tikva  49130   Israel   EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.ilEven                         Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4628RFC 2190 to Historic              January 2007Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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, THE IETF TRUST 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Even                         Informational                      [Page 5]