RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VVC)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-18

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, avt@ietf.org, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, superuser@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VVC)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-18.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for Versatile Video Coding (VVC)'
  (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc-18.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-vvc/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding
   standard ITU-T Recommendation H.266 and ISO/IEC International
   Standard 23090-3, both also known as Versatile Video Coding (VVC) and
   developed by the Joint Video Experts Team (JVET).  The RTP payload
   format allows for packetization of one or more Network Abstraction
   Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet payload as well as fragmentation
   of a NAL unit into multiple RTP packets.  The payload format has wide
   applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and
   high-bitrate entertainment-quality video, among other applications.

Working Group Summary

   The VVC payload specification resembles the RTP payload
   specification for HEVC (RFC 7798), so discussion in the WG focused
   on the differences between the VVC and HEVC codecs and the impact
   on the RTP payload format.

   The VVC RTP payload specification has been simplified, compared
   with HEVC. SDP optional parameters have been reduced.
   While HEVC supported SRST, MRST and MRMT transmission
   modes, VVC only supports SRST, which has been the most commonly
   implemented transmission mode for H.264/SVC and HEVC. As a
   result, the VVC RTP payload specification does not require the
   tx-mode parameter.

   The VVC RTP payload specification also has removed discussion of the
   Slice Loss Indication (SLI) and Reference Picture Selection Indication
   (RPSI) Feedback Messages, both of which are rarely implemented with
   modern codecs.

   In addition to these and other simplifications, the WG discussed support
   for the Framemarking RTP header extension and concluded that it need not
   be supported by the VVC RTP payload specification.

Document Quality

   There are existing implementations of the VVC (H.266) encoder and decoder,
   including the VVC Test Model. See: https://jvet.hhi.fraunhofer.de/

   There is a prototype implementation of the VVC RTP payload specification
   covering the mandatory and some optional features of the media plane. There is
   no known implementation of the SDP signaling. So far, there have not been any
   interop events relating to the VVC RTP payload specification.

   There have been no MIB Doctor, Yang Doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd is Bernard Aboba. The Responsible AD is Murray Kucherawy.

RFC Editor Note