RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-03-17
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-03-08
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-02-26
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-11-25
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-11-24
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-11-23
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2015-11-23
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-11-23
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-11-23
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-11-23
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-11-23
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-11-23
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-23
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-20
|
15 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-11-19
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-11-17
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-11-16
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-11-16
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-11-13
|
15 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-11-12
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-11-12
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-11-09
|
15 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19 |
2015-11-09
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for taking my discuss points into account. The comments below were for an earlier version, I've not checked if related changes were … [Ballot comment] Thanks for taking my discuss points into account. The comments below were for an earlier version, I've not checked if related changes were made or not. (And there's no need to come back to me about that unless you want to.) - General: I was puzzled as to why there is so much text that is presumably non-normative explanatory text covering what is elsewehere in (I guess) ITU documents. It seems like there is a lot, but not enough, here for an implementer. - 4.1: " The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified here. " Huh? That's confusing. For me at least. - p75 - why would md5 ever be most-preferred these days? Better to not say that, even in an example. Even better would be to deprecate md5 even for this non-security purpose to simplify code-audit. Or, if there is some reason why e.g. sha256 isn't suited then explaining that would also help for code-audits. |
2015-11-09
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-11-05
|
15 | Ye-Kui Wang | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-11-05
|
15 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-15.txt |
2015-10-14
|
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from payload-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-17
|
14 | Ali Begen | This document now replaces draft-schierl-payload-rtp-h265 instead of None |
2015-09-10
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-02
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2015-09-02
|
14 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-09-02
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] 1. Section 1.1 is hugely long, and I wonder why it's necessary. Can someone really skip the HEVC reference because you've included all … [Ballot comment] 1. Section 1.1 is hugely long, and I wonder why it's necessary. Can someone really skip the HEVC reference because you've included all this? Is it really worth including all this, when people who need to know it should be getting it from the proper HEVC documents? 2. In Section 7.1, the media-type registration template has a tremendously long "optional parameters" section. I strongly suggest that you move all that text into another subsection, and refer to it in the template, like this: NEW OPTIONAL parameters: profile-space, tier-flag, profile-id, profile-compatibility- indicator, interop-constraints, and level-id. See Section of RFC XXXX for details. END IANA will keep the template and make it available, and it's not intended to have such an extended technical exposition in it. That belongs in the reference document only. |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's first discuss. |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] (1) For a 99 page detailed specification, the security considerations are tremendously brief. There are two non-boilerplate paragraphs - one says developers "MUST … [Ballot discuss] (1) For a 99 page detailed specification, the security considerations are tremendously brief. There are two non-boilerplate paragraphs - one says developers "MUST exercise caution" (meaning what precisely?) and the other extolls the virtues of not encrypting. For a 99 page specification of a highly non-trivial encoding scheme, I would have expected to see the results of a better analysis. Was that analysis done? That should at least include consideration of the CVEs already published relating to H.264 [1] which include 34 CVEs relating to various kinds of remote-code-execution and DoS. If the authors here are asserting that this presumably more complex codec will have few vulnerabilities, then I would welcome seeing the justification for that statement. (Note: In some cases with payload drafts, authors can fairly claim that the I-D does not describe the payload in detail and hence that the security considerations text need not be comprehensive as implementers are expected to find that elsewhere. In this case, the 99 pages strongly argues otherwise IMO - there are plenty of ways to go badly wrong implementing what is stated in this draft.) To summarise: "MUST exercise caution" is not useful, can't you translate that into actionable advice to an implementer based on experience with security issues found with this and similar codecs? [1] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=h.264 (2) This is just a process nit probably. The shepherd write-up doesn't mention the Nokia IPR declaration. Were the WG also ok with that one? The write-up seems to pre-date that latest IPR declaration, which is from a company that seems to employ one of the authors. That is odd timing really so can someone explain the sequence of events and why all is well? |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - General: I was puzzled as to why there is so much text that is presumably non-normative explanatory text covering what is elsewehere … [Ballot comment] - General: I was puzzled as to why there is so much text that is presumably non-normative explanatory text covering what is elsewehere in (I guess) ITU documents. It seems like there is a lot, but not enough, here for an implementer. - 4.1: " The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is outside the scope of this document and will not be specified here. " Huh? That's confusing. For me at least. - p75 - why would md5 ever be most-preferred these days? Better to not say that, even in an example. Even better would be to deprecate md5 even for this non-security purpose to simplify code-audit. Or, if there is some reason why e.g. sha256 isn't suited then explaining that would also help for code-audits. |
2015-09-01
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-08-31
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-08-31
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-08-28
|
14 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-08-27
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-08-27
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-08-27
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-08-26
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-03 |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-08-25
|
14 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-08-24
|
14 | Ye-Kui Wang | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-08-24
|
14 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-14.txt |
2015-08-23
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Qin Wu. |
2015-08-14
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-08-11
|
13 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-08-11
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-08-11
|
13 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-13, and its reviewer has the following comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will register … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-13, and its reviewer has the following comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following video media type: H265 [RFC-to-be] If this assessment is inaccurate, please let us know. |
2015-08-10
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2015-08-10
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2015-08-09
|
13 | Jouni Korhonen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jouni Korhonen was rejected |
2015-08-06
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-08-06
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-08-06
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2015-08-06
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Lt. Mundy |
2015-08-03
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-08-03
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP Payload Format for High … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads WG (payload) to consider the following document: - 'RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding' as Proposed Standard Please note that this draft has a normative reference to ITU-T Recommendation H.265, "High efficiency video coding", April 2013. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding standard ITU-T Recommendation H.265 and ISO/IEC International Standard 23008-2, both also known as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) and developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC). 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. Furthermore, it supports transmission of an HEVC bitstream over a single as well as multiple RTP streams. When multiple RTP streams are used, a single or multiple transports may be utilized. The payload format has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and high bit-rate entertainment-quality video, among others. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2376/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2321/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2508/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2190/ |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-07-31
|
13 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-07-19
|
13 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Expert Review |
2015-06-03
|
13 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-13.txt |
2015-06-03
|
12 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-12.txt |
2015-06-02
|
11 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-11.txt |
2015-05-29
|
10 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-10.txt |
2015-05-26
|
09 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Expert Review from AD Evaluation |
2015-05-21
|
09 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-04-14
|
09 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-09.txt |
2015-04-10
|
08 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-08.txt |
2015-03-25
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2015-03-19
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-12-19
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Nokia Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-07 | |
2014-12-08
|
07 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-07.txt |
2014-09-23
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document will be a standard track RFC, it specifies and RTP payload format for ITU-T High Efficiency Video Coding (H.265). RTP payload format are standard track documents. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding standard ITU-T Recommendation H.265 and ISO/IEC International Standard 23008-2, both also known as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) and developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC). 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. Furthermore, it supports transmission of an HEVC bitstream over a single as well as multiple RTP streams. The payload format has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and high bit-rate entertainment-quality video, among others. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document was discussed on the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there were no controversies. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are existing implementations. The request for a media type review was posted on August 29th , 2014. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd is Roni Even and the responsible AD is Richard Barnes. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed the document in previous and current version and found it ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews before and during the WGLC. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No need (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. There was also a question to the authors to verify it. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are IPR disclosures from Ericsson and Vidyo (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265 ). The WG is aware and there are no concerns. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG understand the document and agree with it. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There was media type review (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are normative references to ITU-T documents (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA section is in line with the document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No need. |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | State Change Notice email list changed to payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265@tools.ietf.org |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | Responsible AD changed to Richard Barnes |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-13
|
06 | Roni Even | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-08-27
|
06 | Roni Even | Document shepherd changed to Roni Even |
2014-08-13
|
06 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-06.txt |
2014-08-05
|
05 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-05.txt |
2014-06-17
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-04 | |
2014-05-28
|
04 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-04.txt |
2014-04-30
|
03 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-03.txt |
2014-02-26
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Vidyo, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-02 | |
2014-02-12
|
02 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-02.txt |
2013-09-09
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-01 | |
2013-09-06
|
01 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-01.txt |
2013-07-01
|
00 | Ye-Kui Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265-00.txt |