AVT R. Even
Internet-Draft Polycom
Expires: June 20, 2005 December 20, 2004
RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This memo describes a scheme to packetize an H.261 video stream for
transport using the Real-time Transport Protocol, RTP, with any of
the underlying protocols that carry RTP.
This specification is a product of the Audio/Video Transport working
group within the Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are
solicited and should be addressed to the working group's mailing list
and/or the authors.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Structure of the packet stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Overview of the ITU-T recommendation H.261 . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Considerations for packetization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Specification of the packetization scheme . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 Usage of RTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 Recommendations for operation with hardware codecs . . . . 9
5. Packet loss issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1 Registration of MIME media type video/H261 . . . . . . 13
6.2 SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1 Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model . . . . . . . . 14
7. Backward Compatibility to RFC2032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1 Optional H.261-specific control packets . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2 New SDP optional parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Changes from previous versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1 changes from RFC 2032> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2 Changes from bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 22
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
1. Introduction
The ITU-T recommendation H.261[H261] specifies the encoding used by
ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs. Although these encoding
were originally specified for fixed data rate ISDN circuits,
experiments [INRIA],[MICE] have shown that they can also be used over
packet-switched networks such as the Internet.
The purpose of this memo is to specify the RTP payload format for
encapsulating H.261 video streams in RTP[RFC3550].
This document updates RFC2032. The intention is to move the new RFC
to draft standard.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
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 in RFC2119[RFC2119] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
3. Structure of the packet stream
3.1 Overview of the ITU-T recommendation H.261
The H.261 coding is organized as a hierarchy of groupings. The video
stream is composed of a sequence of images, or frames, which are
themselves organized as a set of Groups of Blocks (GOB). Note that
H.261 "pictures" are referred as "frames" in this document. Each GOB
holds a set of 3 lines of 11 macro blocks (MB). each MB of 16x16
pixels the luminance information is encoded for each pixel, sub
divided into four 8x8 groups. While the chrominance information is
subsampled, for 2x2 pixels, resulting in color resolution of 8x8
within the MB. These components and the codes representing their
sampled values are as defined in the ITU-R Recommendation 601
[BT601].
This grouping is used to specify information at each level of the
hierarchy:
- At the frame level, one specifies information such as the delay
from the previous frame, the image format, and various indicators.
- At the GOB level, one specifies the GOB number and the default
quantifier that will be used for the MBs.
- At the MB level, one specifies which blocks are present and
which did not change, and optionally a quantifier and motion vectors.
Blocks which have changed are encoded by computing the discrete
cosine transform (DCT) of their coefficients, which are then
quantized and Huffman encoded (Variable Length Codes).
The H.261 Huffman encoding includes a special "GOB start" pattern,
which is a word of 16 bits, 0000 0000 0000 0001. This pattern is
included at the beginning of each GOB header (and also at the
beginning of each frame header) to mark the separation between two
GOBs, and is in fact used as an indicator that the current GOB is
terminated. The encoding also includes a stuffing pattern, composed
of seven zero bits followed by four bits with a value of one; that
stuffing pattern can only be entered between the encoding of MBs, or
just before the GOB separator.
3.2 Considerations for packetization
H.261 codecs designed for operation over ISDN circuits produce a bit
stream composed of several levels of encoding specified by H.261 and
companion recommendations. The bits resulting from the Huffman
encoding are arranged in 512-bit frames, containing 2 bits of
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
synchronization, 492 bits of data and 18 bits of error correcting
code. The 512-bit frames are then interlaced with an audio stream
and transmitted over px64 kbps circuits according to specification
H.221 [H221].
When transmitting over the Internet, we will directly consider the
output of the Huffman encoding. All the bits produced by the Huffman
encoding stage will be included in the packet. We will not carry the
512-bit frames, as protection against bit errors can be obtained by
other means. Similarly, we will not attempt to multiplex audio and
video signals in the same packets, as UDP and RTP provide a much more
efficient way to achieve multiplexing.
Directly transmitting the result of the Huffman encoding over an
unreliable stream of UDP datagrams would, however, have poor error
resistance characteristics. The result of the hierarchical structure
of H.261 bit stream is that one needs to receive the information
present in the frame header to decode the GOBs, as well as the
information present in the GOB header to decode the MBs. Without
precautions, this would mean that one has to receive all the packets
that carry an image in order to properly decode its components.
If each image could be carried in a single packet, this requirement
would not create a problem. However, a video image or even one GOB
by itself can sometimes be too large to fit in a single packet.
Therefore, the MB is taken as the unit of fragmentation. Packets
must start and end on a MB boundary, i.e. a MB cannot be split
across multiple packets. Multiple MBs may be carried in a single
packet when they will fit within the maximal packet size allowed.
This practice is recommended to reduce the packet send rate and
packet overhead.
To allow each packet to be processed independently for efficient
resynchronization in the presence of packet losses, some state
information from the frame header and GOB header is carried with each
packet to allow the MBs in that packet to be decoded. This state
information includes the GOB number in effect at the start of the
packet, the macroblock address predictor (i.e. the last MBA encoded
in the previous packet), the quantizer value in effect prior to the
start of this packet (GQUANT, MQUANT or zero in case of a beginning
of GOB) and the reference motion vector data (MVD) for computing the
true MVDs contained within this packet. The bit stream cannot be
fragmented between a GOB header and MB 1 of that GOB.
Moreover, since the compressed MB may not fill an integer number of
octets, the data header contains two three-bit integers, SBIT and
EBIT, to indicate the number of unused bits in the first and last
octets of the H.261 data, respectively.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
4. Specification of the packetization scheme
4.1 Usage of RTP
The H.261 information is carried as payload data within the RTP
protocol. The following fields of the RTP header are specified:
- Payload type: According to RFC 3551[RFC3551] table 5, Static
payload type 31 SHALL be used to specify the H.261 video payload
format for RTP/AVP.
- The RTP timestamp encodes the sampling instant of the first
video image contained in the RTP data packet. If a video image
occupies more than one packet, the timestamp SHALL be the same on all
of those packets. Packets from different video images MUST have
different timestamp so that frames may be distinguished by the
timestamp. For H.261 video streams, the RTP timestamp is based on a
90kHz clock. This clock rate is a multiple of the natural H.261
frame rate (i.e. 30000/1001 or approx. 29.97 Hz). That way, for
each frame time, the clock is just incremented by the multiple and
this removes inaccuracy in calculating the timestamp. Furthermore,
the initial value of the timestamp MUST be random (unpredictable) to
make known-plaintext attacks on encryption more difficult, see RTP
[RFC3550]. Note that if multiple frames are encoded in a packet
(e.g. when there are very little changes between two images), it is
necessary to calculate display times for the frames after the first,
using the timing information in the H.261 frame header. This is
required because the RTP timestamp only gives the display time of the
first frame in the packet.
- The marker bit of the RTP header must be set to one in the last
packet of a video frame, and otherwise, must be zero. Thus, it is
not necessary to wait for a following packet (which contains the
start code that terminates the current frame) to detect that a new
frame should be displayed.
The H.261 data shall follow the RTP header, as in:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. RTP header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| H.261 header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
| H.261 stream ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The H.261 header is defined as following:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|SBIT |EBIT |I|V| GOBN | MBAP | QUANT | HMVD | VMVD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields in the H.261 header have the following meanings:
Start bit position (SBIT): 3 bits
Number of most significant bits that should be ignored in the first
data octet.
End bit position (EBIT): 3 bits
Number of least significant bits that should be ignored in the last
data octet.
INTRA-frame encoded data (I): 1 bit
Set to 1 if this stream contains only INTRA-frame coded blocks. Set
to 0 if this stream may or may not contain INTRA-frame coded blocks.
The meaning of this bit should not be changed during the course of
the RTP session.
Motion Vector flag (V): 1 bit
Set to 0 if motion vectors are not used in this stream. Set to 1 if
motion vectors may or may not be used in this stream. The meaning of
this bit should not be changed during the course of the session.
GOB number (GOBN): 4 bits
Encodes the GOB number in effect at the start of the packet. Set to
0 if the packet begins with a GOB header.
Macroblock address predictor (MBAP): 5 bits
Encodes the macroblock address predictor (i.e. the last MBA encoded
in the previous packet). This predictor ranges from 0-32 (to predict
the valid MBAs 1-33), but because the bit stream cannot be fragmented
between a GOB header and MB 1, the predictor at the start of the
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
packet shall not be 0. Therefore, the range is 1-32, which is biased
by -1 to fit in 5 bits. For example, if MBAP is 0, the value of the
MBA predictor is 1. Set to 0 if the packet begins with a GOB header.
Quantizer (QUANT): 5 bits
Quantizer value (MQUANT or GQUANT) in effect prior to the start of
this packet. Set to 0 if the packet begins with a GOB header.
Horizontal motion vector data (HMVD): 5 bits
Reference horizontal motion vector data (MVD). Set to 0 if V flag is
0 or if the packet begins with a GOB header, or when the MTYPE of the
last MB encoded in the previous packet was not MC. HMVD is encoded
as a 2's complement number, and `10000' corresponding to the value
-16 is forbidden (motion vector fields range from +/-15).
Vertical motion vector data (VMVD): 5 bits
Reference vertical motion vector data (MVD). Set to 0 if V flag is 0
or if the packet begins with a GOB header, or when the MTYPE of the
last MB encoded in the previous packet was not MC. VMVD is encoded
as a 2's complement number, and `10000' corresponding to the value
-16 shall not be used (motion vector fields range from +/-15).
Note that the I and V flags are hint flags, i.e. they can be
inferred from the bit stream. They are included to allow decoders to
make optimizations that would not be possible if these hints were not
provided before bit stream was decoded. Therefore, these bits cannot
change for the duration of the stream. A conformant implementation
can always set V=1 and I=0.
The H.261 stream SHALL be used without BCH error correction and
without error correction framing.
4.2 Recommendations for operation with hardware codecs
Packetizers for hardware codecs can trivially figure out GOB
boundaries using the GOB-start pattern included in the H.261 data.
(Note that software encoders already know the boundaries.) The
cheapest packetization implementation is to packetize at the GOB
level all the GOBs that fit in a packet. But when a GOB is too
large, the packetizer has to parse it to do MB fragmentation. (Note
that only the Huffman encoding must be parsed and that it is not
necessary to fully decompress the stream, so this requires relatively
little processing; example implementations can be found in some
public H.261 codecs such as IVS [IVS] and VIC [VIC].) It is
recommended that MB level fragmentation be used when feasible in
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
order to obtain more efficient packetization. Using this
fragmentation scheme reduces the output packet rate and therefore
reduces the overhead.
At the receiver, the data stream can be depacketized and directed to
a hardware codec's input. If the hardware decoder operates at a
fixed bit rate, synchronization may be maintained by inserting the
stuffing pattern between MBs (i.e., between packets) when the packet
arrival rate is slower than the bit rate.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
5. Packet loss issues
On the Internet, most packet losses are due to network congestion
rather than transmission errors. Using UDP, no mechanism is
available at the sender to know if a packet has been successfully
received. It is up to the application, i.e. coder and decoder, to
handle the packet loss. Each RTP packet includes a sequence number
field which can be used to detect packet loss.
H.261 uses the temporal redundancy of video to perform compression.
This differential coding (or INTER-frame coding) is sensitive to
packet loss. After a packet loss, parts of the image may remain
corrupt until all corresponding MBs have been encoded in INTRA-frame
mode (i.e. encoded independently of past frames). There are several
ways to mitigate packet loss:
(1) One way is to use only INTRA-frame encoding and MB level
conditional replenishment. That is, only MBs that change (beyond
some threshold) are transmitted.
(2) Another way is to adjust the INTRA-frame encoding refreshment
rate according to the packet loss observed by the receivers. The
H.261 recommendation specifies that a MB is INTRA-frame encoded at
least every 132 times it is transmitted. However, the INTRA-frame
refreshment rate can be raised in order to speed the recovery when
the measured loss rate is significant.
(3) The fastest way to repair a corrupted image is to request an
INTRA-frame coded image refreshment after a packet loss is detected.
One means to accomplish this is for the decoder to send to the coder
a list of packets lost. The coder can decide to encode every MB of
every GOB of the following video frame in INTRA-frame mode (i.e.
Full INTRA-frame encoded), or if the coder can deduce from the packet
sequence numbers which MBs were affected by the loss, it can save
bandwidth by sending only those MBs in INTRA-frame mode. This mode
is particularly efficient in point-to-point connection or when the
number of decoders is low.
The H.261 specific control packets FIR and NACK as described in
RFC2032 SHALL not be used to request image refreshment. Old
implementations are encourage to use the methods describes in this
section. Image refreshment may be needed due to packet loss or due
to application requirements. An example of application requirement
may be the change of the speaker in a voice-activated multipoint
video switching conference. There are two methods that can be used
for requesting image refreshment. The first method is by using the
Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback and sending RTCP generic
control packets as described in
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback[rtcp-feedback]. The second method is by
using the application protocol specific commands like H.245[ITU.H245]
FastUpdateRequest.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
6. Payload Format Parameters
This section updates the H.261 media type described in RFC3555
[RFC3555].
This section specifies optional parameters that MAY be used to select
optional features of the payload format. The parameters are
specified here as part of the MIME subtype registration for the
ITU-T H.261 codec. A mapping of the parameters into the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)[RFC2327] is also provided for those
applications that use SDP. Multiple parameters SHOULD be expressed
as a MIME media type string, in the form of a semi-colon separated
list of parameters.
6.1 IANA Considerations
This section describes the MIME types and names associated with this
payload format. The section registers the MIME types, as per
RFC2048[RFC2048]
6.1.1 Registration of MIME media type video/H261
MIME media type name: video
MIME subtype name: H261
Required parameters: None
Optional parameters:
CIF: This parameter has the format of parameter=value. It describes
the maximum supported frame rate for CIF resolution. permissible
value are integer values 1 to 4 and it means that the maximum rate is
29.97/ specified value
QCIF: This parameter has the format of parameter=value. It
describes the maximum supported frame rate for QCIF resolution.
permissible value are integer values 1 to 4 and it means that the
maximum rate is 29.97/ specified value
D: specifies support for still image graphics according to H.261
annex D.
Encoding considerations:
This type is only defined for transfer via RTP [RFC3550]
Security considerations: See Section 8
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
Interoperability considerations: These are receiver options, current
implementations will not send any optional parameters in their SDP.
They will ignore the optional parameters and will encode the H.261
stream without annex D. Most decoders support at least QCIF
resolutions and they are expected to be available almost in every
H.261 based video application.
Published specification: RFC yyy
Applications which use this media type:
Audio and video streaming and conferencing tools.
Additional information: none
Person and email address to contact for further information :
Roni Even: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Intended usage: COMMON
Author/Change controller:
Roni Even
6.2 SDP Parameters
The MIME media type video/H261 string is mapped to fields in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP) as follows:
o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video.
o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be H261 (the
MIME subtype).
o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000.
o The optional parameters "CIF", "QCIF" and "D" if any, SHALL be
included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP. These parameters are expressed
as a MIME media type string, in the form of as a semi-colon
separated list of parameters
6.2.1 Usage with the SDP Offer Answer Model
When offering H.261 over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer
model[RFC3264] the following considerations are necessary.
Codec options: (D) This option MUST NOT appear unless the sender of
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
this SDP message is able to decode this option. This option shall be
considered as a receiver's capability even when send in a "sendonly"
offer.
Picture sizes and MPI:
Supported picture sizes and their corresponding minimum picture
interval (MPI) information for H.261 can be combined. All picture
sizes may be advertised to the other party, or only a subset of it.
A terminal shall announce only those picture sizes (with their MPIs)
which it is willing to receive. For example, MPI=2 means that
maximum (decodeable) picture rate per second is about 15.
If the receiver does not specify the picture size /MPI optional
parameter then it SHOULD be ready to receive QCIF resolution with
MPI=1.
An example of media representation in SDP is as follows: (CIF at 15
frames per second, QCIF at 30 frames per second and annex D
m=video 49170/2 RTP/AVP 31
a=rtpmap:31 H261/90000
a=fmtp:31 CIF=2;QCIF=3;D
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
7. Backward Compatibility to RFC2032
The current draft updates RFC2032. This section will address the
major backward compatibility issues.
7.1 Optional H.261-specific control packets
RFC 2032 defined two H.261-specific RTCP control packets, "Full
INTRA-frame Request" and "Negative Acknowledgement". Support of
these control packets was optional. The H.261-specific control
packets differ from normal RTCP packets in that they are not
transmitted to the normal RTCP destination transport address for the
RTP session (which is often a multicast address). Instead, these
control packets are sent directly via unicast from the decoder to the
encoder. The destination port for these control packets is the same
port that the encoder uses as a source port for transmitting RTP
(data) packets. Therefore, these packets may be considered "reverse"
control packets. This new RFC suggest generic methods to address the
same requirement. The authors of the drafts are not aware of
products that supports these control packets. Since these are
optional features new implementations SHALL ignores them and they
SHALL not be used by new implementations.
7.2 New SDP optional parameters
The draft adds new optional parameters to the H261 payload type.
Since these are optional parameters we expect old implementation to
ignore these parameters while new implementations that will receive
the H261 payload type with no parameters will behave as if the other
side can accept H.261 at QCIF resolution and 30 frames per second.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
8. Security Considerations
RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
specification [RFC3550], and any appropriate RTP profile (for example
[RFC3551]). This implies that confidentiality of the media streams
is achieved by encryption. Because the data compression used with
this payload format is applied end-to-end, encryption may be
performed after compression so there is no conflict between the two
operations.
A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encoding using
compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
into the stream which are complex to decode and cause the receiver to
be overloaded. The usage of authentication of at least the RTP
packet is RECOMMENDED
As with any IP-based protocol, in some circumstances a receiver may
be overloaded simply by the receipt of too many packets, either
desired or undesired. Network-layer authentication may be used to
discard packets from undesired sources, but the processing cost of
the authentication itself may be too high.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
9. Acknowledgements
This is to acknowledge the authors of RFC2032 Thierry Turletti and
Christian Huitema. Special thanks for the work done by Petri
Koskelainen from Nokia and Nermeen Ismail from Cisco who helped with
drafting the text for the new MIME types.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
10. Changes from previous versions
10.1 changes from RFC 2032>
The changes from the RFC 2032 are:
1. The H.261 MIME type is now in the payload specification.
Added optional parameters to the H.261 MIME type
3. Editorial changes to be in line with RFC editing procedures
10.2 Changes from bis-00
The changes from bis-00 are:
1. Deprecated the H.261 specific control packets
2. Change the separator in the SDP parameters to be semi-colon.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
11. References
11.1 Normative References
[H261] International Telecommunications Union, "Video codec for
audiovisual services at p x 64 kbit/s", ITU Recommendation
H.261, March 1993.
[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2327] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
2002.
[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.
[RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP
Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003.
[rtcp-feedback]
Ott, J. and S. Wenger, "Extended RTP Profile for
RTCP-based Feedback(RTP/AVPF)",
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-feedback-08 (work in progress),
January 2004.
11.2 Informative References
[BT601] International Telecommunications Union, "Studio encoding
parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and
wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios", ITU-R Recommendation
BT.601-5, October 1995.
[H221] International Telecommunications Union, "Frame structure
for a 64 to 1920 kbit/s channel in audiovisual
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
teleservices", ITU Recommendation H.221, May 1999.
[IEEE] Pingali, S., Towsley, D. and JF. Kurose, "A comparison of
sender-initiated and receiver-initiated reliable multicast
protocols", IEEE GLOBECOM 94, 1994.
[INRIA] Turletti, T., "H.261 software codec for videoconferencing
over the Internet", INRIA Research Report 1834, January
1993.
[ITU.H245]
International Telecommunications Union, "CONTROL PROTOCOL
FOR MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION", ITU Recommendation H.245,
2003.
[IVS] Turletti, T., "INRIA Videoconferencing tool (IVS),
available by anonymous ftp from zenon.inria.fr in the
"rodeo/ivs/last_version" directory. See also URL
http://www.inria.fr/rodeo/ivs.html".
[MICE] Sasse, MA., Bilting, U., Schultz, CD. and T. Turletti,
"Remote Seminars through MultiMedia Conferencing:
Experiences from the MICE project", Proc. INET'94/JENC5,
Prague pp. 251/1-251/8, June !994.
[VIC] MacCanne, S., "VIC Videoconferencing tool, available by
anonymous ftp from ee.lbl.gov in the "conferencing/vic"
directory".
Author's Address
Roni Even
Polycom
94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
Petach Tikva 49130
Israel
EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft H.261 RTP payload format December 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Even Expires June 20, 2005 [Page 22]
