Skip to main content

RTP Payload Format for 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Timed Text
RFC 4396

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
15 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2017-05-16
15 (System) Changed document authors from "Jose Rey" to "Jose Rey, Yoshinori Matsui"
2006-03-13
15 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-03-13
15 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4396' added by Amy Vezza
2006-02-17
15 (System) RFC published
2005-09-11
15 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-09-06
15 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-09-06
15 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-09-06
15 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-09-02
15 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-09-01
2005-09-01
15 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2005-09-01
15 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2005-09-01
15 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2005-09-01
15 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2005-09-01
15 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2005-09-01
15 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jon Peterson has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Jon Peterson
2005-09-01
15 Jon Peterson
[Ballot comment]
Given that timed text may or may not be synchronized with media such as video or audio, as stated in the Introduction, it …
[Ballot comment]
Given that timed text may or may not be synchronized with media such as video or audio, as stated in the Introduction, it seems a little odd that the recommended SDP behavior (section 9.1) suggests that the video media type is used in the SDP m= line.
2005-09-01
15 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2005-09-01
15 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register the MIME Media Type video/3gpp-tt at the following registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/
2005-08-31
15 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2005-08-31
15 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen
2005-08-31
15 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot comment]
I see informative reference:
    [18] F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO
    10646", RFC 2044, …
[Ballot comment]
I see informative reference:
    [18] F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO
    10646", RFC 2044, October 1996.
Is that intentionally to an RFC that has been obsolted twice, first by
RFC2279 and then RFC3629 ??

I further wonder if the references to UTF8 and UTF16 should not be
normative ?? You will have to understand them if you want to implement
this spec, no?
2005-08-31
15 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2005-08-30
15 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2005-08-30
15 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2005-08-29
15 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-08-29
15 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-08-26
15 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2005-08-25
15 Allison Mankin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-09-01 by Allison Mankin
2005-08-25
15 Allison Mankin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Allison Mankin
2005-08-25
15 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin
2005-08-25
15 Allison Mankin Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin
2005-08-25
15 Allison Mankin Created "Approve" ballot
2005-08-03
15 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2005-07-20
15 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-07-20
15 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-07-18
15 Allison Mankin State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin
2005-07-18
15 Allison Mankin Last Call was requested by Allison Mankin
2005-07-18
15 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-07-18
15 (System) Last call text was added
2005-07-18
15 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin
Magnus's writeup (the Secretariat is not inserting these for us).

Please note that this document is
on the 3GPP-IETF dependency list. Please provide expedited handling …
Magnus's writeup (the Secretariat is not inserting these for us).

Please note that this document is
on the 3GPP-IETF dependency list. Please provide expedited handling of
this so that 3GPP can avoid needing to remove the functionality this
document represent from its Release 6 specifications.

    1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet

        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes, we have reviewed it and finds it ready for publication.

    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been throughly reviewed by both AVT members and the
participants of ietf-types list.

    1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

    1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

The ietf-types list review resulted in a change of media type from
text/3gpp-tt to video/3gpp-tt. This change has been discussed and
represent an good compromise from AVT perspective in the light on the
ongoing debate regarding media type usage by RTP.


    1.e) 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?

There is strong consensus.

    1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No

    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)


Yes.
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin OUCH - added log entries for ac3 to 3gpp-timed-text :(
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin
Secretariat not adding writeups :(
Magnus's writeup:

Please handle this document as
quickly as possible as DLNA require it as an reference in their
specification. …
Secretariat not adding writeups :(
Magnus's writeup:

Please handle this document as
quickly as possible as DLNA require it as an reference in their
specification.


    1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes, we have reviewed it and finds it ready for publication.

    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by AVT members

    1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

It hasn't been reviewed by ietf-types@iana.org. However this will be
requested at the same time as this request is submitted.

    1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

    1.e) 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?

There is strong consensus.

    1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No

    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes.
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin
Sent to Chairs and Authors:
I have one immediate question:  the normative reference for
AC3 seems inaccessible.  The ATSC website mentions it in a FAQ, …
Sent to Chairs and Authors:
I have one immediate question:  the normative reference for
AC3 seems inaccessible.  The ATSC website mentions it in a FAQ,
but provides a copy only of Rev A from 2001, at least that I
can find.

This is the ref I'm looking for:
[ATSC] U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), "ATSC
Standard: Digital Audio Compression (AC-3), Revision B," Doc A/52B,
June 2005.

The IESG has been concerned about this topic of normative spec
availablity, so let me find out what the process has been
on this one, since it's the first to have a publication request
since the new discussion arose:

  - was the WG able to consult this specification as needed?
  - if not, what was the method for evaluating the
    (normative) dependencies from it?
  - one answer may be that the authors' presentation
    material from the spec was an important resource -
    maybe IETF proceedings viewgraphs should also
    be cited normatively if the spec is not accessible.
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com' added by Allison Mankin
2005-06-30
15 Allison Mankin Magnus requested ietf-types review yesterday
2005-06-28
15 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-06-12
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-15.txt
2005-05-18
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-14.txt
2005-03-30
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-13.txt
2005-02-22
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-12.txt
2005-01-21
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-11.txt
2005-01-18
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-10.txt
2005-01-13
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-09.txt
2004-12-23
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-08.txt
2004-10-08
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-07.txt
2004-09-10
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-06.txt
2004-08-18
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-05.txt
2004-07-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-04.txt
2004-07-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-03.txt
2004-07-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-02.txt
2004-05-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-01.txt
2004-04-05
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-text-00.txt