RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video
RFC 4629
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
09 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a scheme to packetize an H.263 video stream for transport using the Real-time … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a scheme to packetize an H.263 video stream for transport using the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) with any of the underlying protocols that carry RTP. The document also describes the syntax and semantics of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) parameters needed to support the H.263 video codec. The document obsoletes RFC 2429 and updates the H263-1998 and H263-2000 MIME media type in RFC 3555. [STANDARDS-TRACK]') |
|
2017-05-16
|
09 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Joerg Ott" to "Joerg Ott, Stephan Wenger, Carsten Bormann, Roni Even, Gary Sullivan" |
|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from csp@csperkins.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, roni.even@polycom.co.il to magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, csp@csperkins.org |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
|
2007-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4629' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-01-31
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2006-05-23
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-05-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2006-05-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2006-05-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-05-21
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Checked all changes were made and sent ticket to send anoucement. |
|
2006-05-08
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-04-21
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-04-20
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
|
2006-04-20
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2006-04-20
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt |
|
2006-04-18
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] There is another document that obsoletes RFC 2190, draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic. Please refer to this in section 1 where RFC 2190 is mentioned. The … [Ballot discuss] There is another document that obsoletes RFC 2190, draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic. Please refer to this in section 1 where RFC 2190 is mentioned. The title is potentially misleading. It only mentions the 1998 version, the intro says both 1998 and 2000 versions are described, and 1996 is supported by subsetting. It would be more accurate to shorten the title to "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video" and leave the detail to the content of the document. There seem to be a number of internal inconsistencies that need to be fixed during editing. I will enter them as a comment. |
|
2006-04-14
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-04-13 |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ross Callon by IESG Secretary |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | State Change Notice email list have been change to csp@csperkins.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, roni.even@polycom.co.il from csp@csperkins.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] From Gen-ART review by Michael Patton: In the beginning of Section 3 it refers to the "payload header" definition being in Section 3. … [Ballot comment] From Gen-ART review by Michael Patton: In the beginning of Section 3 it refers to the "payload header" definition being in Section 3. I believe this was meant to refer to Section 5. ... Immediately after the confused reference to Section 3, that I above note probably meant to be 5, it talks about "the usage of the RTP fixed header" being in "this section", which I take to be a reference to the whole of section 3, but following after the previous confusion, the referent is just not clear. The second bullet item in Section 4 has a "should" that probably meant to be a "SHOULD". A casual search through the document shows other places where 2119 words are used in the 2119 sense, but not capitalized. The first paragraph of Section 5 refers to "the basic payload header". But that's the only occurrence of the word "basic" in the document. I think it meant to refer to the "General" header described in 5.1. If so, replace the word "basic" with "general" and add "defined in 5.1" after it. In section 8.1.1 discussing parameters for indicating Annex support, "FIJT" can indicate "not supported" either by not being present or by explicitly as (for example) "F=0". For consistency, I would suggest allowing "KNP" to also use "=0" to indicate "not supported". Specifying 29.97 as the default for CPCF seems odd given that all the rest of the spec tries so hard at being non-preferential, but that clearly makes it prefer NTSC to PAL or film or anything else... But, I guess you had to pick some default. the only unbiased choice is to make it required which you can't... There are occurrences of both "RFCxxxx" and "RFC yyy" which are, I expect, meant to be self referential. There should have been a "Note to RFC Editor" about this. (And it would have been nice if they'd all been the same, making the RFCed search-and-replace only once.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review. Clarity ------- Since both the 1998 and 2000 versions of H.263 are referred to, shouldn't they both appear in the references? Typos ----- In Abstract: "document also describe" => "document also describes" In 3.1: "those timing information" => "that timing information" In 4: "in such cases in which" => "in cases in which" Which is still pretty stilted language and a somewhat more extended rewording might be called for. In 5.2: "damage of individual frame" => "damage to an individual frame" In 5.2 the picture for the VRC layout has a shifted header. In 8.1.1 (six times): "Permissible value are" => "Permissible values are" it was also hard for me to parse the descriptions, perhaps the addition of parens could help, i.e. "maximum frame rate of 29.97/ the specified value frames per second." => "maximum frame rate of (29.97 / the specified value) frames per second." In 8.1.1: "A system that support a" => "A system that supports a" In 8.1.1: "specify it support" => "specify its support" In 8.1.1: "than the stream" => "then the stream" In 8.1.1: "a number fro 1 to 4" => "a number from 1 to 4" In 8.1.1: 'SHALL have the values "1"' => 'SHALL have the value "1"' In 8.1.2, the def for INTERLACE appears to either have extra words or missing words, or maybe just missing punctuation. In any case, I couldn't parse it into meaningful English...although from experience I know what it means to say... In 8.2.1: "when send in a" => "when sent in a" In 8.2.1: "support a profile" => "supports a profile" In 8.2.1: "is able of" => "is capable of" (I think) |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] This document obsoletes (or updates?) RFC2190. Please clarify this in the Introduction and add this fact to the Title Page Header and … [Ballot discuss] This document obsoletes (or updates?) RFC2190. Please clarify this in the Introduction and add this fact to the Title Page Header and to the Abstract. The title is potentially misleading. It only mentions the 1998 version, the intro says both 1998 and 2000 versions are described, and 1996 is supported by subsetting. It would be more accurate to shorten the title to "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video" and leave the detail to the content of the document. There seem to be a number of internal inconsistencies that need to be fixed during editing. I will enter them as a comment. |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Title speaks about 1998 version and H.263+, but introduction indicates 2000 version and H.263++ are also supported. It might have been more informative … [Ballot comment] Title speaks about 1998 version and H.263+, but introduction indicates 2000 version and H.263++ are also supported. It might have been more informative to put both of these into the title. But its quite long already, so maybe you already considered this idea and dismissed it. Related to IANA's comments in the tracker: I do not understand why Section 8.2 is under IANA considerations. It does not appear to make any IANA registrations or create new namespaces. It simply talks about the negotiation of this codec over SDP. For instance, there's a discussion of allowed clock rate values, picture sizes, etc. Move elsewhere? Or if there are SDP namespace additions, they should be made clearer. > The document also describe the syntax and semantics of the SDP s/describe/describes/ > 3. Mandate the usage of RFC2429 for all H.263. RFC2190 payload > format should be used only to interact with legacy systems. I did not understand the first statement. Did you mean that you will mandate this new specification for all H.263? |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-04-13
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Received Gen-Art review http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg00780.html |
|
2006-04-12
|
09 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will update the references for the following MIME Media Types: video/H263-1998 [RFC3555] video/H263-2000 [ … IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will update the references for the following MIME Media Types: video/H263-1998 [RFC3555] video/H263-2000 [RFC3555] There is some mention of SDP Parameters. Are the only IANA actions for this document to update the 2 MIME Media Types or are there other actions necessary? |
|
2006-04-12
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu |
|
2006-04-12
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Lars Eggert |
|
2006-04-12
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] page 13: "Monotonically increasing (modulo 16) 4 bit number" - is this really what is required, or do they require the stronger "increasing … [Ballot comment] page 13: "Monotonically increasing (modulo 16) 4 bit number" - is this really what is required, or do they require the stronger "increasing consecutive integers?" Maybe Magnus as the reviewer can clarify? (I just had a different draft where this mattered, may not matter here.) |
|
2006-04-12
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert |
|
2006-04-11
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2006-04-11
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Section 9 describes the update to RFC 3555, but it is difficult to locate since that section does not contain a … |
|
2006-04-11
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] This document obsoletes RFC2429. Please add this fact to the Title Page Header and to the Abstract. This document updates … |
|
2006-04-10
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] This document obsoletes RFC2429. Please add this fact to the Title Page Header and to the Abstract. This document updates … |
|
2006-04-10
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2006-04-10
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2006-04-09
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2006-04-09
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2006-04-06
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-04-06
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-04-06
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-04-06
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | PROTO write up > The AVT working group requests the RTP Payload Format for the 1998 > Version of H.263 Video (H.263+) <draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-08.txt> … PROTO write up > The AVT working group requests the RTP Payload Format for the 1998 > Version of H.263 Video (H.263+) <draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-08.txt> > be published as a Proposed standard RFC, updating RFCs 2429 and 3555. > > > 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and > do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to > the > IESG for publication? > > Yes. > > 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? > > Yes. > > 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.)? > > I have no concerns. > > 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, etc. If your issues have been discussed in the WG and the > WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway, > note > if you continue to have concerns. > > 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 solid consensus. > > 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise what are they upset > about. > > 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) Does the document a) split references into normative/ > informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, > where > the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in > an unclear state? (Note: 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.) > > References have been split. The only normative reference to an I-D > is to sdp-new (which is normatively referenced by many other > drafts...) > > 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval > announcement includes a writeup section with the following > sections: > > * Technical Summary > > This document describes a scheme to packetize an H.263 video stream > for transport using RTP. It also describes the syntax and semantics > of the SDP parameters needed to support the H.263 video codec. The > draft updates the RTP Payload Format in RFC 2429 and the media type > registration in RFC 3555. This is cycling at Proposed Standard, > rather than going to Draft, since there are some new optional media > type parameters. > > * Working Group Summary > > This was a straight forward revision of an existing protocol, > bringing it up to date with current practice, and adding some > optional parameters. There is no controversy surrounding the draft. > > * Protocol Quality > > The protocol is widely implemented, hence the interest in revising > and clarifying the payload format and media type registration. The > payload format has been extensively reviewed by Magnus Westerlund; > Martin Duerst provided comments during a media type review. |
|
2006-03-27
|
09 | Allison Mankin | Shepherding AD has been changed to Cullen Jennings from Allison Mankin |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last Call was requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2006-03-21
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2006-03-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-04-13 by Allison Mankin |
|
2006-03-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-30 by Allison Mankin |
|
2006-03-19
|
09 | Allison Mankin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-30 by Allison Mankin |
|
2006-01-06
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org' added by Allison Mankin |
|
2006-01-06
|
09 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin |
|
2005-12-23
|
09 | Barbara Fuller | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Barbara Fuller |
|
2005-12-20
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-08.txt |
|
2005-11-29
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-07.txt |
|
2005-11-08
|
09 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Allison Mankin |
|
2005-11-07
|
09 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
|
2005-11-06
|
09 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD is watching from AD is watching by Allison Mankin |
|
2005-11-06
|
09 | Allison Mankin | Draft Added by Allison Mankin in state AD is watching |
|
2005-09-09
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-06.txt |
|
2005-04-27
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-05.txt |
|
2004-12-30
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-04.txt |
|
2004-09-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-03.txt |
|
2004-09-14
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-02.txt |
|
2004-03-31
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-01.txt |
|
2004-01-20
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-00.txt |