[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 4628

AVT                                                              R. Even
Internet-Draft                                                   Polycom
Expires: November 12, 2006                                  May 11, 2006


     RTP Payload Format for H.263 using RFC2190 to Historic status
               draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-06.txt

Status of this Memo

   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 becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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 November 12, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The first RFC that describes RTP payload format for H.263 is RFC2190.
   This specification discusses why to move this RFC to historic status.










Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9









































Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


1.  Introduction

   The ITU-T recommendation H.263 [H263] specifies the encoding used by
   ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs.  The first version (version
   1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU and a payload format for
   encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-Time Transport
   Protocol (RTP) is in RFC-2190 [RFC2190].  In 1998 the ITU approved a
   new version of H.263 [H263P] that is also known as H.263 plus.  This
   version added optional features and a new payload format is now in
   RFC-2429 [RFC2429].  RFC-2429 is capable of carrying encoded video
   bit streams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options.

   RFC-2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replace RFC-2190, which
   continues to be used by existing implementations, and may be required
   for backward compatibility in new implementations.  Implementations
   using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 and later
   versions, shall use the format described in RFC-2429.

   RFC-2429 is now being revised and will now include a language that
   will make it clear that all new implementations MUST use RFC2429-bis
   [rfc2429bis] for encoding of any version of H.263.






























Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


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 November 12, 2006               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


3.  Recommendation

   RFC-2429 and the rfc2429-bis draft [rfc2429bis] can be used to carry
   new H.263 payload even if they are using only the features defined in
   the 1996 version.  All the H.263 features that are part of the 1996
   version are also part of the 1998 version and later versions.

   It is recommended that RFC-2190 will be moved to historic status and
   that as stated in draft rfc2429-bis [rfc2429bis] new implementations
   will use the revised draft rfc2429bis and the H263-1998 and H263-2000
   MIME subtypes.








































Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


4.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations with this specification.
















































Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


5.  Security Considerations

   Security consideration for H263 video RTP payload can be found in the
   draft rfc2429-bis [rfc2429bis].  Using the payload specification in
   draft rfc2429-bis instead of RFC2190 does not affect the security
   consideration since both of them refer to RFC3550 [RFC3550] and
   RFC3551 [RFC3551] for security considerations.

6.  Informative References

   [H263]     International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for
              low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,
              March 1996.

   [H263P]    International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for
              low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,
              January 2005.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2190]  Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams",
              RFC 2190, September 1997.

   [RFC2429]  Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco,
              C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C.
              Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T
              Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998.

   [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.

   [rfc2429bis]
              Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R. Even,
              "draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-07.txt", December 2004.











Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


Author's Address

   Roni Even
   Polycom
   94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
   Petach Tikva  49130
   Israel

   Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il










































Even                    Expires November 12, 2006               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             RFC2190 to Historic                  May 2006


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 (2006).  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 November 12, 2006               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/