1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
|
Network Working Group R. Even
Request for Comments: 4628 Polycom
Category: Informational January 2007
RTP Payload Format for H.263 Moving RFC 2190 to Historic Status
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The first RFC that describes an RTP payload format for ITU
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendation H.263
is RFC 2190. This specification discusses why to move RFC 2190 to
historic status.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................2
3. Recommendation ..................................................2
4. Security Considerations .........................................3
5. Normative References ............................................3
6. Informative References ..........................................3
Even Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4628 RFC 2190 to Historic January 2007
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 include language that will
make it clear that all new implementations MUST use RFC 4629
[RFC4629] for encoding of any version of H.263.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.
3. Recommendation
RFC 2429 and RFC 4629 [RFC4629] can be used to carry new H.263
payloads 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 be moved to historic status and that,
as stated in RFC 4629 [RFC4629], new implementations use the RFC 4629
and the H263-1998 and H263-2000 Media Types.
This recommendation will come into effect at the publication or as
soon as possible after the publication of RFC 4629 [RFC4629].
Even Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4628 RFC 2190 to Historic January 2007
4. Security Considerations
Security considerations for the H263 video RTP payload can be found
in the RFC 4629 [RFC4629]. Using the payload specification in RFC
4629 instead of that in RFC 2190 does not affect the security
consideration since both of them refer to RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC
3551 [RFC3551] for security considerations.
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6. Informative References
[H263] International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for
low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,
March 1996.
[H263P] International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for
low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263,
January 2005.
[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.
[RFC4629] Ott, J., Borman, C., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R.
Even, Ed., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263
Video", RFC 4629, January 2007.
Even Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4628 RFC 2190 to Historic January 2007
Author's Address
Roni Even
Polycom
94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
Petach Tikva 49130
Israel
EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il
Even Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4628 RFC 2190 to Historic January 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Even Informational [Page 5]
^L
|
