AVTNetwork Working Group R. EvenInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 4628 PolycomExpires: November 12, 2006 May 11, 2006Category: Informational January 2007 RTP Payload Format for H.263using RFC2190Moving RFC 2190 to Historicstatus draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-06.txtStatus Status ofthisThis MemoBy 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 ofThis memo provides information for the InternetEngineering 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.community. Itis inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The listdoes not specify an Internet standard ofcurrent Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The listany kind. Distribution ofInternet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 12, 2006.this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) TheInternet Society (2006).IETF Trust (2007). Abstract The first RFC that describes an RTP payload format for ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendation H.263 isRFC2190.RFC 2190. This specification discusses why to movethisRFC 2190 to historic status. Table of Contents 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3....................................................2 2. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.....................................................2 3. Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5..................................................2 4.IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.........................................3 5. Normative References ............................................3 6. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9..........................................3 1. Introduction The ITU-T recommendation H.263 [H263] specifies the encoding used byITU-T compliantITU-T-compliant video-conference codecs. The first version (version 1) was approved in 1996 by theITUITU, and a payload format for encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in theReal-TimeReal-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is inRFC-2190RFC 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 optionalfeaturesfeatures, and a new payload format is now inRFC-2429RFC 2429 [RFC2429].RFC-2429RFC 2429 is capable of carrying encoded video bit streams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options.RFC-2429RFC 2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replaceRFC-2190,RFC 2190, which continues to be used by existingimplementations,implementations and may be required for backward compatibility in new implementations. Implementations using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 and laterversions,versions shall use the format described inRFC-2429. RFC-2429RFC 2429. RFC 2429 is now being revised and willnowincludealanguage that will make it clear that all new implementations MUST useRFC2429-bis [rfc2429bis]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 inRFC2119RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations. 3. RecommendationRFC-2429RFC 2429 andthe rfc2429-bis draft [rfc2429bis]RFC 4629 [RFC4629] can be used to carry new H.263payloadpayloads 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 thatRFC-2190 willRFC 2190 be moved to historic status andthatthat, as stated indraft rfc2429-bis [rfc2429bis]RFC 4629 [RFC4629], new implementationswilluse therevised draft rfc2429bisRFC 4629 and the H263-1998 and H263-2000MIME subtypes.Media Types. This recommendation will come into effect at the publication or as soon as possible after the publication of RFC 4629 [RFC4629]. 4.IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations with this specification. 5.Security Considerations Securityconsiderationconsiderations for the H263 video RTP payload can be found in thedraft rfc2429-bis [rfc2429bis].RFC 4629 [RFC4629]. Using the payload specification indraft rfc2429-bisRFC 4629 instead ofRFC2190that in RFC 2190 does not affect the security consideration since both of them refer toRFC3550RFC 3550 [RFC3550] andRFC3551RFC 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] InternationalTelecommunicationsTelecommunication Union, "Video coding for low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, March 1996. [H263P] InternationalTelecommunicationsTelecommunication 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][RFC4629] Ott, J., Borman, C., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R. Even,"draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-07.txt", December 2004.Ed., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video", RFC 4629, January 2007. Author's Address Roni Even Polycom 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot Petach Tikva 49130 IsraelEmail:EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il 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 PropertyStatementThe 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. AcknowledgmentAcknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.