Audio Video Transport A. Leung Internet-Draft S. Futemma Expires: August 7, 2006 E. Itakura Sony February 3, 2006 Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video: Extensions for Scalability and Main Header Recovery draft-ietf-avt-rtp-jpeg2000-beam-03 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. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created. 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 August 7, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This memo describes extended uses for payload header in RFC document: "An RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams." [1] For better support of JPEG 2000 features such as scalability and includes a main header recovery method. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 This memo MUST be accompanied with a complete implementation of "An RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams." [1] The RFC document [1] itself is a complete description of the payload header and signaling, this document only describes additional processing for the payload header. There is an additional MIME and SDP marker signaling for implementations of this document. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Description of the Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1. Main Header Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.2. Priority Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Payload Format Enhanced Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Enhanced Processing Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Priority Mapping Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Pre-Defined Priority Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1. Packet Number Based Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. Progression Based Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3. Layer Based Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.4. Resolution Based Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.5. Component Based Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. JPEG 2000 Main Header Compensation Scheme . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Sender Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Receiver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. SDP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Sample Headers in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 28 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 1. Introduction This document is an extension of: "An RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams"[1]. There are additional mechanisms to be used with certain parts of the header in [1] to support JPEG 2000 features such as scalability and a main header compensation method. These mechanisms are described in detail in this document. 1.1. History In the development of [1], Sony Corporation filed a patent application on certain mechanisms with the main header compensation, priority table usage, etc. in [1]. As these are not "essential" to the core RTP format of [1] and only describes a mechanism, it was decided that splitting these mechanisms from the core RTP format in to a separate document. This is the document describing the IPR related mechanisms for main header recover and priority table usage. 1.2. Description of the Mechanisms 1.2.1. Main Header Compensation JPEG 2000's scalable coding scheme allows for decompressing truncated or partial data streams but only when the main header is present. If the header is lost, the data is useless. With JPEG 2000 video coding, coding parameters between frames will rarely change and previous headers may be used in newly received data which the header have been lost. Compensation of the main header that has been lost is very simple with this procedure. In the case of JPEG 2000 video, it is common that encode parameters will not vary greatly between each successive frame. Even if the RTP packet including the main header of a frame has been dropped, decoding may be performed by using the main header of a previous frame. 1.2.2. Priority Table JPEG 2000 codestream has rich functionality built into it so decoders can easily handle scalable delivery or progressive transmission. Progressive transmission allows images to be reconstructed with increasing pixel accuracy or spatial resolution. This feature allows the reconstruction of images with different resolutions and pixel accuracy, for different target devices. A single image source can provide a codestream that is easily processed for smaller image display devices. JPEG 2000 packets contain all compressed image data from a specific: Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 layer, component, resolution level, and/or precinct. The order in which these JPEG 2000 packets are found in the codestream is called: progression order. The ordering of the JPEG 2000 packets can progress along four axes: layer, component, resolution and precinct (or position). Providing a priority field to indicate the importance of data contained in a given RTP packet can aid in usage of JPEG 2000 progressive and scalable functions. 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document 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 [2]. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 2. Payload Format Enhanced Processing 2.1. Enhanced Processing Markers This section of the document describes changes in the value of mh_id and priority value and interpretation which differ from [1]. Implementions of this document should follow protocol in [1] first then add in additional header processing as described in this document. Implementations following this document are expected to interoperate with implementations of [1] and this document as well. The RTP payload header format for JPEG 2000 video stream is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |tp |MHF|mh_id|T| priority | tile number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |reserved | fragment offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: RTP payload header format for JPEG 2000 mh_id (Main Header Identification) : 3 bits Main header identification value. This is used for JPEG 2000 main header recovery. The same mh_id value is used as long as the coding parameters described in the main header remains unchanged between frames. The initial value of mh_id is random, and may take any value between 1-7, but MUST NOT be 0. The mh_id value MUST increment by 1 every time a new main header is transmitted. Once the mh_id value is greater than 7, it rolls over to 1. When mh_id is 0, it has special usage for the receiver. This special usage is described in Section 4.2 of this document. Senders should follow Section 4.1 of this document for proper mh_id usage. priority : 8 bits Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 The priority field indicates the importance of the JPEG 2000 packet included in the payload. Typically, a higher priority is set in the packets containing JPEG 2000 packets containing the lower sub-bands. Special values of priority: 0: This is reserved for payload which contain a header (main or tile part header.) This is considered the most important. 1 to 255: These values decrease in importance as the values increase. (i.e. 1 is more important than 2, etc.) Hence applying priority values should correlate directly to JPEG 2000 codestream in importance. The lower the priority value is the higher the priority. Simply, the priority value 0 is the highest priority and 255 is the lowest priority. We define the priority value 0 as a special priority value for the headers (the main header or tile-part header). When any headers (the main header or tile-part header) are packed into the RTP packet, the sender MUST set the priority value to 0. Assignment of the values are described in Section 3 with pre- defined table assignments in Section 3.1. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 3. Priority Mapping Table For the progression order, the priority value for each JPEG 2000 packet is given by the priority mapping table. 3.1. Pre-Defined Priority Mapping This document specify several commonly-used priority mapping tables, pre-defined priority mapping tables: packet number based (default), progression-based, layer-based, resolution-based, position-based, and component-based. Packet number priority mapping is REQUIRED to be supported by clients implementing this specification. Other priority mapping tables (progression, layer, resolution, and component based) are OPTIONAL to implementations of this specification. Rules that all implementations of this specification MUST follow in all priority modes: o When there is a header in the packet with a JPEG 2000 packet, the sender MUST set the payload packet priority value to 0. o When there are multiple JPEG 2000 packets in the same RTP payload packet, the sender MUST set the payload packet priority value to the lowest priority value of the lowest JPEG 2000 packet. (i.e. if JPEG 2000 packets with priority: 5,6,7 are packed into a single payload, the priority value MUST be 5.) 3.1.1. Packet Number Based Ordering This is the default mode for payload packet priority value and all implementation of this specification MUST support. The sender will have a one-to-one association between payload packet priority value and the payload packet value (i.e. the JPEG 2000 codestream.) The RTP packet value is equal to the JPEG 2000 packet value. If the packet value of JPEG 2000 codestream is greater than 255, the sender MUST set the payload priority value to 255. 3.1.2. Progression Based Ordering The sender will assign the payload packet priority value only based on layer, resolution, and component ordering of the codestream. This is similar to the JPEG 2000 packet number based format but will Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 not take into account the precinct number or position in the JPEG 2000 codestream. For example: If the codestream is ordered in LRCP (Layer, Resolution, Component, Position) All the packets in: layer.........0 resolution....0 component.....0 then the packet priority value : 1 All the packets in: layer.........0 resolution....0 component.....1 then the packet priority value : 2 All the packets in: layer.........0 resolution....0 component.....2 then the packet priority value : 3 3.1.3. Layer Based Ordering Layer-based priority mapping table simplifies the default mapping to just matching JPEG 2000 packets together from the same layer. For example: All the packets in layer 0 : packet priority value : 1 All the packets in layer 1 : packet priority value : 2 All the packets in layer 2 : packet priority value : 3 ... All the packets in layer n : packet priority value : n+1 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 3.1.4. Resolution Based Ordering Resolution-based priority mapping table is similar to the layer based order but for JPEG 2000 packets of the same resolution For example: All the packets in resolution 0 : packet priority value : 1 All the packets in resolution 1 : packet priority value : 2 All the packets in resolution 2 : packet priority value : 3 ... All the packets in resolution n : packet priority value : n+1 3.1.5. Component Based Ordering Component-based priority mapping table is mapping together JPEG 2000 components of the same component For example: All the packets in component 0 : packet priority value : 1 All the packets in component 1 : packet priority value : 2 All the packets in component 2 : packet priority value : 3 ... All the packets in component n : packet priority value : n+1 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 4. JPEG 2000 Main Header Compensation Scheme The mh_id field of the payload header is used to recognize whether the encoding parameters of the main header are the same as the encoding parameters of the previous frame. The same value is set in mh_id of the RTP packet in the same frame. The mh_id and encode parameters are not associated with each other as 1:1 but they are used to recognize whether the encode parameters of the previous frame are the same or not in the event of a lost header. The mh_id field value SHOULD be saved from previous frames to be used to recover the current frame's main header. If the mh_id of the current frame has the same value as the mh_id value of the previous frame, the previous frame's main header MAY be used to decode the current frame, in case of a lost header in the current frame. The sender MUST increment mh_id when parameters in the header change and send a new main header accordingly. The receiver MAY use the mh_id and MAY retain the header for such compensation. 4.1. Sender Processing The sender MUST transmit RTP packets with the same mh_id value unless the encoder parameters are different from the previous frame. The encoding parameters are the fixed information marker segment (SIZ marker) and functional marker segments (COD, COC, RGN, QCD, QCC, and POC) specified in JPEG 2000 Part 1 Annex A [3]. An initial value of mh_id MUST be selected randomly between 1 and 7 for security reasons. If the encode parameters changes, the sender transmitting RTP packets MUST increment the mh_id value by one, but when mh_id value becomes greater than 7, a sender MUST set mh_id value to 1. 4.2. Receiver Processing When the receiver receives the main header completely, the RTP sequence number, the mh_id and main header should be saved. Only the last main header that was received completely SHOULD be saved. When the mh_id value is 0, the receiver SHOULD NOT save the header. When the main header is not received, the receiver may compare the current payload header's mh_id value with the previous saved mh_id value. If the values match, decoding may be performed by using the previously saved main header. If the mh_id field is set to 0, the receiver MUST not save the main Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 header and MUST NOT compensate for lost headers. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 5. Security Consideration RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specifications[4] and any applicable profile. This implies that confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption. Data compression used with this payload format is applied end-to-end, encryption may be performed on the compressed data so there is no conflict between the two operations. A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encodings using compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams into the stream which are complex to decode and cause the receiver to be overloaded. The usage of authentication of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED, for example with SRTP [3]. If QoS enhanced service is used, RTP receivers SHOULD monitor packet loss to ensure that the service that was requested is actually being delivered. If it is not, then they SHOULD assume that they are receiving best-effort service and behave accordingly. If best-effort service is being used, users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path, experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than the RTP flow is achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss rate is unacceptably high. As with any IP-based protocol, in some circumstances a receiver may be overloaded simply by receiving too many packets, either desired or undesired. Network-layer authentication may be used to discard packets from undesired sources, but the processing cost of the authentication itself may be too high. In a multicast environment, pruning of specific sources may be implemented in future versions of IGMP [8] and in multicast routing protocols to allow a receiver to select which sources are allowed to reach it. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 6. IANA Consideration 6.1. Media Type Registration This document extends the associated media type from [1]: video/jpeg2000 The receiver MUST ignore any unspecified parameters outside of this list and in [1] . Optional parameters: mhc : this option is used when sender and/or receiver is utilizing the Main Header compensation technique as specified in this document. Acceptable values when using the Main Header compensation technique is "1", otherwise, it should be "0". This is a list of options to be included when the sender or receiver is utilizing the Priority Table(s) as specified in this document. priority-table-default : this is for the default priority table mapping scheme. It follows the JPEG 2000 packet number based format in the codestream. Acceptable values when using only the default priority table is "1", otherwise, it should be "0". priority-table-definition : this option is followed by a comma- separated list of predefined priority table definitions to be used by sender or receiver. The option appearing front most in the option line is the most important and next ones are of decreasing importance. Acceptable values: progression : this table follows the progression ordering of the codestream. layer : this table follows the layer ordering of the codestream. resolution : this table follows the resolution ordering of the codestream. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 component : this table follows the component ordering of the codestream. Encoding considerations: JPEG 2000 video stream may be transmitted with RTP as specified in this document. Security considerations: see security considerations section in [1] Interoperability considerations: JPEG 2000 video stream is a sequence of JPEG 2000 still images. An implementation in compliant with [3] can decode and attempt to display the encoded JPEG 2000 video stream. Published specification: ISO/IEC 15444-1 | ITU-T Rec. T.800 Applications which use this media type: video streaming and communication Additional information: none Magic number(s): none File extension(s): none Macintosh File Type Code(s): none Person & email address to contact for further information: Eisaburo Itakura, Satoshi Futemma Email: {itakura|satosi-f}@sm.sony.co.jp Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change Controller: Author: Eisaburo Itakura, Satoshi Futemma, Andrew Leung Email: {itakura|satosi-f}@sm.sony.co.jp, andrew@ualberta.net Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 6.2. SDP Parameters In addition to SDP Parameters section in [1]: The MIME media type video/jpeg2000 string is mapped to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [6] as follows: o The media name in the "m=" line of SDP MUST be video. o The encoding name in the "a=rtpmap" line of SDP MUST be jpeg2000 (the MIME subtype). o The clock rate in the "a=rtpmap" line MUST be 90000. o The OPTIONAL parameters "mhc" or "priority-table-default" or "priority-table-definition" MUST be included in the "a=fmtp" line of SDP. These parameters are expressed as a MIME media type string, in the form of a semicolon separated list of parameter=value pairs. Therefore, an example of media representation in SDP is as follows: m=video 49170/2 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000 a=fmtp:98 mhc;priority-table-default;sampling=YCbCr- 4:2:0;width=128;height=128 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 7. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model In addition to SDP Offer/Answer section in [1]: When offering JPEG 2000 over RTP using SDP in an Offer/Answer model [7], the following rules and limitations apply: o All parameters MUST have an acceptable value for that parameter. o All parameters MUST correspond to the parameters of the payload. o The parameters "mhc" or "priority-table-default" or "priority- table-definition" MUST appear in the offer if the parameter "mhc" or "priority-table-default" or "priority-table-definition" is not in the answer, receivers should not process the header according to this document. Senders SHOULD continue to send data with payload headers according to mechanisms outlined in this document. This is highly recommended for multicast streams where not all receivers are of the same type. 7.1. Examples Offer/Answer example exchanges are provided. 7.1.1. Example 1 Alice offers Main Header Compensation functionality, YCbCr 422 color space, interlace image with 720-pixel width and 480-pixel height and several priority-table options (jp2-packet, progression, layer, resolution, component) as below: v=0 o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.anywhere.com s= c=IN IP4 host.anywhere.com t=0 0 m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000 a=fmtp:98 mhc=1;sampling=YCbCr-4:2:2;interlace=1 a=fmtp:98 priority-table-definition=jp2-packet,progression,layer, resolution,component; width=720; height=480 Bob accepts Main Header Compensation functionality, YCbCr-4:2:2 color space,interlace image and jp2-packet based priority mapping (default mapping table) and replies: v=0 o=bob 2890844730 2890844731 IN IP4 host.example.com Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 s= c=IN IP4 host.example.com t=0 0 m=video 49920 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000 a=fmtp:98 mhc=1;sampling=YCbCr-4:2:2;interlace=1;priority-table- default=1;width=720;height=480 Note that "priority-table-definition" parameter in Bob's answer is replaced with "priority-table-default=1", so default priority mapping table (jp2-packet number based priority mapping) is used. 7.1.2. Example 2 Alice offers Main Header Compensation, YCbCr 420 color space, progressive image with 320-pixel width and 240-pixel height and layer priority-table options as below: v=0 o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.anywhere.com s= c=IN IP4 host.anywhere.com t=0 0 m=video 49170 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000 a=fmtp:98 mhc=1;sampling=YCbCr-4:2:0 a=fmtp:98 priority-table-definition=layer; width=320; height=240 Bob does not accept Main Header Compensation functionality but accepts YCbCr-4:2:0 color space,progressive image and layer based priority mapping and replies: v=0 o=bob 2890844730 2890844731 IN IP4 host.example.com s= c=IN IP4 host.example.com t=0 0 m=video 49920 RTP/AVP 98 a=rtpmap:98 jpeg2000/90000 a=fmtp:98 mhc=0;sampling=YCbCr-4:2:0 a=fmtp:98 priority-table-definition=layer; width=320; height=240 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 8. References 8.1. Normative References [1] Futemma, "RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video Streams", RFC XXXX, March 2006. [2] Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29, ISO/IEC 15444-1 | ITU-T Rec. T.800, "Information Technology - JPEG 2000 Image Coding System - Part 1: Core Coding System", December 2000. [4] Schulzrinne, Casner, Frederick, and Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real Time Applications", RFC 3550, STD 64, July 2003. [5] Baugher, McGrew, Naslund, Carrara, and Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP", RFC 3711, March 2004. [6] Handley and Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998. [7] Rosenberg and Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. 8.2. Informative References [8] Deering, "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", RFC 1112, August 1989. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Appendix A. Sample Headers in Detail 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |tp |MHF|mh_id|T| priority | tile number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |reserved | fragment offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 First Packet: This packet will have the whole main header. 210bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|1 1|1 0 1|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF4FFF51002F000 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3 Second Packet: This packet will have a tile header and the first tile part LLband 1500bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|1 1|1 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0000 0000 2DB3 0001 FF93 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 19] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Third Packet: This packet will have the next part in the tile, no tile header 1500bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|1 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E841 4526 4556 9850 C2EA .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5 Fourth Packet: Last packet for the image 290bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|1 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A55D 8B73 3B25 25C7 B9EB .... 2FBEB153| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6 First Packet: This packet will have the whole main header. 210bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|1 1|0 0 1|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF4FFF51002F000 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 20] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Second Packet: This packet will have a first tile part (tile 0) 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0000 0000 0578 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8 Third Packet: This packet will have a second tile part (tile 1) 1423bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0001 0000 058F 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9 Fourth Packet: This packet will have a third tile part (tile 2) 1355bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0002 0000 054B 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 10 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 21] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Fifth Packet: This packet will have a fourth tile part (tile 3) 1290bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 1|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0003 0000 050A 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11 First Packet: This packet will have the first part of the main header. 110bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 1|0 0 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF4FFF51002F000 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 12 Second Packet: This packet has the second part of the header. 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|1 0|0 0 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF6400FF .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 22] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Third Packet: This packet has two tiles, tile 0 and tile 1 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0000 0000 02BC 0001 FF93 ... | |FF90 000A 0001 0000 02BC 0001 FF93 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 14 Fourth Packet: This packet has one tile, tile 2 1395bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0|0 0|0 0 0|0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0002 0000 0573 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 15 First packet: This packet will have the whole main header for the odd field 210bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1|1 1|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF4FFF51002F000 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 16 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 23] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Second packet: This packet will have the first part of the odd field's tile 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0000 0000 0578 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 17 Third packet: This packet will have the second part of the odd field's tile 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |7F04 E708 27D9 D11D 22CB ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 18 Fourth packet: This packet will have the third part of the odd field's tile 1300bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |98BD EC9B 2826 DC62 D4AB ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 19 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 24] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Fifth packet: This packet will have the whole main header for the even field 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0|1 1|0 1 1|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF4FFF51002F000 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 20 Sixth packet: This packet will have the first part of the odd field's tile 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |FF90 000A 0000 0000 0578 0001 FF93 .... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 21 Seventh packet: This packet will have the second part of the odd field's tile 1400bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |626C 42F0 166B 6BD0 F8E1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 22 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 25] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Eighth packet: This packet will have the third part of the odd field's tile 1300bytes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0|0 0|0 1 0|1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8114 41D5 18AB 4A1B ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 23 Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 26] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 2006 Authors' Addresses Andrew Leung Sony Corporation 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Phone: +81 3 5448 2125 Email: andrew@ualberta.net URI: http://www.sony.com/ Satoshi Futemma Sony Corporation 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Phone: +81 3 5448 2125 Email: satosi-f@sm.sony.co.jp URI: http://www.sony.com/ Eisaburo Itakura Sony Corporation 6-7-35 Kitashinagawa Shinagawa-ku Tokyo 141-0001 Japan Phone: +81 3 5448 2125 Email: itakura@sm.sony.co.jp URI: http://www.sony.com/ Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 27] Internet-Draft JPEG 2000 RTP EX February 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. Leung, et al. Expires August 7, 2006 [Page 28]