idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1.a on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 179. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 156. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 163. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 169. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. 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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 8 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 27, 2005) is 7029 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'H263P' is defined on line 111, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2048' is defined on line 115, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'Vredun' is defined on line 133, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'H263' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'H263P' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2048 (Obsoleted by RFC 4288, RFC 4289) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 2190 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2429 (Obsoleted by RFC 4629) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3555 (Obsoleted by RFC 4855, RFC 4856) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Vredun' Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 AVT R. Even 2 Internet-Draft Polycom 3 Expires: July 28, 2005 January 27, 2005 5 RTP Payload Format for H.263 using RFC2190 to Historic status 6 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-01.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 11 of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 12 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 13 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 14 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 15 RFC 3668. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as 20 Internet-Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2005. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 39 Abstract 41 The first RFC that describes RTP payload format for H.263 is RFC2190. 42 This specification discusses why to move this RFC to historic status. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 51 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 52 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 53 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 8 55 1. Introduction 57 The ITU-T recommendation H.263[H263] specifies the encoding used by 58 ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs. The first version (version 59 1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU and a payload format for 60 encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-Time Transport 61 Protocol (RTP) is in RFC-2190[RFC2190] In 1998 the ITU approved a new 62 version of H.263 [H263] that is also known as H.263 plus. This 63 version added optional features and a new payload format is now in 64 RFC-2429.[RFC2429] RFC-2429 is capable of carrying encoded video bit 65 steams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options. 67 RFC-2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replace RFC 2190, which 68 continues to be used by existing implementations, and may be required 69 for backward compatibility in new implementations. Implementations 70 using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 shall use the 71 format described in this document. 73 RFC-2429 is now being revised and will now include a language that 74 will make it clear that all new implementations MUST use the new RFC 75 for encoding any version of H.263. 77 2. Terminology 79 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 80 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 81 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119[RFC2119] and 82 indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations. 84 3. Recommendation 86 RFC-2429 and the its updates can be used to carry new H.263 payload 87 even if they are using only the features defined in the the 1996 88 version. All the H.263 features that are part of the 1996 version 89 are also part of the 1998 version. 91 It is recommended that RFC-2190 will be moved to historic status and 92 that as stated in RFC-2429 new implementations will use RFC-2429 and 93 the H263-1998 and H263-2000 MIME subtypes. 95 4. IANA Considerations 97 The section updates the previous registered version of the H263 98 payload type in RFC 3555[RFC3555]. The document request to move the 99 H263 payload type to historic state. 101 5. Security Considerations 103 None 105 6 Normative References 107 [H263] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 108 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, 109 March 1996. 111 [H263P] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 112 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263P, 113 February 1998. 115 [RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose 116 Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration 117 Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996. 119 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 120 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 122 [RFC2190] Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams", RFC 123 2190, September 1997. 125 [RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, 126 C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S. and C. 127 Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 128 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998. 130 [RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP 131 Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003. 133 [Vredun] Wenger, S., "Video Redundancy Coding in H.263+", Proc. 134 Audio-Visual Services over Packet Networks, Aberdeen, U.K. 135 9/1997, September 1997. 137 Author's Address 139 Roni Even 140 Polycom 141 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot 142 Petach Tikva 49130 143 Israel 145 EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il 147 Intellectual Property Statement 149 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 150 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 151 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 152 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 153 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 154 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 155 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 156 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 158 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 159 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 160 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 161 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 162 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 163 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 165 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 166 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 167 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 168 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 169 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 171 Disclaimer of Validity 173 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 174 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 175 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 176 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 177 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 178 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 179 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 181 Copyright Statement 183 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 184 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 185 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 187 Acknowledgment 189 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 190 Internet Society.