idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-03.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 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 195. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 172. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 179. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 185. ** 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. 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 9 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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- 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 (April 26, 2005) is 6934 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 115, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2048' is defined on line 119, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'Vredun' is defined on line 145, 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: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 AVT R. Even 3 Internet-Draft Polycom 4 Expires: October 28, 2005 April 26, 2005 6 RTP Payload Format for H.263 using RFC2190 to Historic status 7 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-03.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2005. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 38 Abstract 40 The first RFC that describes RTP payload format for H.263 is RFC2190. 41 This specification discusses why to move this RFC to historic status. 43 Table of Contents 45 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 47 3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 48 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 49 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 50 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 51 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 52 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 54 1. Introduction 56 The ITU-T recommendation H.263[H263] specifies the encoding used by 57 ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs. The first version (version 58 1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU and a payload format for 59 encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-Time Transport 60 Protocol (RTP) is in RFC-2190[RFC2190] In 1998 the ITU approved a new 61 version of H.263 [H263] that is also known as H.263 plus. This 62 version added optional features and a new payload format is now in 63 RFC-2429.[RFC2429] RFC-2429 is capable of carrying encoded video bit 64 steams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options. 66 RFC-2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replace RFC 2190, which 67 continues to be used by existing implementations, and may be required 68 for backward compatibility in new implementations. Implementations 69 using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 shall use the 70 format described in RFC-2429. 72 RFC-2429 is now being revised and will now include a language that 73 will make it clear that all new implementations must use 74 RFC2429bis[rfc2429bis] for encoding any version of H.263. 76 2. Terminology 78 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 79 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 80 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119[RFC2119] and 81 indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations. 83 3. Recommendation 85 RFC-2429 and the the rfc2429bis draft[rfc2429bis] can be used to 86 carry new H.263 payload even if they are using only the features 87 defined in the the 1996 version. All the H.263 features that are 88 part of the 1996 version are also part of the 1998 version. 90 It is recommended that RFC-2190 will be moved to historic status and 91 that as stated in draft rfc2429bis[rfc2429bis] new implementations 92 will use the revised draft rfc2429bis and the H263-1998 and H263-2000 93 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 list the 99 MIME subtype video/H263 and the RTP payload format H263 as historic. 101 5. Security Considerations 103 Security consideration for H263 video RTP payload can be found in the 104 draft rfc2429bis[rfc2429bis]. Using the payload specification in 105 draft rfc2429bis instead of RFC2190 does not affect the security 106 consideration since both of them refer to RFC3550[RFC3550] and 107 RFC3551[RFC3551] for security considerations. 109 6. Normative References 111 [H263] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 112 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, 113 March 1996. 115 [H263P] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 116 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263P, 117 February 1998. 119 [RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose 120 Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration 121 Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996. 123 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 124 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 126 [RFC2190] Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams", 127 RFC 2190, September 1997. 129 [RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, 130 C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C. 131 Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 132 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998. 134 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 135 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 136 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. 138 [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and 139 Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, 140 July 2003. 142 [RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP 143 Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003. 145 [Vredun] Wenger, S., "Video Redundancy Coding in H.263+", Proc. 146 Audio-Visual Services over Packet Networks, Aberdeen, 147 U.K. 9/1997, September 1997. 149 [rfc2429bis] 150 Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R. Even, 151 "draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-04.txt", December 2004. 153 Author's Address 155 Roni Even 156 Polycom 157 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot 158 Petach Tikva 49130 159 Israel 161 Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il 163 Intellectual Property Statement 165 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 166 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 167 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 168 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 169 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 170 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 171 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 172 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 174 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 175 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 176 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 177 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 178 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 179 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 181 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 182 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 183 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 184 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 185 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 187 Disclaimer of Validity 189 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 190 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 191 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 192 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 193 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 194 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 195 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 197 Copyright Statement 199 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 200 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 201 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 203 Acknowledgment 205 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 206 Internet Society.