idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-04.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 193. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 170. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 177. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 183. ** 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 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 (December 18, 2005) is 6704 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3555 (Obsoleted by RFC 4855, RFC 4856) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2429 (Obsoleted by RFC 4629) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 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: June 21, 2006 December 18, 2005 6 RTP Payload Format for H.263 using RFC2190 to Historic status 7 draft-ietf-avt-rfc2190-to-historic-04.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 June 21, 2006. 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. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 51 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 52 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 53 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 54 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 56 1. Introduction 58 The ITU-T recommendation H.263[H263] specifies the encoding used by 59 ITU-T compliant video-conference codecs. The first version (version 60 1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU and a payload format for 61 encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-Time Transport 62 Protocol (RTP) is in RFC-2190[RFC2190] In 1998 the ITU approved a new 63 version of H.263 [H263P] that is also known as H.263 plus. This 64 version added optional features and a new payload format is now in 65 RFC-2429[RFC2429]. RFC-2429 is capable of carrying encoded video bit 66 steams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options. 68 RFC-2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replace RFC 2190, which 69 continues to be used by existing implementations, and may be required 70 for backward compatibility in new implementations. Implementations 71 using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 shall use the 72 format described in RFC-2429. 74 RFC-2429 is now being revised and will now include a language that 75 will make it clear that all new implementations MUST use 76 RFC2429bis[rfc2429bis] for encoding any version of H.263. 78 2. Terminology 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 82 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119[RFC2119] and 83 indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations. 85 3. Recommendation 87 RFC-2429 and the the rfc2429bis draft[rfc2429bis] can be used to 88 carry new H.263 payload even if they are using only the features 89 defined in the 1996 version. All the H.263 features that are part of 90 the 1996 version are also part of the 1998 version. 92 It is recommended that RFC-2190 will be moved to historic status and 93 that as stated in draft rfc2429bis[rfc2429bis] new implementations 94 will use the revised draft rfc2429bis and the H263-1998 and H263-2000 95 MIME subtypes. 97 4. IANA Considerations 99 The section updates the previous registered version of the H263 100 payload type in RFC 3555[RFC3555]. The document request to list the 101 MIME subtype video/H263 and the RTP payload format H263 as historic. 103 5. Security Considerations 105 Security consideration for H263 video RTP payload can be found in the 106 draft rfc2429bis[rfc2429bis]. Using the payload specification in 107 draft rfc2429bis instead of RFC2190 does not affect the security 108 consideration since both of them refer to RFC3550[RFC3550] and 109 RFC3551[RFC3551] for security considerations. 111 6. References 113 6.1. Normative References 115 [RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP 116 Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003. 118 6.2. Informative References 120 [H263] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 121 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, 122 March 1996. 124 [H263P] International Telecommunications Union, "Video coding for 125 low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263P, 126 February 1998. 128 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 129 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 131 [RFC2190] Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams", 132 RFC 2190, September 1997. 134 [RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, 135 C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C. 136 Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 137 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998. 139 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 140 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 141 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. 143 [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and 144 Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, 145 July 2003. 147 [rfc2429bis] 148 Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R. Even, 149 "draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-07.txt", December 2004. 151 Author's Address 153 Roni Even 154 Polycom 155 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot 156 Petach Tikva 49130 157 Israel 159 Email: roni.even@polycom.co.il 161 Intellectual Property Statement 163 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 164 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 165 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 166 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 167 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 168 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 169 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 170 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 172 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 173 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 174 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 175 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 176 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 177 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 179 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 180 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 181 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 182 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 183 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 185 Disclaimer of Validity 187 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 188 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 189 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 190 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 191 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 192 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 193 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 195 Copyright Statement 197 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 198 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 199 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 201 Acknowledgment 203 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 204 Internet Society.