idnits 2.17.1 draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00.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 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 180. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 157. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 164. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 170. ** 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. 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 (July 10, 2005) is 6858 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) No issues found here. Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Perkins 3 Internet-Draft University of Glasgow 4 Expires: January 11, 2006 July 10, 2005 6 RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video: Additional Colour Sampling 7 Modes 8 draft-perkins-avt-uncomp-video-ext-00.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 Internet- 20 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 January 11, 2006. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 39 Abstract 41 This memo extends the RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video to 42 support additional RGB sampling modes. 44 1. Introduction 46 The RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video [1] defines a scheme to 47 packetise uncompressed, studio-quality, video streams for transport 48 using RTP [2]. A range of standard and high definition video formats 49 are supported, and parameters are defined so sender and receiver can 50 signal the image size, colour space, pixel depth, etc. 52 A limitation of the format is that the number of bits per sample is 53 signalled as being the same for each colour component. For example, 54 it is not possible to signal transport of RGB format video using 5 55 bits each for the Red and Blue components and 6 bits for the Green, 56 packing one pixel into two octets. Such video formats can easily be 57 supported in the payload format, but cannot be signalled using the 58 parameters defined. This memo extends [1] with additional colour 59 sampling modes, to signal such video formats. 61 2. Conventions Used in this Document 63 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 64 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 65 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3]. 67 3. Payload Format Parameters 69 This memo defines six new colour sampling modes that MAY be signalled 70 for use with [1]. The new modes are "RGB+", "RG+B", "R+GB", "BGR+", 71 "BG+R" and "B+GR". These sampling modes use the same packing order 72 of samples as do the RGB and BGR colour sampling modes respectively, 73 except that an additional bit of colour depth is available for the 74 component marked by the + symbol (i.e. when "depth=N" is signalled, N 75 bits are allocated to unmarked components, but N+1 bits MUST be 76 allocated to the marked component). All other features of the 77 payload format remain as defined in [1]. 79 The primary use of these colour sampling modes is to enable efficient 80 packing of data into small pixel groups ("pgroups"). The most common 81 use case is expected to be video with five bits per sample, where the 82 additional bit of colour depth enables a single pixel to fit into two 83 octets without padding. The new colour sampling modes MAY be used 84 for other depths, however, should that prove useful. 86 4. Example 88 A common uncompressed video format is RGB with 5 bits for the Red and 89 Blue components and six bits for the Green component, for a total of 90 16 bits per pixel. Using the sampling modes defined in this memo, 91 this can be signalled in SDP according to the following example: 93 v=0 94 o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 10.47.16.5 95 s=- 96 c=IN IP4 10.47.16.6 97 t=2873397496 2873404696 98 a=recvonly 99 m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 99 100 a=rtpmap:99 raw/90000 101 a=fmtp:99 sampling=RG+B; width=1024; height=768; depth=5; 102 colorimetry=SMPTE240M 104 (some of the lines in have been wrapped due to formatting constraints 105 on this memo). 107 5. Security Considerations 109 The security considerations of [1] apply. No additional security 110 considerations are introduced by support for new colour sampling 111 modes. 113 6. IANA Considerations 115 The video/raw media type is extended with six new values for the 116 "sampling" parameter according to the rules defined in section 6.2 of 117 [1]. The new values are "RGB+", "RG+B", "R+GB", "BGR+", "BG+R" and 118 "B+GR" as described in this memo. 120 7. Acknowledgements 122 Thanks to Jeremy Searle and Andrew Lee. 124 8. Normative References 126 [1] Gharai, L. and C. Perkins, "RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed 127 Video", draft-ietf-avt-uncomp-video-06 (work in progress), 128 February 2004. 130 [2] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, 131 "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, 132 RFC 3550, July 2003. 134 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 135 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 137 Author's Address 139 Colin Perkins 140 University of Glasgow 141 Department of Computing Science 142 17 Lilybank Gardens 143 Glasgow G12 8QQ 144 UK 146 Email: csp@csperkins.org 148 Intellectual Property Statement 150 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 151 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 152 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 153 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 154 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 155 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 156 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 157 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 159 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 160 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 161 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 162 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 163 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 164 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 166 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 167 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 168 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 169 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 170 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 172 Disclaimer of Validity 174 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 175 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 176 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 177 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 178 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 179 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 180 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 182 Copyright Statement 184 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 185 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 186 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 188 Acknowledgment 190 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 191 Internet Society.