|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards-track RFC approved in August 2006.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
ITU-T H.261 is one of the core video codecs defined for use in H.323. This document defines the current payload format when transmitting H.261 via RTP.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=&rfc=4587&submit=rfc&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence since August 2006. Obsoletes RFC 2032.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4587 was published in August 2006. It is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 4587 defines the payload format for transmission of video over packet networks and is widely used by the internet community.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[H261] International Telecommunications Union, "Video codec for audiovisual services at px 64 kbit/s", ITU Recommendation H.261, March 1993./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003./
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002./
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003./
[RFC3555] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003./
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006./
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005./
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey, "Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585, July 2006./
[ITU.H245] International Telecommunications Union, "CONTROL PROTOCOL FOR MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION", ITU Recommendation H.245, 2003./
[INRIA] Turletti, T., "H.261 software codec for videoconferencing over the Internet", INRIA Research Report 1834, January 1993./
[IVS] Turletti, T., "INRIA Videoconferencing tool (IVS)", available by anonymous ftp from zenon.inria.fr in the "rodeo/ivs/last_version" directory. See also URL http://www.inria.fr/rodeo/ivs.html./
[BT601] International Telecommunications Union, "Studio encoding parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios", ITU-R Recommendation BT.601-5, October 1995./
[MICE] Sasse, MA., Bilting, U., Schultz, CD., and T. Turletti, "Remote Seminars through MultiMedia Conferencing: Experiences from the MICE project", Proc. INET'94/JENC5, Prague pp. 251/1-251/8, June 1994./
[VIC] MacCanne, S., "VIC Videoconferencing tool, available by anonymous ftp from ee.lbl.gov in the "conferencing/vic" directory"./
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004./
[H221] International Telecommunications Union, "Frame structure for a 64 to 1920 kbit/s channel in audiovisual teleservices", ITU Recommendation H.221, May 1999./
/
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
If the Study Group decides to make the reference to the RFC, the reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic".
|
|
