RE: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)

"Even, Roni" <roni.even@polycom.co.il> Tue, 04 September 2007 17:17 UTC

Return-path: <avt-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISc1p-0006eq-08; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:17:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISc1n-0006eR-Al for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:17:27 -0400
Received: from fw.polycom.co.il ([212.179.41.2] helo=isrexch01.israel.polycom.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISc1l-00073B-Bb for avt@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:17:27 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:18:43 +0300
Message-ID: <144ED8561CE90C41A3E5908EDECE315C04DE8340@IsrExch01.israel.polycom.com>
In-Reply-To: <30C65F3A3407B943826897E025135BE6E6EA2B659D@DF-GRTDANE-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)
Thread-Index: Acfur6ZGVEANEHQiQ9Kj+olL8t5qHwAZ6Yfw
From: "Even, Roni" <roni.even@polycom.co.il>
To: Regis Crinon <regisc@exchange.microsoft.com>, avt@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 748ed3980abc7d4bd6a14905626ff64e
Cc:
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0867678178=="
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

The reason for this selection of annexes was based on the ones being
used by products in the markets.  There is no need to specify parameters
that are not used.

You can also use annex X based profiles for specifying other application
based profile.

Roni Even

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one
believes individually
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

________________________________

From: Regis Crinon [mailto:regisc@exchange.microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:54 AM
To: avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)

 

Hello everyone,

 

I have the following question regarding RFC 4629. I would really
appreciate your feedback.

Thank you in advance,

 

Regis J. Crinon

 

 

Fact 1:

 

H.263+ includes a set of new Annexes: Annex I through T. 

 

Fact 2:

 

RFC 4629 account for ONLY a subset of these annexes. See excerpts from
the RFC below:

 

A list of optional annexes specifies which annexes of H.263 are

      supported.  The optional annexes are defined as part of H263-1998,

      H263-2000.  H.263 annex X [H263] defines profiles that group

      annexes for specific applications.  A system that supports a

      specific annex SHALL specify its support using the optional

      parameters.  If no annex is specified, then the stream is Baseline

      H.263.

 

      The allowed optional parameters for the annexes are "F", "I", "J",

      "T", "K", "N", and "P".

 

Question

 

How are the other annexes signaled? Example: How can I signal that an
H.263+ bistream uses Annex L or Annex M or Annex O or Annex Q or Annex R
or Annex S? It seems that I cannot use SDP to tell a video bitstream
that uses one or more of these annexes from one that does not. Hence the
question.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt