[AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for transporting H.263 video?
Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live.com> Fri, 26 November 2004 21:47 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26496 for <avt-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:47:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CXo0V-0008W1-Ld for avt-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:51:59 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CXnqk-0003z7-V1; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:41:55 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CXnqI-0003sE-L4 for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:41:27 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26104 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:41:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns.live.com ([66.80.62.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CXnue-0008Gq-CN for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:45:56 -0500
Received: from ns.live.com (localhost.live.com [127.0.0.1]) by ns.live.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAQLfIiq046782 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:41:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rsf@ns.live.com)
Received: (from rsf@localhost) by ns.live.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) id iAQLfIxh046781; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:41:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rsf)
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.1.20041126132615.02962e40@localhost>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:40:52 -0800
To: avt@ietf.org
From: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Subject: [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for transporting H.263 video?
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>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
The first paragraph of RFC 2429 notes that it is preferred over the older
RFC 2190 payload format - even for transporting the 1996 version of H.263.
However, today I read a claim that several legacy H.323 videoconferencing
systems (the names Polycom and Tandberg were mentioned) still use the older
RFC 2190 payload format when sending H.263, and that some (perhaps
different) videoconferencing systems will receive only the RFC 2190 payload
format, and do not understand the RFC 2429 payload format
("video/H263-1998") at all.
Can anyone confirm (or deny) this claim? Basically, I'd like to know
whether RFC 2190 is something that I (as an implementor of RTP-based
software) should still be concerned with, or whether I can get away with
supporting only RFC 2429?
Ross.
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for transp… Ross Finlayson
- RE: [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for tr… Gary Sullivan
- Re: [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for tr… Terje Vernly
- RE: [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for tr… Dave Lindbergh