Network Working Group                                            R. Even
Request for Comments: 4628                                       Polycom
Category: Informational                                     January 2007
        
Network Working Group                                            R. Even
Request for Comments: 4628                                       Polycom
Category: Informational                                     January 2007

RTP Payload Format for H.263 Moving RFC 2190 to Historic Status

将RFC 2190移动到历史状态的H.263的RTP有效负载格式

Status of This Memo

关于下段备忘

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。

Abstract

摘要

The first RFC that describes an RTP payload format for ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendation H.263 is RFC 2190. This specification discusses why to move RFC 2190 to historic status.

为ITU电信标准化部门（ITU-T）建议H.263描述RTP有效载荷格式的第一个RFC是RFC 2190。本规范讨论了将RFC 2190移动到历史状态的原因。

Table of Contents

目录 

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................2
   3. Recommendation ..................................................2
   4. Security Considerations .........................................3
   5. Normative References ............................................3
   6. Informative References ..........................................3
        
   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................2
   3. Recommendation ..................................................2
   4. Security Considerations .........................................3
   5. Normative References ............................................3
   6. Informative References ..........................................3
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

The ITU-T recommendation H.263 [H263] specifies the encoding used by ITU-T-compliant video-conference codecs. The first version (version 1) was approved in 1996 by the ITU, and a payload format for encapsulating this H.263 bitstream in the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is in RFC 2190 [RFC2190]. In 1998 the ITU approved a new version of H.263 [H263P] that is also known as H.263 plus. This version added optional features, and a new payload format is now in RFC 2429 [RFC2429]. RFC 2429 is capable of carrying encoded video bit streams that are using only the basic H.263 version 1 options.

ITU-T建议H.263[H263]规定了符合ITU-T标准的视频会议编解码器使用的编码。第一个版本（第1版）于1996年由ITU批准，用于在实时传输协议（RTP）中封装该H.263比特流的有效载荷格式在RFC 2190[RFC2190]中。1998年，国际电联批准了H.263[H263P]的新版本，也称为H.263 plus。该版本增加了可选功能，新的有效负载格式现在在RFC22429[RFC2429]中。RFC 2429能够承载仅使用基本H.263版本1选项的编码视频比特流。

RFC 2429 [RFC2429] states that it does not replace RFC 2190, which continues to be used by existing implementations and may be required for backward compatibility in new implementations. Implementations using the new features of the 1998 version of H.263 and later versions shall use the format described in RFC 2429.

RFC22429[RFC2429]指出，它并没有取代RFC2190，RFC2190继续被现有的实现使用，并且在新的实现中可能需要向后兼容。使用1998版H.263和更高版本新功能的实施应使用RFC 2429中描述的格式。

RFC 2429 is now being revised and will include language that will make it clear that all new implementations MUST use RFC 4629 [RFC4629] for encoding of any version of H.263.

RFC2429现在正在修订中，将包括明确所有新实现必须使用RFC4629[RFC4629]对任何版本的H.263进行编码的语言。

2. Terminology
2. 术语

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant RTP implementations.

本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不得”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中的描述进行解释，并指出符合RTP实施的要求级别。

3. Recommendation
3. 正式建议

RFC 2429 and RFC 4629 [RFC4629] can be used to carry new H.263 payloads even if they are using only the features defined in the 1996 version. All the H.263 features that are part of the 1996 version are also part of the 1998 version and later versions.

RFC 2429和RFC 4629[RFC4629]可用于承载新的H.263有效载荷，即使它们仅使用1996版本中定义的功能。1996年版的所有H.263功能也是1998年版和更高版本的一部分。

It is recommended that RFC 2190 be moved to historic status and that, as stated in RFC 4629 [RFC4629], new implementations use the RFC 4629 and the H263-1998 and H263-2000 Media Types.

建议将RFC 2190移至历史状态，并且如RFC 4629[RFC4629]中所述，新的实施方案使用RFC 4629、H263-1998和H263-2000介质类型。

This recommendation will come into effect at the publication or as soon as possible after the publication of RFC 4629 [RFC4629].

本建议将在RFC 4629[RFC4629]出版时或出版后尽快生效。

4. Security Considerations
4. 安全考虑

Security considerations for the H263 video RTP payload can be found in the RFC 4629 [RFC4629]. Using the payload specification in RFC 4629 instead of that in RFC 2190 does not affect the security consideration since both of them refer to RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 3551 [RFC3551] for security considerations.

H263视频RTP有效负载的安全注意事项可在RFC 4629[RFC4629]中找到。使用RFC 4629中的有效负载规范而不是RFC 2190中的有效负载规范不会影响安全考虑，因为它们都参考RFC 3550[RFC3550]和RFC 3551[RFC3551]以获得安全考虑。

5. Normative References
5. 规范性引用文件

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。

6. Informative References
6. 资料性引用

[H263] International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, March 1996.

[H263]国际电信联盟，“低比特率通信的视频编码”，ITU建议H.263，1996年3月。

[H263P] International Telecommunication Union, "Video coding for low bit rate communication", ITU Recommendation H.263, January 2005.

[H263P]国际电信联盟，“低比特率通信的视频编码”，国际电联建议H.263，2005年1月。

[RFC2190] Zhu, C., "RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams", RFC 2190, September 1997.

[RFC2190]Zhu，C.“H.263视频流的RTP有效载荷格式”，RFC 21901997年9月。

[RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C. Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998.

[RFC2429]Bormann，C.，Cline，L.，Deisher，G.，Gardos，T.，Maciocco，C.，Newell，D.，Ott，J.，Sullivan，G.，Wenger，S.，和C.Zhu，“1998版ITU-T Rec.H.263视频（H.263+）的RTP有效载荷格式”，RFC 24291998年10月。

[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

[RFC3550]Schulzrinne，H.，Casner，S.，Frederick，R.，和V.Jacobson，“RTP：实时应用的传输协议”，STD 64，RFC 35502003年7月。

[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.

[RFC3551]Schulzrinne，H.和S.Casner，“具有最小控制的音频和视频会议的RTP配置文件”，STD 65，RFC 3551，2003年7月。

[RFC4629] Ott, J., Borman, C., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and R. Even, Ed., "RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video", RFC 4629, January 2007.

[RFC4629]Ott，J.，Borman，C.，Sullivan，G.，Wenger，S.，和R.Even，Ed.，“ITU-T Rec.H.263视频的RTP有效载荷格式”，RFC 46292007年1月。

Author's Address

作者地址

Roni Even Polycom 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot Petach Tikva 49130 Israel

Roni Even Polycom 94 Derech Em Hamoshavot Petach Tikva 49130以色列 

   EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il
        
   EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il

Full Copyright Statement

完整版权声明

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

本文件及其包含的信息以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。

Intellectual Property

知识产权

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

确认

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。