Results 11 - 20
of
29
Intended status: Informational
, 2013
"... SDP for the WebRTC draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-01 The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) [WEBRTC] working group is charged to provide protocol support for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video and data between two peers ' web browsers. With in the WebRTC framework, Session ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
SDP for the WebRTC draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-sdp-01 The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) [WEBRTC] working group is charged to provide protocol support for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video and data between two peers ' web browsers. With in the WebRTC framework, Session Description protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] is used for negotiating session capabilities between the peers. Such a negotiataion happens based on the SDP Offer/Answer exchange mechanism described in the RFC 3264 [RFC3264]. This document serves a introductory purpose in describing the role of SDP for the most common WebRTC use-cases. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
Recommendations for SIPREC
, 2011
"... draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-01 This document provides recommendations and guidelines for RTP and RTCP in the context of SIPREC. This document exists as a standalone document to facilitate discussion of the RTP recommendations, and it is anticipated that portions of this document will be incorporated ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-01 This document provides recommendations and guidelines for RTP and RTCP in the context of SIPREC. This document exists as a standalone document to facilitate discussion of the RTP recommendations, and it is anticipated that portions of this document will be incorporated into [I‑D.portman‑siprec‑protocol] rather than this document itself being adopted as a working group document. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
Huawei Technologies
, 2011
"... RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding This memo describes an RTP payload format for Scalable Video Coding (SVC) as defined in Annex G of ITU-T Recommendation H.264, which is technically identical to Amendment 3 of ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10. The RTP payload format allows for pack ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding This memo describes an RTP payload format for Scalable Video Coding (SVC) as defined in Annex G of ITU-T Recommendation H.264, which is technically identical to Amendment 3 of ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10. The RTP payload format allows for packetization of one or more Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet payload, as well as fragmentation of a NAL unit in multiple RTP packets. Furthermore, it supports transmission of an SVC stream over a single as well as multiple RTP sessions. The payload format defines a new media subtype name "H264-SVC", but is still backward compatible to RFC 6184 since the base layer, when encapsulated in its own RTP stream, must use the H.264 media subtype name ("H264") and the packetization method specified in RFC 6184. The payload format has wide applicability in videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and high-bitrate entertainment-quality video, among others. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Session Recording Protocol
, 2012
"... draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-06 This document specifies the use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the Session Description Protocol (SDP), and the Real Time Protocol (RTP) for delivering real-time media and metadata from a Communication Session (CS) to a recording device. The Session Recording ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-06 This document specifies the use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), the Session Description Protocol (SDP), and the Real Time Protocol (RTP) for delivering real-time media and metadata from a Communication Session (CS) to a recording device. The Session Recording Protocol specifies the use of SIP, SDP, and RTP to establish a Recording Session (RS) between the Session Recording Client (SRC), which is on the path of the CS, and a Session Recording Server (SRS) at the recording device. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
Nokia Siemens Networks
, 2010
"... This document specifies how to use the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) security context using the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. It describes a mechanism of transporting a fingerprint attribute in the Session Description ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This document specifies how to use the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) security context using the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. It describes a mechanism of transporting a fingerprint attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) that identifies the key that will be presented during the DTLS handshake. The key exchange travels along the media path as opposed to the signaling path. The SIP Identity mechanism can be used to protect the integrity of the fingerprint attribute from modification by intermediate proxies. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Request for Comments: 6128
"... RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Port for Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions The Session Description Protocol (SDP) has an attribute that allows RTP applications to specify an address and a port associated with the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) traffic. In RTP-based source-specific multicast (SSM) se ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Port for Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) Sessions The Session Description Protocol (SDP) has an attribute that allows RTP applications to specify an address and a port associated with the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) traffic. In RTP-based source-specific multicast (SSM) sessions, the same attribute is used to designate the address and the RTCP port of the Feedback Target in the SDP description. However, the RTCP port associated with the SSM session itself cannot be specified by the same attribute to avoid ambiguity, and thus, is required to be derived from the "m= " line of the media description. Deriving the RTCP port from the "m= " line imposes an unnecessary restriction. This document removes this restriction by introducing a new SDP attribute. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Intended status: Standards Track
, 2008
"... Support for non-compund RTCP, opportunities and consequences draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he o ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Support for non-compund RTCP, opportunities and consequences draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5968
, 2010
"... Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) is used along with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) to provide a control channel between media senders and receivers. This allows constructing a feedback loop to enable application adaptation and monitorin ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Guidelines for Extending the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) is used along with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) to provide a control channel between media senders and receivers. This allows constructing a feedback loop to enable application adaptation and monitoring, among other uses. The basic reporting mechanisms offered by RTCP are generic, yet quite powerful and suffice to cover a range of uses. This document provides guidelines on extending RTCP if those basic mechanisms prove insufficient. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
