|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 5583 (2009)
|
|
Title:
|
Signaling Media Decoding Dependency in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This Recommendation describes the use of the Decoding Dependency (DDP) SDP semantic in H.248. RFC 5583 defines the DDP semantic.
|
|
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=5583&submit=rfc&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This was finalized in July 2009. Errata exist.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
The status of the referred RFC, is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
Not Applicable
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
Normative References/
/
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC3388] Camarillo, G., Eriksson, G., Holler, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "Grouping of Media Lines in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3388, December 2002./
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003./
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003./
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004./
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006./
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008./
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008./
/
Informative References/
/
[AVT-RTP-SVC] Wenger, S., Wang Y.-K., Schierl, T. and A. Eleftheriadis, "RTP Payload Format for SVC Video", Work in Progress, March 2009./
[RFC3388bis] Camarillo, G "The SDP (Session Description Protocol) Grouping Framework", Work in Progress, January 2009./
[MMUSIC] Andreasen, F., "SDP Capability Negotiation", Work in Progress, May 2009./
[AVT-RTP-MVC] Wang, Y.-K. and T. Schierl, "RTP Payload Format for MVC Video", Work in Progress, February 2009./
[MDC] Vitali, A., Borneo, A., Fumagalli, M., and R. Rinaldo, "Video over IP using Standard-Compatible Multiple Description Coding: an IETF proposal", Packet Video Workshop, April 2006, Hangzhou, China./
[RFC3984] Wenger, S., Hannuksela, M., Stockhammer, T., Westerlund, M., and D. Singer, "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", RFC 3984, February 2005.
|
|
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):
|
|
|
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 to IETF RFCs categorized as Historic or Experimental. Normative references must only be made to IETF RFCs that are Standards Track or to Informational RFCs that have IETF consensus.
|
|
