|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Annex [A] of G.729.1 (G.729.1 usage in H.245) defines how to use the G.729.1 audio codec with H.245 systems. A RTP payload format is needed and is specified in RFC 4749. In addition, codec parameters that need to be negotiated in H.245 are defined in the media type registration for G.729.1, also present in the same RFC.
|
|
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/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=4749
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence since October 2006. This text is a Proposed Standard.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4749 was published in October 2006. It is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 4749 is related to the RTP standard (RFC 3550), which is widely used by the internet community.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] International Telecommunications Union, "G.729 based Embedded Variable bit-rate coder: An 8-32 kbit/s scalable wideband coder bitstream interoperable with G.729", ITU-T Recommendation G.729.1, May 2006./
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[3] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003./
[4] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003./
[5] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006./
[6] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005./
[7] Casner, S. and P. Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats", RFC 3555, July 2003./
[8] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002./
Informative References/
[9] International Telecommunications Union, "Coding of speech at 8 kbit/s using conjugate-structure algebraic-code-excited linear-prediction (CS-ACELP)", ITU-T Recommendation G.729, March 1996./
[10] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000./
[11] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998./
[12] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.
|
|
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):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
