|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards-track Proposed Internet Standard.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This document specifies a packetization scheme for encapsulating uncompressed video into a payload format for the Real-time Transport Protocol, RTP. It supports a range of standard- and high-definition video formats, including common television formats such as ITU-R BT.601, and standards from SMPTE, such as SMPTE 274M and SMPTE 296M. The format is designed to be applicable and extensible to new video formats as they are developed. Therefore this is suitable for F.Med-UHD and UHD-based endoscopic systems, where low-latency is required and uncompressed tranport of video signals of 8K is recommended, as in 7.1 of F.Med-UHD.
|
|
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=4175. No IPR declaration is about about this document.
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Approved September 2005. Updated by RFC 4421. Errata exist.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
IETF-RFC4175 is based on RFC 3550, which defines RTP, the base protocol for the transmission of multimedia (voice, video, etc.), over packet networks
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
Normative References/
/
[1] IETF-RFC3550 (2003) "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", /
[2] IETF-RFC 2119, (1997) "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
[3] IETF-RFC 2434, (1998). "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"/
[4] ITU-R Rec. BT.601 (1995) "Studio encoding parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and wide screen 16:9 aspect ratios"/
[5] ITU-R Rec. BT.709-2 "Parameter Values for HDTV Standards for Production and International Programme Exchange"/
[6] SMPTE 240M-1999 (1999) "Television - Signal Parameters - 1125-Line High-Definition Production"/
/
Informative References/
/
[1] SMPTE 274M-1998 (1998) "1920x1080 Scanning and Analog and Parallel Digital Interfaces for Multiple Picture Rates"/
[2] SMPTE 296M-1998 (1998) "1280x720 Scanning, Analog and Digital Representation and Analog Interfaces"/
[3] SMPTE 372M-2002."Dual Link 292M Interface for 1920 x 1080 Picture Raster", /
[4] ACM (1990) Clark, D. D., and Tennenhouse, D. L., "Architectural Considerations for a New Generation of Protocols", In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '90 (Philadelphia, PA, Sept. 1990),/
[5] IETF-RFC2327,(1998) "SDP: Session Description Protocol", /
[6] IETF-RFC2431, (1998) "RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding",/
[7] IETF-RFC3497,(2003) "RTP Payload Format for Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 292M Video", /
[8] ITU-R Rec. BT.656, (1998),"Interfaces for Digital Component Video Signals in 525-line and 625-line Television Systems Operating at the 4:2:2 Level of Recommendation ITU-R BT.601 (Part A)", /
|
|
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.
|
