RFC 4628

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

📅 published February 2007, from ietf

RFC 4628 🎀 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Moving RFC 2190 to Historic Status

okay bestie, here's the title block tea ☕✨

Author: Roni Even from Polycom 💖
Category: Informational, so it's sharing info, not an official standard 🌸
Date: January 2007 🧚
Obsoletes / Updates: the header doesn't list either one, so nothing is formally obsoleted or updated 🦋. The main thing it does is recommend that RFC 2190 be moved to historic status 💅

Status of This Memo

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

Copyright Notice

Abstract

The first RFC that describes an RTP payload format for ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendation H.263 is RFC 2190. This spec talks about why we should move RFC 2190 to historic status. 🫶

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

1. Introduction ✨

okay so the ITU-T recommendation H.263 [H263] is the encoding that ITU-T-compliant video-conference codecs use. Version 1 got approved in 1996 by the ITU, and its RTP payload format, the way you wrap that H.263 bitstream up for the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), lives in RFC 2190 [RFC2190]. Then in 1998 the ITU approved a new version of H.263 [H263P], also called H.263 plus, which added optional features. Its payload format is now in RFC 2429 [RFC2429]. RFC 2429 can carry video bit streams that only use the basic H.263 version 1 options, so it's giving versatile 💅

RFC 2429 [RFC2429] says it does not replace RFC 2190, which is still 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. 🌸

RFC 2429 is being revised right now, and the new version will make it crystal clear that all new implementations MUST use RFC 4629 [RFC4629] for encoding any version of H.263. Main character energy for RFC 4629 🔥👑

2. Terminology 🎀

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. These are the official requirement-level words, so they're doing the heavy lifting 💜

3. Recommendation 🦋

RFC 2429 and RFC 4629 [RFC4629] can carry new H.263 payloads even when they only use the features from the 1996 version. Every H.263 feature in the 1996 version is also in the 1998 version and later versions, so the newer specs have you covered 🧚

It is recommended that RFC 2190 be moved to historic status. As RFC 4629 [RFC4629] says, new implementations should use RFC 4629 along with the H263-1998 and H263-2000 Media Types. 🍓

This recommendation takes effect at publication, or as soon as possible after RFC 4629 [RFC4629] is published. ⭐

4. Security Considerations 💀

Security considerations for the H263 video RTP payload are in RFC 4629 [RFC4629], so go read that one 🙈 Using the payload spec in RFC 4629 instead of the one in RFC 2190 doesn't change the security situation, because both of them point to RFC 3550 [RFC3550] and RFC 3551 [RFC3551] for their security considerations. Same security story, different outfit 😭🫶

5. Normative References 🌈

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

6. Informative References 💖

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

Author's Address 🎀

Roni Even
Polycom
94 Derech Em Hamoshavot
Petach Tikva  49130
Israel

EMail: roni.even@polycom.co.il

Full Copyright Statement 💜

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.

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.

Intellectual Property 🦋

The IETF takes no position on 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 on the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available. It also doesn't say it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Info on the procedures for rights in RFC documents is in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users to use such proprietary rights can be found in the IETF on-line IPR repository at 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. Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 💅

Acknowledgement 🌸

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

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc4628 2007-02
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-16: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms