RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams (RFC3016)
Original Publication Date: 2000-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-14
Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)
Y. Kikuchi: AUTHOR [+4]
This document describes Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload formats for carrying each of MPEG-4 Audio and MPEG-4 Visual bitstreams without using MPEG-4 Systems. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Network Working Group Y. Kikuchi Request for Comments: 3016 Toshiba Category: Standards Track T. Nomura NEC S. Fukunaga Oki Y. Matsui Matsushita H. Kimata NTT November 2000
RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document describes Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload formats for carrying each of MPEG-4 Audio and MPEG-4 Visual bitstreams without using MPEG-4 Systems. For the purpose of directly mapping MPEG-4 Audio/Visual bitstreams onto RTP packets, it provides specifications for the use of RTP header fields and also specifies fragmentation rules. It also provides specifications for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) type registrations and the use of Session Description Protocol (SDP).
The RTP payload formats described in this document specify how MPEG-4 Audio  and MPEG-4 Visual streams  are to be fragmented and mapped directly onto RTP packets.
These RTP payload formats enable transport of MPEG-4 Audio/Visual streams without using the synchronization and stream management functionality of MPEG-4 Systems . Such RTP payload formats will be used in systems that have intrinsic stream management
Kikuchi, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual November 2000
functionality and thus require no such functionality from MPEG-4 Systems. H.323 terminals are an example of such systems, where MPEG-4 Audio/Visual streams are not managed by MPEG-4 Systems Object Descriptors but by H.245. The streams are directly mapped onto RTP packets without using MPEG-4 Systems Sync Layer. Other examples are SIP and RTSP where MIME and SDP are used. MIME types and SDP usages of the RTP payload formats described in this document are defined to directly specify the attribute of Audio/Visual streams (e.g., media type, packetization format and codec configuration) without using MPEG-4 Systems. The obvious benefit is that these MPEG-4 Audio/Visual RTP payload formats can be handled in an unified way together with those formats defined for non-MPEG-4 codecs. The disadvantage is that interoperability with environments using MPEG-4 Systems may be difficult, other payload formats may be better suited to those applications.
The semantics of RTP headers in such cases need to be clearly defined, including the association with MPEG-4 Audio/Visual data elements. In addition, it is beneficial to define the fragmentation rules of RTP packets for MPEG-4 Video streams so as to enhance error resiliency by utilizing the error resilience tools provi...