Subject: [AVT] The use of RFC 2190 vs. RFC 2429 for transporting H.263 video?

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:40:52 -0800

The first paragraph of RFC 2429 notes that it is preferred over the older 
RFC 2190 payload format - even for transporting the 1996 version of H.263.

However, today I read a claim that several legacy H.323 videoconferencing 
systems (the names Polycom and Tandberg were mentioned) still use the older 
RFC 2190 payload format when sending H.263, and that some (perhaps 
different) videoconferencing systems will receive only the RFC 2190 payload 
format, and do not understand the RFC 2429 payload format 
("video/H263-1998") at all.

Can anyone confirm (or deny) this claim?  Basically, I'd like to know 
whether RFC 2190 is something that I (as an implementor of RTP-based 
software) should still be concerned with, or whether I can get away with 
supporting only RFC 2429?

	Ross.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Terje Vernly <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Nov 2004 12:16:18 +0100

Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]> writes:

> The first paragraph of RFC 2429 notes that it is preferred over the
> older RFC 2190 payload format - even for transporting the 1996 version
> of H.263.
> 
> However, today I read a claim that several legacy H.323
> videoconferencing systems (the names Polycom and Tandberg were
> mentioned) still use the older RFC 2190 payload format when sending
> H.263, and that some (perhaps different) videoconferencing systems
> will receive only the RFC 2190 payload format, and do not understand
> the RFC 2429 payload format ("video/H263-1998") at all.
 
> software) should still be concerned with, or whether I can get away
> with supporting only RFC 2429?

Support for RFC2190 is mandatory for systems conforming to ITU-T
H.323.  Support for other packetization methods has to be signalled
explicitly within the capability exchange procedure and within logical
channel messaging.

In real life, H.323-systems that don't utilize the features of
H.263+(+) will most likely not support reception of RFC2429 packetized
H.263.

-- 
Terje Vernly
TANDBERG