Subject: [AVT] RFC3016-Question on RTP packetization of mpeg-4 bitstream

From: "Desineni, Harikishan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:31:21 -0700

I have a question on Sec 3.3.

Sec 3.3 shows the following valid combination of header in RTP packet
(RTP header, VS header, VO header, VOL header, Video packet)

+------+------+------+------+------------+

| RTP  |  VS  |  VO  | VOL  |Video Packet|

|header|header|header|header|            |

+------+------+------+------+------------+

According to "ISO/IEC 14496-2:1999, "Information technology - Coding of
audio-visual objects - Part2: Visual", this is not a valid bit-stream
because it does not have a VOP before video packet. i.e., the correct
sequence for (b) should have been (RTP header, VS header, VO header, VOL
header, VOP header, Video packet) as shown below.

+------+------+------+------+-------------------+

| RTP  |  VS  |  VO  | VOL  |VOP   |Video Packet|

|header|header|header|header|header|            |

+------+------+------+------+-------------------+

Is my understanding correct? Is it really an error in RFC 3016?

Thanks,

Hari

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

---

From: "Yoshihiro KIKUCHI" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:06:37 +0900

Dear Hari,

You are right about that. VOP header should be added after VOL header in 
Figure 2 (b).

Best regards,
Yoshihiro
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Desineni, Harikishan
  To: [email-masked]
  Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:31 AM
  Subject: [AVT] RFC3016-Question on RTP packetization of mpeg-4 bitstream

  Sec 3.3 shows the following valid combination of header in RTP packet (RTP 
header, VS header, VO header, VOL header, Video packet)

  Thanks,

  Hari

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Desineni, Harikishan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:45:24 -0700

Yoshihiro,

What's the best way to fix this (minor!) error in 3016? I think
reporting this as errata on rfc3016 would be helpful to prevent
confusion on 2(b).

Are you planning to report this to rfc-editor?  

Thanks,

Hari

________________________________

From: Yoshihiro KIKUCHI [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:07 PM
To: Desineni, Harikishan; [email-masked]
Cc: Yoshihiro KIKUCHI
Subject: Re: [AVT] RFC3016-Question on RTP packetization of mpeg-4
bitstream

Dear Hari,

 

Best regards,

Yoshihiro

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Desineni, Harikishan <mailto:[email-masked]>  

	To: [email-masked] 

	Subject: [AVT] RFC3016-Question on RTP packetization of mpeg-4
bitstream

	Sec 3.3 shows the following valid combination of header in RTP
packet (RTP header, VS header, VO header, VOL header, Video packet)

	According to "ISO/IEC 14496-2:1999, "Information technology -
Coding of audio-visual objects - Part2: Visual", this is not a valid
bit-stream because it does not have a VOP before video packet. i.e., the
correct sequence for (b) should have been (RTP header, VS header, VO
header, VOL header, VOP header, Video packet) as shown below.

	Thanks,

	Hari

________________________________