4], and in any appropriate RTP profile (for example, ). This implies that confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption; for example, through the application of SRTP . Because the data compression used with this payload format is applied end-to-end, any encryption needs to be performed after compression.
A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encodings using compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams into the stream that are complex to decode and that cause the receiver to be overloaded. H.264 is particularly vulnerable to such attacks, as it is extremely simple to generate datagrams containing NAL units that affect the decoding process of many future NAL units. Therefore, the usage of data origin authentication and data integrity protection of at least the RTP packet is RECOMMENDED; for example, with SRTP . Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and integrity of RTP packets and their payloads is very dependent on the application and on the transport and signaling protocols employed. Thus, although SRTP is given as an example above, other possible choices exist. Decoders MUST exercise caution with respect to the handling of user data SEI messages, particularly if they contain active elements, and MUST restrict their domain of applicability to the presentation containing the stream. End-to-End security with either authentication, integrity or confidentiality protection will prevent a MANE from performing media-aware operations other than discarding complete packets. And in the case of confidentiality protection it will even be prevented from performing discarding of packets in a media aware way. To allow any MANE to perform its operations, it will be required to be a trusted entity which is included in the security context establishment. RFC 3550 , and with any applicable RTP profile; e.g., RFC 3551 . An additional requirement if best-effort service is being used is: users of this payload format MUST monitor packet loss to ensure that the packet loss rate is within acceptable parameters. Packet loss is considered acceptable if a TCP flow across the same network path, and experiencing the same network conditions, would achieve an average throughput, measured on a reasonable timescale, that is not less than the RTP flow is achieving. This condition can be satisfied by implementing congestion control mechanisms to adapt the transmission rate (or the number of layers subscribed for a layered multicast session), or by arranging for a receiver to leave the session if the loss rate is unacceptably high.
The bit rate adaptation necessary for obeying the congestion control principle is easily achievable when real-time encoding is used. However, when pre-encoded content is being transmitted, bandwidth adaptation requires the availability of more than one coded representation of the same content, at different bit rates, or the existence of non-reference pictures or sub-sequences  in the bitstream. The switching between the different representations can normally be performed in the same RTP session; e.g., by employing a concept known as SI/SP slices of the Extended Profile, or by switching streams at IDR picture boundaries. Only when non- downgradable parameters (such as the profile part of the profile/level ID) are required to be changed does it become necessary to terminate and re-start the media stream. This may be accomplished by using a different RTP payload type. MANEs MAY follow the suggestions outlined in section 7.3 and remove certain unusable packets from the packet stream when that stream was damaged due to previous packet losses. This can help reduce the network load in certain special cases.
15] as a packetization scheme. The packetization mechanism defined in this Annex is technically identical with a small subset of this specification. When a system operates according to H.241 Annex A, parameter set NAL units are sent in-band. Only Single NAL unit packets are used. Many such systems are not sending IDR pictures regularly, but only when required by user interaction or by control protocol means; e.g., when switching between video channels in a Multipoint Control Unit or for error recovery requested by feedback.
picture sizes, this may result in a one-picture-per-one-packet strategy. Intra refresh algorithms clean up the loss of packets and the resulting drift-related artifacts. RFC 2429 packetization . It has been implemented, and good results were reported . The VCL encoder codes the source picture so that all macroblocks (MBs) of one MB line are assigned to one slice. All slices with even MB row addresses are combined into one STAP, and all slices with odd MB row addresses into another. Those STAPs are transmitted as RTP packets. The establishment of the parameter sets is performed as discussed above. Note that the use of STAPs is essential here, as the high number of individual slices (18 for a CIF picture) would lead to unacceptably high IP/UDP/RTP header overhead (unless the source coding tool FMO is used, which is not assumed in this scenario). Furthermore, some wireless video transmission systems, such as H.324M and the IP-based video telephony specified in 3GPP, are likely to use relatively small transport packet size. For example, a typical MTU size of H.223 AL3 SDU is around 100 bytes . Coding individual slices according to this packetization scheme provides further advantage in communication between wired and wireless networks, as individual slices are likely to be smaller than the preferred maximum packet size of wireless systems. Consequently, a gateway can convert the STAPs used in a wired network into several RTP packets with only one NAL unit, which are preferred in a wireless network, and vice versa. 12]. Data Partitioning is known to be useful only when some form of unequal error protection is available. Normally, in single-session RTP environments, even error characteristics are assumed; i.e., the packet loss probability of all packets of the session is the same statistically. However, there are means to reduce the packet loss probability of individual packets in an RTP session. A FEC packet according to RFC 2733 , for example, specifies which media packets are associated with the FEC packet.
In all cases, the incurred overhead is substantial but is in the same order of magnitude as the number of bits that have otherwise been spent for intra information. However, this mechanism does not add any delay to the system. Again, the complete parameter set establishment is performed through control protocol means. 19]. The most efficient means to combat packet losses for scenarios where retransmissions are not applicable is forward error correction (FEC). Although application layer, end-to-end use of FEC is often less efficient than an FEC-based protection of individual links (especially when links of different characteristics are in the transmission path), application layer, end-to-end FEC is unavoidable in some scenarios. RFC 2733  provides means to use generic, application layer, end-to-end FEC in packet-loss environments. A binary forward error correcting code is generated by applying the XOR operation to the bits at the same bit position in different packets. The binary code can be specified by the parameters (n,k) in which k is the number of information packets used in the connection and n is the total number of packets generated for k information packets; i.e., n-k parity packets are generated for k information packets. When a code is used with parameters (n,k) within the RFC 2733 framework, the following properties are well known: a) If applied over one RTP packet, RFC 2733 provides only packet repetition. b) RFC 2733 is most bit rate efficient if XOR-connected packets have equal length. c) At the same packet loss probability p and for a fixed k, the greater the value of n is, the smaller the residual error probability becomes. For example, for a packet loss probability of 10%, k=1, and n=2, the residual error probability is about 1%, whereas for n=3, the residual error probability is about 0.1%. d) At the same packet loss probability p and for a fixed code rate k/n, the greater the value of n is, the smaller the residual error probability becomes. For example, at a packet loss probability of p=10%, k=1 and n=2, the residual error rate is about 1%, whereas
for an extended Golay code with k=12 and n=24, the residual error rate is about 0.01%. For applying RFC 2733 in combination with H.264 baseline coded video without using FUs, several options might be considered: 1) The video encoder produces NAL units for which each video frame is coded in a single slice. Applying FEC, one could use a simple code; e.g., (n=2, k=1). That is, each NAL unit would basically just be repeated. The disadvantage is obviously the bad code performance according to d), above, and the low flexibility, as only (n, k=1) codes can be used. 2) The video encoder produces NAL units for which each video frame is encoded in one or more consecutive slices. Applying FEC, one could use a better code, e.g., (n=24, k=12), over a sequence of NAL units. Depending on the number of RTP packets per frame, a loss may introduce a significant delay, which is reduced when more RTP packets are used per frame. Packets of completely different length might also be connected, which decreases bit rate efficiency according to b), above. However, with some care and for slices of 1kb or larger, similar length (100-200 bytes difference) may be produced, which will not lower the bit efficiency catastrophically. 3) The video encoder produces NAL units, for which a certain frame contains k slices of possibly almost equal length. Then, applying FEC, a better code, e.g., (n=24, k=12), can be used over the sequence of NAL units for each frame. The delay compared to that of 2), above, may be reduced, but several disadvantages are obvious. First, the coding efficiency of the encoded video is lowered significantly, as slice-structured coding reduces intra- frame prediction and additional slice overhead is necessary. Second, pre-encoded content or, when operating over a gateway, the video is usually not appropriately coded with k slices such that FEC can be applied. Finally, the encoding of video producing k slices of equal length is not straightforward and might require more than one encoding pass. Many of the mentioned disadvantages can be avoided by applying FUs in combination with FEC. Each NAL unit can be split into any number of FUs of basically equal length; therefore, FEC with a reasonable k and n can be applied, even if the encoder made no effort to produce slices of equal length. For example, a coded slice NAL unit containing an entire frame can be split to k FUs, and a parity check code (n=k+1, k) can be applied. However, this has the disadvantage
that unless all created fragments can be recovered, the whole slice will be lost. Thus a larger section is lost than would be if the frame had been split into several slices. The presented technique makes it possible to achieve good transmission error tolerance, even if no additional source coding layer redundancy (such as periodic intra frames) is present. Consequently, the same coded video sequence can be used to achieve the maximum compression efficiency and quality over error-free transmission and for transmission over error-prone networks. Furthermore, the technique allows the application of FEC to pre- encoded sequences without adding delay. In this case, pre-encoded sequences that are not encoded for error-prone networks can still be transmitted almost reliably without adding extensive delays. In addition, FUs of equal length result in a bit rate efficient use of RFC 2733. If the error probability depends on the length of the transmitted packet (e.g., in case of mobile transmission ), the benefits of applying FUs with FEC are even more obvious. Basically, the flexibility of the size of FUs allows appropriate FEC to be applied for each NAL unit and unequal error protection of NAL units. When FUs and FEC are used, the incurred overhead is substantial but is in the same order of magnitude as the number of bits that have to be spent for intra-coded macroblocks if no FEC is applied. In , it was shown that the overall performance of the FEC-based approach enhanced quality when using the same error rate and same overall bit rate, including the overhead. 20]. There is no technical reason why similarly good results could not be achievable with H.264. In today's Internet streaming, some of the offered bit rates are relatively low in order to allow terminals with dial-up modems to access the content. In wired IP networks, relatively large packets, say 500 - 1500 bytes, are preferred to smaller and more frequently occurring packets in order to reduce network congestion. Moreover, use of large packets decreases the amount of RTP/UDP/IP header overhead. For low bit-rate video, the use of large packets means that sometimes up to few pictures should be encapsulated in one packet.
However, loss of a packet including many coded pictures would have drastic consequences for visual quality, as there is practically no other way to conceal a loss of an entire picture than to repeat the previous one. One way to construct relatively large packets and maintain possibilities for successful loss concealment is to construct MTAPs that contain interleaved slices from several pictures. An MTAP should not contain spatially adjacent slices from the same picture or spatially overlapping slices from any picture. If a packet is lost, it is likely that a lost slice is surrounded by spatially adjacent slices of the same picture and spatially corresponding slices of the temporally previous and succeeding pictures. Consequently, concealment of the lost slice is likely to be relatively successful. 21]. There is no technical reason why similar or better results could not be achievable with H.264. Streaming clients typically have a receiver buffer that is capable of storing a relatively large amount of data. Initially, when a streaming session is established, a client does not start playing the stream back immediately. Rather, it typically buffers the incoming data for a few seconds. This buffering helps maintain continuous playback, as, in case of occasional increased transmission delays or network throughput drops, the client can decode and play buffered data. Otherwise, without initial buffering, the client has to freeze the display, stop decoding, and wait for incoming data. The buffering is also necessary for either automatic or selective retransmission in any protocol level. If any part of a picture is lost, a retransmission mechanism may be used to resend the lost data. If the retransmitted data is received before its scheduled decoding or playback time, the loss is recovered perfectly. Coded pictures can be ranked according to their importance in the subjective quality of the decoded sequence. For example, non-reference pictures, such as conventional B pictures, are subjectively least important, as their absence does not affect decoding of any other pictures. In addition to non-reference pictures, the ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10 standard includes a temporal scalability method called sub- sequences . Subjective ranking can also be made on coded slice data partition or slice group basis. Coded slices and coded slice data partitions that are subjectively the most important can be sent earlier than their decoding order indicates, whereas coded slices and coded slice data partitions that are subjectively the least important can be sent later than their natural coding order indicates. Consequently, any retransmitted parts of the most important slices
and coded slice data partitions are more likely to be received before their scheduled decoding or playback time compared to the least important slices and slice data partitions.
Each reference picture consists of three slice groups that are scattered as follows (a number denotes the slice group number for each macroblock in a QCIF frame): 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 For the sake of simplicity, we assume that all the macroblocks of a slice group are included in one slice. Three MTAPs are constructed from three consecutive reference pictures so that each MTAP contains three aggregation units, each of which contains all the macroblocks from one slice group. The first MTAP contains slice group 0 of picture R1, slice group 1 of picture R3, and slice group 2 of picture R5. The second MTAP contains slice group 1 of picture R1, slice group 2 of picture R3, and slice group 0 of picture R5. The third MTAP contains slice group 2 of picture R1, slice group 0 of picture R3, and slice group 1 of picture R5. Each non-reference picture is encapsulated into an STAP-B. Consequently, the transmission order of NAL units is the following: R1, slice group 0, DON 1, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N R3, slice group 1, DON 2, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N R5, slice group 2, DON 4, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N R1, slice group 1, DON 1, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+1 R3, slice group 2, DON 2, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+1 R5, slice group 0, DON 4, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+1 R1, slice group 2, DON 1, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+2 R3, slice group 1, DON 2, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+2 R5, slice group 0, DON 4, carried in MTAP, RTP SN: N+2 N2, DON 3, carried in STAP-B, RTP SN: N+3 N4, DON 5, carried in STAP-B, RTP SN: N+4 The receiver is able to organize the NAL units back in decoding order based on the value of DON associated with each NAL unit. If one of the MTAPs is lost, the spatially adjacent and temporally co-located macroblocks are received and can be used to conceal the loss efficiently. If one of the STAPs is lost, the effect of the loss does not propagate temporally.
figures, I denotes an IDR picture, R denotes a reference picture, N denotes a non-reference picture, and the number after I, R, or N indicates the sampling time relative to the previous IDR picture in decoding order. Values below the sequence of pictures indicate scaled system clock timestamps. The system clock is initialized arbitrarily in this example, and time runs from left to right. Each I, R, and N picture is mapped into the same timeline compared to the previous processing step, if any, assuming that
encoding, transmission, and decoding take no time. Thus, events happening at the same time are located in the same column throughout all example figures. A subset of a sequence of coded pictures is depicted below in sampling order. ... N58 N59 I00 N01 N02 R03 N04 N05 R06 ... N58 N59 I00 N01 ... ... --|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... -|---|---|---|- ... ... 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 128 129 130 131 ... Figure 16. Sequence of pictures in sampling order The sampled pictures are buffered in the pre-encoding buffer to arrange them in encoding order. In this example, we assume that the non-reference pictures are predicted from both the previous and the next reference picture in output order, except for the non-reference pictures immediately preceding an IDR picture, which are predicted only from the previous reference picture in output order. Thus, the pre-encoding buffer has to contain at least two pictures, and the buffering causes a delay of two picture intervals. The output of the pre-encoding buffering process and the encoding (and decoding) order of the pictures are as follows: ... N58 N59 I00 R03 N01 N02 R06 N04 N05 ... ... -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... Figure 17. Re-ordered pictures in the pre-encoding buffer The encoder or the transmitter can set the value of DON for each picture to a value of DON for the previous picture in decoding order plus one. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that: o the frame rate of the sequence is constant, o each picture consists of only one slice, o each slice is encapsulated in a single NAL unit packet, o there is no transmission delay, and o pictures are transmitted at constant intervals (that is, 1 / frame rate).
When pictures are transmitted in decoding order, they are received as follows: ... N58 N59 I00 R03 N01 N02 R06 N04 N05 ... ... -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... Figure 18. Received pictures in decoding order The OPTIONAL sprop-interleaving-depth MIME type parameter is set to 0, as the transmission (or reception) order is identical to the decoding order. The decoder has to buffer for one picture interval initially in its decoded picture buffer to organize pictures from decoding order to output order as depicted below: ... N58 N59 I00 N01 N02 R03 N04 N05 R06 ... ... -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ... Figure 19. Output order The amount of required initial buffering in the decoded picture buffer can be signaled in the buffering period SEI message or with the num_reorder_frames syntax element of H.264 video usability information. num_reorder_frames indicates the maximum number of frames, complementary field pairs, or non-paired fields that precede any frame, complementary field pair, or non-paired field in the sequence in decoding order and that follow it in output order. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that num_reorder_frames is used to indicate the initial buffer in the decoded picture buffer. In this example, num_reorder_frames is equal to 1. It can be observed that if the IDR picture I00 is lost during transmission and a retransmission request is issued when the value of the system clock is 62, there is one picture interval of time (until the system clock reaches timestamp 63) to receive the retransmitted IDR picture I00.
Let us then assume that IDR pictures are transmitted two frame intervals earlier than their decoding position; i.e., the pictures are transmitted as follows: ... I00 N58 N59 R03 N01 N02 R06 N04 N05 ... ... --|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... Figure 20. Interleaving: Early IDR pictures in sending order The OPTIONAL sprop-interleaving-depth MIME type parameter is set equal to 1 according to its definition. (The value of sprop- interleaving-depth in this example can be derived as follows: Picture I00 is the only picture preceding picture N58 or N59 in transmission order and following it in decoding order. Except for pictures I00, N58, and N59, the transmission order is the same as the decoding order of pictures. As a coded picture is encapsulated into exactly one NAL unit, the value of sprop-interleaving-depth is equal to the maximum number of pictures preceding any picture in transmission order and following the picture in decoding order.) The receiver buffering process contains two pictures at a time according to the value of the sprop-interleaving-depth parameter and orders pictures from the reception order to the correct decoding order based on the value of DON associated with each picture. The output of the receiver buffering process is as follows: ... N58 N59 I00 R03 N01 N02 R06 N04 N05 ... ... -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... Figure 21. Interleaving: Receiver buffer Again, an initial buffering delay of one picture interval is needed to organize pictures from decoding order to output order, as depicted below: ... N58 N59 I00 N01 N02 R03 N04 N05 ... ... -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|- ... ... 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... Figure 22. Interleaving: Receiver buffer after reordering Note that the maximum delay that IDR pictures can undergo during transmission, including possible application, transport, or link layer retransmission, is equal to three picture intervals. Thus, the
loss resiliency of IDR pictures is improved in systems supporting retransmission compared to the case in which pictures were transmitted in their decoding order. 23] and the protection of "key pictures" in multicast streaming . One property of many error-prone video communications systems is that transmission errors are often bursty. Therefore, they may affect more than one consecutive transmission packets in transmission order. In low bit-rate video communication, it is relatively common that an entire coded picture can be encapsulated into one transmission packet. Consequently, a primary coded picture and the corresponding redundant coded pictures may be transmitted in consecutive packets in transmission order. To make the transmission scheme more tolerant of bursty transmission errors, it is beneficial to transmit the primary coded picture and redundant coded picture separated by more than a single packet. The DON concept enables this.
o Coded slices from multiple coded video sequences cannot be interleaved, as the frame number syntax element is reset to 0 in each IDR picture. o The coded fields of a complementary field pair share the same value of the frame_num syntax element. Thus, the decoding order of the coded fields of a complementary field pair cannot be recovered based on the frame_num syntax element or any other syntax element of the H.264 coding syntax. The RTP payload format for transport of MPEG-4 elementary streams  enables interleaving of access units and transmission of multiple access units in the same RTP packet. An access unit is specified in the H.264 coding standard to comprise all NAL units associated with a primary coded picture according to subclause 184.108.40.206 of . Consequently, slices of different pictures cannot be interleaved, and the multi-picture slice interleaving technique (see section 12.6) for improved error resilience cannot be used.  ITU-T Recommendation H.264, "Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual services", May 2003.  ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10:2003.  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 3548, July 2003.
 Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.  "Draft ITU-T Recommendation and Final Draft International Standard of Joint Video Specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10 AVC)", available from http://ftp3.itu.int/av- arch/jvt-site/2003_03_Pattaya/JVT-G050r1.zip, May 2003.  Luthra, A., Sullivan, G.J., and T. Wiegand (eds.), Special Issue on H.264/AVC. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems on Video Technology, July 2003.  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.  ISO/IEC IS 14496-2.  Wenger, S., "H.26L over IP", IEEE Transaction on Circuits and Systems for Video technology, Vol. 13, No. 7, July 2003.  Wenger, S., "H.26L over IP: The IP Network Adaptation Layer", Proceedings Packet Video Workshop 02, April 2002.  Stockhammer, T., Hannuksela, M.M., and S. Wenger, "H.26L/JVT Coding Network Abstraction Layer and IP-based Transport" in Proc. ICIP 2002, Rochester, NY, September 2002.  ITU-T Recommendation H.241, "Extended video procedures and control signals for H.300 series terminals", 2004.  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.  ITU-T Recommendation H.223, "Multiplexing protocol for low bit rate multimedia communication", July 2001.  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733, December 1999.  Stockhammer, T., Wiegand, T., Oelbaum, T., and F. Obermeier, "Video Coding and Transport Layer Techniques for H.264/AVC-Based Transmission over Packet-Lossy Networks", IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 2003), Barcelona, Spain, September 2003.
 Varsa, V. and M. Karczewicz, "Slice interleaving in compressed video packetization", Packet Video Workshop 2000.  Kang, S.H. and A. Zakhor, "Packet scheduling algorithm for wireless video streaming," International Packet Video Workshop 2002.  Hannuksela, M.M., "Enhanced concept of GOP", JVT-B042, available http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/video-site/0201_Gen/JVT-B042.doc, January 2002.  Wenger, S., "Video Redundancy Coding in H.263+", 1997 International Workshop on Audio-Visual Services over Packet Networks, September 1997.  Wang, Y.-K., Hannuksela, M.M., and M. Gabbouj, "Error Resilient Video Coding Using Unequally Protected Key Pictures", in Proc. International Workshop VLBV03, September 2003.  van der Meer, J., Mackie, D., Swaminathan, V., Singer, D., and P. Gentric, "RTP Payload Format for Transport of MPEG-4 Elementary Streams", RFC 3640, November 2003.  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004.  Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.  Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.  ISO/IEC 14496-15: "Information technology - Coding of audio- visual objects - Part 15: Advanced Video Coding (AVC) file format".  Castagno, R. and D. Singer, "MIME Type Registrations for 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Multimedia files", RFC 3839, July 2004.
David Singer QuickTime Engineering Apple 1 Infinite Loop MS 302-3MT Cupertino CA 95014 USA Phone +1 408 974-3162 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 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 regarding 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 the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from 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. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- email@example.com. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.