RFC-7798RTPPayloadFormatforHighEfficiencyVideoCoding资源-CSDN文库

需积分: 1 147 浏览量 2023-08-07 10:45:47 上传评论收藏 127KB PDF 举报

资源推荐

资源详情

资源评论

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y.-K. Wang

Request for Comments: 7798 Qualcomm

Category: Standards Track Y. Sanchez

ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Schierl

Fraunhofer HHI

S. Wenger

Vidyo

M. M. Hannuksela

Nokia

March 2016

RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Abstract

This memo describes an RTP payload format for the video coding

standard ITU-T Recommendation H.265 and ISO/IEC International

Standard 23008-2, both also known as High Efficiency Video Coding

(HEVC) and developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding

(JCT-VC). The RTP payload format allows for packetization of one or

more Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units in each RTP packet payload

as well as fragmentation of a NAL unit into multiple RTP packets.

Furthermore, it supports transmission of an HEVC bitstream over a

single stream as well as multiple RTP streams. When multiple RTP

streams are used, a single transport or multiple transports may be

utilized. The payload format has wide applicability in

videoconferencing, Internet video streaming, and high-bitrate

entertainment-quality video, among others.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force

(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has

received public review and has been approved for publication by the

Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on

Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,

and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7798.

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 7798 RTP Payload Format for HEVC March 2016

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

publication of this document. Please review these documents

carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must

include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as

described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................3

1.1. Overview of the HEVC Codec .................................4

1.1.1. Coding-Tool Features ................................4

1.1.2. Systems and Transport Interfaces ....................6

1.1.3. Parallel Processing Support ........................11

1.1.4. NAL Unit Header ....................................13

1.2. Overview of the Payload Format ............................14

2. Conventions ....................................................15

3. Definitions and Abbreviations ..................................15

3.1. Definitions ...............................................15

3.1.1. Definitions from the HEVC Specification ...........15

3.1.2. Definitions Specific to This Memo .................17

3.2. Abbreviations .............................................19

4. RTP Payload Format .............................................20

4.1. RTP Header Usage ..........................................20

4.2. Payload Header Usage ......................................22

4.3. Transmission Modes ........................................23

4.4. Payload Structures ........................................24

4.4.1. Single NAL Unit Packets ............................24

4.4.2. Aggregation Packets (APs) ..........................25

4.4.3. Fragmentation Units ................................29

4.4.4. PACI Packets .......................................32

4.4.4.1. Reasons for the PACI Rules (Informative) ..34

4.4.4.2. PACI Extensions (Informative) .............35

4.5. Temporal Scalability Control Information ..................36

4.6. Decoding Order Number .....................................37

5. Packetization Rules ............................................39

6. De-packetization Process .......................................40

7. Payload Format Parameters ......................................42

7.1. Media Type Registration ...................................42

7.2. SDP Parameters ............................................64

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 7798 RTP Payload Format for HEVC March 2016

7.2.1. Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP ..........64

7.2.2. Usage with SDP Offer/Answer Model ..................65

7.2.3. Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions ..........73

7.2.4. Considerations for Parameter Sets ..................75

7.2.5. Dependency Signaling in Multi-Stream Mode ..........75

8. Use with Feedback Messages .....................................75

8.1. Picture Loss Indication (PLI) .............................75

8.2. Slice Loss Indication (SLI) ...............................76

8.3. Reference Picture Selection Indication (RPSI) .............77

8.4. Full Intra Request (FIR) ..................................77

9. Security Considerations ........................................78

10. Congestion Control ............................................79

11. IANA Considerations ...........................................80

12. References ....................................................80

12.1. Normative References .....................................80

12.2. Informative References ...................................82

Acknowledgments ...................................................85

Authors’ Addresses ................................................86

1. Introduction

The High Efficiency Video Coding specification, formally published as

both ITU-T Recommendation H.265 [HEVC] and ISO/IEC International

Standard 23008-2 [ISO23008-2], was ratified by the ITU-T in April

2013; reportedly, it provides significant coding efficiency gains

over H.264 [H.264].

This memo describes an RTP payload format for HEVC. It shares its

basic design with the RTP payload formats of [RFC6184] and [RFC6190].

With respect to design philosophy, security, congestion control, and

overall implementation complexity, it has similar properties to those

earlier payload format specifications. This is a conscious choice,

as at least RFC 6184 is widely deployed and generally known in the

relevant implementer communities. Mechanisms from RFC 6190 were

incorporated as HEVC version 1 supports temporal scalability.

In order to help the overlapping implementer community, frequently

only the differences between RFCs 6184 and 6190 and the HEVC payload

format are highlighted in non-normative, explanatory parts of this

memo. Basic familiarity with both specifications is assumed for

those parts. However, the normative parts of this memo do not

require study of RFCs 6184 or 6190.

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 7798 RTP Payload Format for HEVC March 2016

1.1. Overview of the HEVC Codec

H.264 and HEVC share a similar hybrid video codec design. In this

memo, we provide a very brief overview of those features of HEVC that

are, in some form, addressed by the payload format specified herein.

Implementers have to read, understand, and apply the ITU-T/ISO/IEC

specifications pertaining to HEVC to arrive at interoperable, well-

performing implementations. Implementers should consider testing

their design (including the interworking between the payload format

implementation and the core video codec) using the tools provided by

ITU-T/ISO/IEC, for example, conformance bitstreams as specified in

[H.265.1]. Not doing so has historically led to systems that perform

badly and that are not secure.

Conceptually, both H.264 and HEVC include a Video Coding Layer (VCL),

which is often used to refer to the coding-tool features, and a

Network Abstraction Layer (NAL), which is often used to refer to the

systems and transport interface aspects of the codecs.

1.1.1. Coding-Tool Features

Similar to earlier hybrid-video-coding-based standards, including

H.264, the following basic video coding design is employed by HEVC.

A prediction signal is first formed by either intra- or motion-

compensated prediction, and the residual (the difference between the

original and the prediction) is then coded. The gains in coding

efficiency are achieved by redesigning and improving almost all parts

of the codec over earlier designs. In addition, HEVC includes

several tools to make the implementation on parallel architectures

easier. Below is a summary of HEVC coding-tool features.

Quad-tree block and transform structure

One of the major tools that contributes significantly to the coding

efficiency of HEVC is the use of flexible coding blocks and

transforms, which are defined in a hierarchical quad-tree manner.

Unlike H.264, where the basic coding block is a macroblock of fixed-

size 16x16, HEVC defines a Coding Tree Unit (CTU) of a maximum size

of 64x64. Each CTU can be divided into smaller units in a

hierarchical quad-tree manner and can represent smaller blocks down

to size 4x4. Similarly, the transforms used in HEVC can have

different sizes, starting from 4x4 and going up to 32x32. Utilizing

large blocks and transforms contributes to the major gain of HEVC,

especially at high resolutions.

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 7798 RTP Payload Format for HEVC March 2016

Entropy coding

HEVC uses a single entropy-coding engine, which is based on Context

Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC) [CABAC], whereas H.264 uses

two distinct entropy coding engines. CABAC in HEVC shares many

similarities with CABAC of H.264, but contains several improvements.

Those include improvements in coding efficiency and lowered

implementation complexity, especially for parallel architectures.

In-loop filtering

H.264 includes an in-loop adaptive deblocking filter, where the

blocking artifacts around the transform edges in the reconstructed

picture are smoothed to improve the picture quality and compression

efficiency. In HEVC, a similar deblocking filter is employed but

with somewhat lower complexity. In addition, pictures undergo a

subsequent filtering operation called Sample Adaptive Offset (SAO),

which is a new design element in HEVC. SAO basically adds a pixel-

level offset in an adaptive manner and usually acts as a de-ringing

filter. It is observed that SAO improves the picture quality,

especially around sharp edges, contributing substantially to visual

quality improvements of HEVC.

Motion prediction and coding

There have been a number of improvements in this area that are

summarized as follows. The first category is motion merge and

Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP) modes. The motion

information of a prediction block can be inferred from the spatially

or temporally neighboring blocks. This is similar to the DIRECT mode

in H.264 but includes new aspects to incorporate the flexible quad-

tree structure and methods to improve the parallel implementations.

In addition, the motion vector predictor can be signaled for improved

efficiency. The second category is high-precision interpolation.

The interpolation filter length is increased to 8-tap from 6-tap,

which improves the coding efficiency but also comes with increased

complexity. In addition, the interpolation filter is defined with

higher precision without any intermediate rounding operations to

further improve the coding efficiency.

Intra prediction and intra-coding

Compared to 8 intra prediction modes in H.264, HEVC supports angular

intra prediction with 33 directions. This increased flexibility

improves both objective coding efficiency and visual quality as the

edges can be better predicted and ringing artifacts around the edges

can be reduced. In addition, the reference samples are adaptively

smoothed based on the prediction direction. To avoid contouring

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

剩余85页未读，继续阅读

评论收藏

内容反馈

毕加索解锁

粉丝: 2139
资源: 24

RFC-7798 RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding

最新资源

RFC-7798 RTP Payload Format for High Efficiency Video Coding

RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding

RFC-2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams (FIR)

RFC 3984 - RTP Payload Format for H_264 Video

RFC-6184 RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video (H.264)

RFC-7741 RTP Payload Format for VP8 Video (VP8)

RFC-7587 RTP Payload Format for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec

RFC-3640 RTP Payload Format for Transport of MPEG-4 Elementary S

RFC-5404 RTP Payload Format for G.719 (G.719)

RFC-7655 RTP Payload Format for G.711.0 (G.711)

RFC-4749 RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio Codec (G.729)

RFC3984 RTP Payload Format for H264 Video

RTP发送H265(HEVC) RFC文档

RFC-3550 RTP中英文版

RFC-4585 Extended RTP Profile for RTCP - Based Feedback (RTCP-FB

RFC1889-(RTP)-协议中文概要

RFC-8285 A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions

RFC-3550 A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications (RTP)

RFC-3550-RTP协议-中文版.pdf

RFC3550-RTP框架 RTCP1

落雪音乐-六音音源 sixyin-music-source-v1.1.0.js

markdown配套文件，使用前先解压

喜马拉雅xm文件解密工具

OCPP协议解析 代码+代码含义详解

mpp_demo.rar

m3u8的下载转换工具

ubuntu下安装ffmpeg必备软件包合集

音频转码，无限制的享受音乐吧！

OPENCV函数手册（中文）.zip

最新资源

OCPP协议解析代码+代码含义详解