RTPPayloadFormatforH.264&H.265Video_rtppayloadtype-编解码文档类资源-CSDN文库

共2个文件

pdf：2个

RTP

Payload

H.264&H.265

Video

需积分: 50 239 浏览量 2017-05-28 15:53:57 上传评论收藏 239KB RAR 举报

身份认证购VIP最低享 7 折!

领优惠券(最高得80元）

资源推荐

资源详情

资源评论

收起资源包目录

H264_H265_RTP_PAYLAOD.rar （2个子文件）

rfc7798_h265.pdf 127KB

rfc6184_h264.pdf 278KB

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

Request for Comments: 6184 R. Even

Obsoletes:

3984 Huawei Technologies

Category: Standards Track T. Kristensen

ISSN: 2070-1721 Tandberg

R. Jesup

WorldGate Communications

May 2011

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video

Abstract

This memo describes an RTP Payload format for the ITU-T

Recommendation H.264 video codec and the technically identical

ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10 video codec, excluding the

Scalable Video Coding (SVC) extension and the Multiview Video Coding

extension, for which the RTP payload formats are defined elsewhere.

The RTP payload format allows for packetization of one or more

Network Abstraction Layer Units (NALUs), produced by an H.264 video

encoder, in each RTP payload. The payload format has wide

applicability, as it supports applications from simple low bitrate

conversational usage, to Internet video streaming with interleaved

transmission, to high bitrate video-on-demand.

This memo obsoletes

RFC 3984. Changes from RFC 3984 are summarized

Section 14. Issues on backward compatibility to RFC 3984 are

discussed in

Section 15.

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/rfc6184.

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 6184

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video May 2011

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 ....................................................4

1.1. The H.264 Codec ............................................4

1.2. Parameter Set Concept ......................................5

1.3. Network Abstraction Layer Unit Types .......................6

2. Conventions .....................................................7

3. Scope ...........................................................7

4. Definitions and Abbreviations ...................................7

4.1. Definitions ................................................7

4.2. Abbreviations ..............................................9

5. RTP Payload Format .............................................10

5.1. RTP Header Usage ..........................................10

5.2. Payload Structures ........................................12

5.3. NAL Unit Header Usage .....................................13

5.4. Packetization Modes .......................................16

5.5. Decoding Order Number (DON) ...............................17

5.6. Single NAL Unit Packet ....................................19

5.7. Aggregation Packets .......................................20

5.7.1. Single-Time Aggregation Packet (STAP) ..............22

5.7.2. Multi-Time Aggregation Packets (MTAPs) .............25

5.8. Fragmentation Units (FUs) .................................29

6. Packetization Rules ............................................33

6.1. Common Packetization Rules ................................33

6.2. Single NAL Unit Mode ......................................34

6.3. Non-Interleaved Mode ......................................34

6.4. Interleaved Mode ..........................................34

7. De-Packetization Process .......................................35

7.1. Single NAL Unit and Non-Interleaved Mode ..................35

7.2. Interleaved Mode ..........................................35

7.2.1. Size of the De-Interleaving Buffer .................36

7.2.2. De-Interleaving Process ............................36

7.3. Additional De-Packetization Guidelines ....................38

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 6184

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video May 2011

8. Payload Format Parameters ......................................39

8.1. Media Type Registration ...................................39

8.2. SDP Parameters ............................................57

8.2.1. Mapping of Payload Type Parameters to SDP ..........57

8.2.2. Usage with the SDP Offer/Answer Model ..............58

8.2.3. Usage in Declarative Session Descriptions ..........66

8.3. Examples ..................................................68

8.4. Parameter Set Considerations ..............................75

8.5. Decoder Refresh Point Procedure Using In-Band

Transport of Parameter Sets (Informative)..................

8.5.1. IDR Procedure to Respond to a Request for

a Decoder Refresh Point ............................

8.5.2. Gradual Recovery Procedure to Respond to

a Request for a Decoder Refresh Point ..............

9. Security Considerations ........................................79

10. Congestion Control ............................................80

11. IANA Considerations ...........................................81

12. Informative Appendix: Application Examples ....................81

12.1. Video Telephony According to Annex A of ITU-T

Recommendation H.241 .....................................

12.2. Video Telephony, No Slice Data Partitioning, No

NAL Unit Aggregation .....................................

12.3. Video Telephony, Interleaved Packetization Using

NAL Unit Aggregation .....................................

12.4. Video Telephony with Data Partitioning ...................83

12.5. Video Telephony or Streaming with FUs and Forward

Error Correction .........................................

12.6. Low Bitrate Streaming ....................................86

12.7. Robust Packet Scheduling in Video Streaming ..............86

13. Informative Appendix: Rationale for Decoding Order Number .....87

13.1. Introduction .............................................87

13.2. Example of Multi-Picture Slice Interleaving ..............88

13.3. Example of Robust Packet Scheduling ......................89

13.4. Robust Transmission Scheduling of Redundant Coded

Slices ...................................................

13.5. Remarks on Other Design Possibilities ....................94

14. Changes from RFC 3984 .........................................94

15. Backward Compatibility to RFC 3984 ............................96

16. Acknowledgements ..............................................98

17. References ....................................................98

17.1. Normative References .....................................98

17.2. Informative References ...................................99

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 6184

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video May 2011

1. Introduction

This memo specifies an RTP payload specification for the video coding

standard known as ITU-T Recommendation H.264 [

1] and ISO/IEC

International Standard 14496-10 [

2] (both also known as Advanced

Video Coding (AVC)). In this memo, the name H.264 is used for the

codec and the standard, but this memo is equally applicable to the

ISO/IEC counterpart of the coding standard.

This memo obsoletes

RFC 3984. Changes from RFC 3984 are summarized

Section 14. Issues on backward compatibility to RFC 3984 are

discussed in

Section 15.

1.1. The H.264 Codec

The H.264 video codec has a very broad application range that covers

all forms of digital compressed video, from low bitrate Internet

streaming applications to HDTV broadcast and Digital Cinema

applications with nearly lossless coding. Compared to the current

state of technology, the overall performance of H.264 is such that

bitrate savings of 50% or more are reported. Digital Satellite TV

quality, for example, was reported to be achievable at 1.5 Mbit/s,

compared to the current operation point of MPEG 2 video at around 3.5

Mbit/s [10].

The codec specification [

1] itself conceptually distinguishes between

a Video Coding Layer (VCL) and a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL).

The VCL contains the signal processing functionality of the codec;

mechanisms such as transform, quantization, and motion-compensated

prediction; and a loop filter. It follows the general concept of

most of today’s video codecs, a macroblock-based coder that uses

inter picture prediction with motion compensation and transform

coding of the residual signal. The VCL encoder outputs slices: a bit

string that contains the macroblock data of an integer number of

macroblocks and the information of the slice header (containing the

spatial address of the first macroblock in the slice, the initial

quantization parameter, and similar information). Macroblocks in

slices are arranged in scan order unless a different macroblock

allocation is specified using the syntax of slice groups. In-picture

prediction is used only within a slice. More information is provided

in [

10].

The NAL encoder encapsulates the slice output of the VCL encoder into

Network Abstraction Layer Units (NALUs), which are suitable for

transmission over packet networks or for use in packet-oriented

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 6184

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video May 2011

multiplex environments. Annex B of H.264 defines an encapsulation

process to transmit such NALUs over bytestream-oriented networks. In

the scope of this memo, Annex B is not relevant.

Internally, the NAL uses NAL units. A NAL unit consists of a one-

byte header and the payload byte string. The header indicates the

type of the NAL unit, the (potential) presence of bit errors or

syntax violations in the NAL unit payload, and information regarding

the relative importance of the NAL unit for the decoding process.

This RTP payload specification is designed to be unaware of the bit

string in the NAL unit payload.

One of the main properties of H.264 is the complete decoupling of the

transmission time, the decoding time, and the sampling or

presentation time of slices and pictures. The decoding process

specified in H.264 is unaware of time, and the H.264 syntax does not

carry information such as the number of skipped frames (as is common

in the form of the Temporal Reference in earlier video compression

standards). Also, there are NAL units that affect many pictures and

that are, therefore, inherently timeless. For this reason, the

handling of the RTP timestamp requires some special considerations

for NAL units for which the sampling or presentation time is not

defined or, at transmission time, is unknown.

1.2. Parameter Set Concept

One very fundamental design concept of H.264 is to generate self-

contained packets, to make mechanisms such as the header duplication

RFC 4629 [11] or MPEG-4 Visual’s Header Extension Code (HEC) [12]

unnecessary. This was achieved by decoupling information relevant to

more than one slice from the media stream. This higher-layer meta

information should be sent reliably, asynchronously, and in advance

from the RTP packet stream that contains the slice packets.

(Provisions for sending this information in-band are also available

for applications that do not have an out-of-band transport channel

appropriate for the purpose). The combination of the higher-level

parameters is called a parameter set. The H.264 specification

includes two types of parameter sets: sequence parameter sets and

picture parameter sets. An active sequence parameter set remains

unchanged throughout a coded video sequence, and an active picture

parameter set remains unchanged within a coded picture. The sequence

and picture parameter set structures contain information such as

picture size, optional coding modes employed, and macroblock to slice

group map.

Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

评论收藏

内容反馈

Robert_NORM

粉丝: 2
资源: 29

会员权益专享

RTP Payload Format for H.264&H.265 Video

会员权益专享

最新资源

RTP Payload Format for H.264&H.265 Video

RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video

RTP_Payload_Format_for_H.264_Video

RFC 3984 - RTP Payload Format for H_264 Video

RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding

H.264的RTP打包格式中文版

RTP PayloadType类型整理

H.264 over RTP(rfc3984)

VP9 rtp payload 标准

H264 RTP负载格式中文说明 —— H264 RTP Payload Format

H265 RTP封装格式

基于H.265的RTP封装

RTP打包与解析，荷载PS和H264

rfc3550 RTP协议中文版本

RTP发送H265(HEVC) RFC文档

RTP/RTSP协议

h264 h265 rtp打包

从网络抓包中提取RTP包，RTP解包为HEVC/H265裸流

H265 RFC标准

mp4creator

rfc3984标准文档

RFC3984.pdf

rfc2250.pdf

SVC NAL相关文档 资料

m3u8的下载转换工具

mpp_demo.rar

剪映字幕导出免费工具，导出srt,txt两种格式

C#开发FFMPEG例子(API方式) FFmpeg拉取RTMP流并播放

会员权益专享

最新资源

SVC NAL相关文档资料