[asterisk-dev] Video packetization proposal

Peter Grayson jpgrayson at gmail.com
Mon Jun 4 12:16:54 MST 2007

On 6/4/07, Peter Grayson <jpgrayson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/07, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia at fontventa.com> wrote:
> > > > I,P,B framet indication is not needed as it should the decoder the
> > > > one who is in charge of that.
> > > Some application benefit from knowing the type of frame without
> > > actually decoding it.  One example would be video conferencing
> > > applications, and more specifically app_conference.  When you want to
> > > switch the video stream from one person to another, you want to do it
> > > on a key frame, otherwise you get garbage.
> >
> > Yes, It will make life easier for app_conference, but again it will make
> > very difficult the rtp>IAX transaltion as you'll have to dig into the encoded
> > bitstream to get that info.
> I'm no RTP expert, but doesn't the 7-bit payload type (PT) field in
> the RTP header serve the same purpose as the 8-bit payload type that
> Mihai proposes? RFC 3551 describes some well-known mappings for the
> A/V profile.
> You seem to be proposing that instead of identifying the video format
> in this header field, the receiver should pick apart the data payload
> to figure out what kind of data is present. This seems wrought with
> peril for two reasons.
> First, I don't know of any guarantee that various video codecs will
> have identifiable payloads. Without the payload type header, we would
> be demanding that the data payload have sufficient information for
> both identifying the codec _and_ determining codec parameters.
> Secondly, even if there was a way for receivers to identify the
> payload type, they would then have the burden of knowing the magic
> algorithms for determining the payload types for all the
> codecs/formats it might run into. This seems like an undue burden for
> clients.

Upon further review, I see that I misread what Sergio was saying. For
some reason I thought we were talking about the payload type field,
but this was really about the flags field. My above arguments are then
totally bogus. Sorry about the noise.


More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list