RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video
RFC 3984

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16)
No email
send info
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART
His review:

Draft looks in good shape, no major nits.  The document is fairly dense, especially for a non-payload guy, but this seems like a reasonable specification.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-13)
No email
send info
I agree with Allison's note in the MIME-type review request [1].  The change controller should be the IESG.  Please add an RFC Editor note to make this correction.

[1]
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2004-December/000521.html

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-15)
No email
send info
*** matchref -- match citations and references.
    Input file: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-h264-11.txt
 
!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
  P073 L038:     [11] P. Borgwardt, "Handling Interlaced Video in H.26L", VCEG-

!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P073 L021:     [7]  ITU-T Recommendation T.35, "Procedure for the allocation of

(Alex Zinin) No Objection