RFC 3119: A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 5219.
Current version: RFC 5219 — A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes a RTP (Real-Time Protocol) payload format for transporting MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) 1 or 2, layer III audio (commonly known as "MP3"). This format is an alternative to that described in RFC 2250, and performs better if there is packet loss. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3119
- Published
- June 2001
- Authors
- R. Finlayson
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 5219
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2733An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error CorrectionObsoleted
December 1999
- RFC 3189RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC 61834) VideoObsoleted
January 2002
- RFC 3190RTP Payload Format for 12-bit DAT Audio and 20- and 24-bit Linear Sampled AudioCurrent
January 2002
- RFC 3047RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1Obsoleted
January 2001
- RFC 3016RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual StreamsObsoleted
November 2000
- RFC 3257Stream Control Transmission Protocol Applicability StatementCurrent
April 2002
- RFC 3267Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio CodecsObsoleted
July 2002
- RFC 2959Real-Time Transport Protocol Management Information BaseCurrent
October 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?