RFC 4586: Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback: Results of the Timing Rule Simulations
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes the results achieved when simulating the timing rules of the Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback, denoted AVPF. Unicast and multicast topologies are considered as well as several protocol and environment configurations. The results show that the timing rules result in better performance regarding feedback delay and still preserve the well-accepted RTP rules regarding allowed bit rates for control traffic. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4586
- Published
- July 2006
- Authors
- C. Burmeister; R. Hakenberg; A. Miyazaki; J. Ott; N. Sato; S. Fukunaga
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 28
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4587RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video StreamsCurrent
August 2006
- RFC 4628RTP Payload Format for H.263 Moving RFC 2190 to Historic StatusCurrent
February 2007
- RFC 4629RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 VideoCurrent
January 2007
- RFC 4749RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio CodecUpdated
October 2006
- RFC 4362RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Link-Layer Assisted Profile for IP/UDP/RTPUpdated
January 2006
- RFC 4352RTP Payload Format for the Extended Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB+) Audio CodecCurrent
January 2006
- RFC 4175RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed VideoUpdated
September 2005
- RFC 4170Tunneling Multiplexed Compressed RTP (TCRTP)Current
November 2005
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?