RFC 5285: A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 8285.
Current version: RFC 8285 — A General Mechanism for RTP Header Extensions
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document provides a general mechanism to use the header extension feature of RTP (the Real-Time Transport Protocol). It provides the option to use a small number of small extensions in each RTP packet, where the universe of possible extensions is large and registration is de-centralized. The actual extensions in use in a session are signaled in the setup information for that session. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5285
- Published
- July 2008
- Authors
- D. Singer; H. Desineni
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rai
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 8285
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 5371RTP Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video StreamsCurrent
October 2008
- RFC 5372Payload Format for JPEG 2000 Video: Extensions for Scalability and Main Header RecoveryCurrent
October 2008
- RFC 5391RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.711.1Current
November 2008
- RFC 5117RTP TopologiesObsoleted
January 2008
- RFC 5459G.729.1 RTP Payload Format Update: Discontinuous Transmission (DTX) SupportCurrent
January 2009
- RFC 5760RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast FeedbackUpdated
February 2010
- RFC 4749RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio CodecUpdated
October 2006
- RFC 4629RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Rec. H.263 VideoCurrent
January 2007
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?