Ross, > Note that we have already (in December 2007) added the patch that Andrey > Filippov described here: > http://lists.live555.com/pipermail/live-devel/2007-November/007760.html This > patch allows the server to specify the JPEG width and height in the SDP > description, using the "a=x-dimensions:<width>,<height>". (These will then > be used if the 'width' and 'height' fields in the JPEG header are 0.)
Yes, I'm aware of that. That was enough for the frame size problem. Now we are facing a new issue. > If that's not sufficient for your needs, and you instead (or also) want to > use a non-standard JPEG type field, then this would constitute an extension > (albeit a backwards-compatible one) to the RFC 2435 RTP payload format. In > that case, you should contact the IETF's AVT working group (a...@ietf.org), > outlining your problem, and your proposed solution. If the AVT working > group adopts your proposed solution (this might require that you write an > Internet Draft that describes it), then I would be happy to add a patch to > our code to support it. I see. I was just wondering if that extension could not be implemented freely by custom needs. Per section 3.1.3 of the RFC 2435, we get this about custom types: "... Types 128-255 are free to be dynamically defined by a session setup protocol (which is beyond the scope of this document). " The session setup protocol mentioned, is that SDP, right?! Anyway, I'll ask AVT people about the issue. Thanks a lot, -- Paulo _______________________________________________ live-devel mailing list live-devel@lists.live555.com http://lists.live555.com/mailman/listinfo/live-devel
