Talk:RTP payload formats

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Deprod

RFC 3551 is a reliable source for this article. A GScholar search for "RTP audio video profile" shows 81 results and a search for "RTP/AVP" shows 1,850 hits. I haven't probed these hits for depth of coverage, but between RFC 3551 and all these hits, I consider lack of notability to be not uncontroversial. Note also that the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol is an extension of the RTP AVP profile format based on RFC 3551 (as seen in RFC 3711, section 3). It's just a personal opinion, but having an article on SRTP, but not having one on the parent protocol, would be a gap in WP coverage. Because of these issues, I am deprodding the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar search indicates that RTP/AVP is notable. However, one of the main concerns of the user proposing the deletion was that the contents are merely a formatted version of RFC 3551 contents. Unless RFCs are completely free to use, we may have a copyright issue here. If so, then much of the contents would have to be removed. What is then left of the article (perhaps a stub) could probably be covered in the article on RTP. I will restore the merge proposal. Isheden (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned about a copyright issue but perhaps I should be. I did not claim that this topic was not notable but I think it is or can be covered adequately in Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Profiles_and_Payload_formats and does not need a separate article. ~KvnG 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. Isheden (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the RFCs are free to use in whole or in part, according to RFC Copyrights. While I objected to outright deletion for the reasons above, a merge with redirects for RTP audio video profile and RTP/AVP would be fine--I am more interested in preserving the useful information and ability to easily search for the topic than article itself. --Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not propose or support a merge that moved the payload type table in this article to Real-time Transport Protocol; that would create an WP:UNDUE problem in the destination. On closer inspection I recognise that the scope of the table in this article extends beyond AVP. I propose renaming it and restructuring it as List of RTP payload types. ~KvnG 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apt-x

Apt-X coecs could be added. See RFC 7310. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]