Subject: RTP support for Real Media ?

From: Ethendranath Bommaiah <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:55:38 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

I was wondering if Real G2 server supports RTP for real media (.rm and
.ra) ? We have noticed that it does support RTP for other media like
.au and .mpeg. However, with .rm and .ra the server returns "Protocol
not supported" error for the SETUP message with transport set to
RTP/AVP/TCP. We are using Real G2 server 6.0.

Does Real plan to support RTP for .rm and .ra media in the future ?
Or, is there a newer version that supports RTP already ?

Any pointers will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Ethen

---

From: ravi narayan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:15:58 -0400

> Or, is there a newer version that supports RTP already ?

from what i have seen, and heard from real, the answer to your question
is "no". real does not support RTP for realmedia files. from talking to
them, i get the feeling that they do not plan to support realmedia over
RTP. the reason they cite is that RDT (their own data transport protocol
now referred to as RDP i think) is tuned for the special needs of
realmedia files.

	--ravi

---

From: Rob Lanphier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:37:37 -0700

>now referred to as RDP i think) is tuned for the special needs of

That's correct.  We had floated a proposal for an optimized packet format
as part of the original RTSP proposal back in 1996, but the group decided
(rightly) that it didn't belong in the RTSP spec, and should be a separate
proposal.  Given the arguments that were floating around at that time about
the relative merits of compressing RTP headers independently from the
IP/UDP layer, we decided to drop this proposal.

So, this indicates that perhaps we should dust off this proposal (and
update with what we are currently doing).  If this is the consensus, we'll
be glad to follow up with this.

Thoughts?
Rob

---

From: Ethendranath Bommaiah <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:35:14 -0400 (EDT)

> be glad to follow up with this.

Thanks for the response. I was wondering if you could also support
plain RTP along with the above mentioned compressed RTP header approach
(which I presume is proprietary). Also, would it be possible for you to
make your current approach public (in the form of a draft proposal,
perhaps) ?

Thanks,
Ethen