Talk:RTP payload formats

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 and does not need a separate article. ~KvnG 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. Isheden (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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