It would have been a great place to start for ONVIF for sure. But perhaps such a simplistic approach would have partially threatened the need for a broader standard and therefore the need for ONVIF itself ?
Obviously a standard which supports as many common IP camera functions as possible is very useful, but only if adopted widely and properly tested by manufacturers. When some manufacturers claim ONVIF compatibility but don't deliver it, it undermines the usefulness of the standard for everyone. This is something ONVIF need to address somehow.
Can I suggest that IPVM speaks to ONVIF and recommends that they add a common RTSP URL to the most basic part of the standard for the next update ?
I would also suggest that IPVM run a survey of its subscribers and readers to ask whether they would like to see this most basic IP camera standard implemented and supported by ONVIF.
I doubt ONVIF will ever implement this. It would remove quite a bit of motivation for many VMS/NVR vendors to implement ONVIF, since they could simply support the generic RTSP URL without joining ONVIF and becoming conformant themselves.
New Castle County (DE) Executive Tom Gordon don't need no stinkin' ONVIF:
"The vision is to link every private surveillance camera in the county into a single network"
"It's going to be hundreds of thousands [of cameras], but it's very easy to do because we've programmed it into our equipment," Gordon said. "You just need to know the IP addresses."
Pro Focus LLC | 07/20/15 09:05pm
I'm less worried about easy RTSP streams as I am about full, direct integration. I would much rather have ONVIF worry about that angle.