Hi,
Please see in line.....
Look for vnanduri
At 03:47 PM 1/25/2005 +0200, ari.lakaniemi@nokia.com wrote:
hello Venkata,
Thanks for preparing the document.
I have more or less the same comment as Roni Even already made: There seems to be no parameters for controlling the "crc" and "robust-sorting" options available in RFC 3267. Are these options somehow
problematic in the scope of H.245?
<vnanduri>
In-order to apply CRC, interleaving and robust-sorting , frame format shall be octet aligned. Since there is a dependency among different parameters, octetAlign parameter is defined in H245 which also handles CRC and robust-sorting. May be I need to rename this octetAlign parameter to something that is meaningful for octetAlign, CRC and robust-sorting (Any suggestions??) The presence of octetAlign parameter itself indicates octet aligned frame format.
The octetAlign parameter is defined as booleanArray to take care of CRC and robust-sorting values. Bit 0 is used for CRC and Bit 1 for robust-sorting.
But, interleaving can also be only applied if the frame format is octet-aligned and the value for interleaving is number of frame blocks which cannot be defined as part of booleanArray. So, a new parameter is defined. Interleaving parameter shall be absent if octetAlign parameter is absent.
The main intention of consolidating the parameters is to minimize the bits
that will be transmitted across the wire...
Another question is about the definition of the capability parameter
modeSet.
Currently the draft specifies that
"... If present, specifies the subset of modes available for current session. If absent, no modes are supported."
However, in RFC 3267 the definition of the corresponding MIME parameter
says
"... If not present, all codec modes are allowed for the session."
Maybe it would be clearer to use the same interpretation as in RFC 3267
in
case the paramter modeSet is not present?
<vnanduri>
For some of the parameters defined in RFC3267, similar parameters are defined with a different interpretation in H.245 to take care of conference scenarios.
Please look below for details about why they are defined differently in H.245:
1) octet-align(SDP) -------->octetAlign--booleanArray (also accommodates crc and robust-sorting)(H.245)
described above
2) mode-set(SDP) ---------->modeSet and modeSetExtended. modeSetExtended is used only AMR-WB(H245)
modeSet is defined as booleanArray which can accommodate only 8 boolean values. Since AMR-NB has only 8 bit rates, modeSet parameter will be sufficient for AMR-NB. How ever, since AMR-WB has 9 modes, first 8 modes will be accommodated in modeSet parameter and 9th mode will be accommodated in modeSetExtended parameter.
Suppose an MC that is not aware of AMR codec capability, gets this capability from three endpoints A, B and C and wants to create a common capability description. Suppose A sends no modeSet, B sends a modeSet with 10000011 and C sends a modeSet with 10000001. Now, a common capability description should contain the modeSet as 10000001. But the MC has to ignore those parameters that are not supported by all endpoints.
So the MC will send out a cap description without a modeSet, which will imply support for all modes, which is not the expected behavior. So, absence of this parameter is defined as lack of
support of any modes.
The same comment applies for modeSetExtended - the absence of the parameter should indicate lack of support for the 9th mode, and this parameter should be present if the 9th mode is supported.
3) mode-change-period(SDP) ----->modeChangePeriod(H245).
For modeChangePeriod, for example, if A sent a period of 5, B sent 3 and C
did not send anything, the common cap description prepared by the MC will not contain a modeChangePeriod. So A, which could only change modes once in 5 frames will now receive audio that may changes mode at every frame which is not the expected behavior. Hence, this parameter is made mandatory and is defined as unsignedMax which indicates to MC that it has to select the largest value it receives from different end points. With this definition in H.245 Now, C has to send 0 as the value, and MC will select 5 which is the appropriate value.
4) mode-change-neighbor(SDP) -----> modeChangeAll(H245)
For example, if A did not send, B sent with value 1, C sent value of 0,
Again, an MC that does not include the value because one endpoint did not include. It will be creating a common capability description that indicates permission to switch to any mode(absence of param from A or a value 0 from C). Again this is not the expected behavior.
So, this parameter is defined as 'ModeChangeAll'. The presence of this parameter means 'change from any to any mode is permitted'. Then if a combining MC creates a cap description that does not have ModeChangeAll (because one endpoint did not send it), it will be correctly forcing all endpoints to the common subset which is change to neighboring modes only is permitted'.
5) maxptime(SDP) ----------> alAduFrames(H.245) 6) ptime(DSP)-------> alAduFrames(H245)
numFrames parameter will correspond to the value for maxptime when used in TCS messages and will correspond to value for ptime when used in OLC and MR messages.
7) crc(SDP) -----------> octetAlign(H.245)
described above
8) robust-sorting(SDP) ------> octetAlign(H.245)
described above
9) interleaving(SDP) -----> interleaving(H.245)
described above
10) channels(SDP) -----> numChannels(H245)
Same as SDP
Please let me know if you have any other questions...
Thanks Venkata
BR, Ari Lakaniemi Nokia Research Center
-----Original Message----- From: ext Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] Sent: 25 January, 2005 10:10 To: Venkata Nanduri; itu-sg16@external.cisco.com; Lakaniemi Ari (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) Subject: RE: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
Hi, I just scanned through the draft. I noticed that there is no full mapping of the SDP parameters from RFC3267 to generic parameters. Is there a reason for the difference. I think that there should be some text that will explain the relationship to H.245 annex I. Roni Even
-----Original Message----- From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:33 AM To: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi@NOKIA.COM Cc: vnanduri@cisco.com Subject: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
Dear SG16 experts,
I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next meeting of SG16 group to be held at Melbourne in February last week, 2005.
Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get some early feedback on the proposal from experts in the group.
Can you please review the document and let me know your comments?
Thanks Venkata