-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Coldren [mailto:coldrenr@agcs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:37 AM
To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]
Cc: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: FW: [VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and profil e]

Francois,

I believe you are correct.  However, I am not familiar with how the IETF determines
"interoperable implementations".  Is is simply a matter of vendors reporting with whom
they interoperate or is there some IETF-sponsored interop event that needs to be
attended?

Rex

Francois Audet wrote:

 Guys,This payload type = 4 for G.723.1 has been in H.225.0 for many years. Don't we have many interoperable H.323 products using PT=4 for G.723?Won't it be a major interoperability problem if this payload type is removed from the A/V specification?????> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simao Campos-Neto [ mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM
> <mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM> ]
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 8:27 AM
> To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and profile]
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> please see in the attached that audio payload formats for G.723.1,
> called there "G723", has been removed from the latest RTP A/V profile
> because of the lack on information that interoperable implementations of
> them exist. Other audio payload formats have also been removed, e.g.
> H263 (this is not the same as H263-2000), GSM-HR, GSM-EFR, If you know
> of such implementations, there is still some VERY short time (less than
> 2 weeks) before the IETF issues the repeat WG last call. Please provide
> any such information directly to Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>.
>
> Best regards,
> Simao.