For your action if it affects you. There is a clash between the packetization of G.726 over RTP and AAL2, and a proposal to adopt the AAL2 packetization universally. Comments are requested.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Casner [mailto:casner@packetdesign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers
The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.
This notice is being sent to multiple mailing lists to reach as many interested parties as possible; please reply only to avt@ietf.org.
Background:
The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889 and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status. Two drafts have been prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement:
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt
draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt
These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the IESG. In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile:
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06.txt
Issue:
The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the octet. This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2 transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins with the most-significant bit. Implementers of systems that operate with both transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between packings.
Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an approved standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has been part of the RTP Profile drafts since 1997. Therefore, implementations of both packings are likely to exist. Furthermore, since the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other than 32K until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings for those rates. As a consequence, there is no course of action that will make everyone happy.
Proposal:
After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC. The MIME subtype registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to the changed packetization. In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning.
Consequences:
We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore objects to the change. Any such systems already in the field would produce garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant implementations, and not detect the error. This is a significant consideration, although draft specifications are not guaranteed to remain unchanged.
We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as currently specified in the RTP Profile draft. This is consistent with ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail. Since the VPIM systems use MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as proposed. However, voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to reformat the data.
********************************************************************
* We are seeking statements from interested parties both for and *
* against this proposal, particularly with motivations. *
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic