Gero,
I mentioned this already in Portland: What you are doing is essentially to create new RTP payload specs. I don't want to be too painful and insist that this is IETF/AVT work, but you should at least cross-post requests like this to rem-conf as well, because there (and not necessarily in Q.13/16) is the expertise for payload specs.
Also it makes IMHO no sense to have this stuff defined in Annex I without an aligned RTP payload spec, because it would make interoperability between SIP and H.323 mobile systems impossible.
Stephan
At 10:32 AM 9/19/00 +0200, Baese Gero wrote:
Dear Experts,
at the Portland Meeting a controversial discussion arised about the new Annex I specification. Several misunderstandings between the participants as well as about the outcome of the Osaka Meeting were the reasons.
At the moment we(Siemens) are trying to establish a co-operation with UCLA as well as the editor of the Annex I in order to find the best possible solution for the standard. We addressed both of them directly. If a merger of the both proposals will be possible we will work it out together and present it at the next rapporteurs meeting.
Further we want to ask all experts for their technical assistance. Please provide us with more requirements as well as scenarios you can think of Annex I would be used for.
Best Wishes Gero Baese
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com