I've made my plea to retain the G.723.1 payload format and codepoint, and would suggest that other vendors do the same. We may have some data collected from the IMTC H.323 interop test events that would reflect the number of vendors that have successfully interoperated using G.723.1 (and probably H.263, possibly the GSM coders), and might be able to provide those numbers. But, it's better for vendors to identify themselves.

Glen

Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

It's simply a matter of implementors reporting. The key point is that the Working Group Chair has to know exactly which features of the RFC were tested and which not. In the case of the G723 payload type, there are no options to worry about: it's simply a matter of different implementations agreeing on RTP payload type 4 and subsequently transmitting RTP-encapsulated packets in accordance with G.723.1, using one frame (30 ms) per packet or such other value as specified by the A:ptime attribute.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Rex Coldren [mailto:coldrenr@AGCS.COM]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:37 PM
 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.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.