All,

I think that it would be too confusing to have two annexes dealing with the same coding.

I suggest that Annex I be revised, even if it means a total rewriting of it. Just consider whether the previous definitions should be maintained as a matter of backward compatibility with existing systems.

Best regards, Simao

-----Original Message----- From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri@cisco.com] Sent: 26 January 2005 03:04 To: Dave Lindbergh Cc: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi@NOKIA.COM Subject: Re: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267

Hi,

I think existing Annex - I in H.245 is written much before RFC3267 is written and hence it out of sync in content.

The RTP format mentioned in Annex - I is different from what is mentioned in RFC3267.

Even if we want to incorporate this material in existing Annex - I, it will be like replacing the entire Annex - I content with the new content..

Thanks Venkata

At 07:50 PM 1/25/2005 -0500, Dave Lindbergh wrote:

...

Is there a reason why this needs to be a separate Annex to

H.245? I'd

...

prefer to incorporate this material into an existing Annex, just to reduce the amount of clutter in H.245.

--Dave

At 05:32 PM 1/24/2005, Venkata Nanduri wrote:

...

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

---

Dave Lindbergh Polycom, Inc. 100 Minuteman Road Andover MA 01810 USA Voice: +1 978 292 5366 Email: lindbergh@92F1.com H.320, H.323 video by arrangement