Paul, G.723 was an old ITU-T Recommendation that has been withdrawn and has nothing to do with G.723.1. So, when people today use G.723 they usually mean G.723.1. For the software version this is a bit confusing: For the most current version it is best to look up the ITU-T Database: http//www.itu.int. Unfortunately, in the text of the Recommendation no reference is made to the actual C-Code version (we have requested to have a better version control for the future Recommendations). On the top of it since C-Code is also a program (contains as many bugs as any other program...:-( ), in some of the past SG meeting bugs were corrected (so you have to go through the SG16 reports). I am not sure whether eventually the bug corrections have been also incorported into the C-Code that the ITU is currently selling as the latest version. So, my message is that extrem care is needed not to miss something. Regards, Istvan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Istvan Sebestyen Siemens AG, ICN WN ES SP 4, Hofmannstr. 51 D-81359 Munich Tel:+49-89-722-47230 Fax:+49-89-722-47713 E-Mail: istvan.sebestyen@icn.siemens.de Intranet:http://netinfo.icn.siemens.de/es/team/essp/team/essp4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

---------- From: Paul Long[SMTP:plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Reply To: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16 Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 5:29 PM To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: G.723.1 vs. G.723

What is the difference between G.723.1 and G.723? And I don't mean the numerical difference, as in 0.1 :-) Are they the same thing, and people are just being imprecise when they refer to G.723.1 as "G.723?" For SuperOp! scheduling, they were both listed as two of the possible audio codecs, as if they were different. Does anyone truly support G.723 but not G.723.1? If so, I've never come across such an implementation. Also, what is the history of G.723.1? I believe the current version is something called 5.1. Is this correct? Were there some intermediate versions?

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.