Registered payload types for G.723.1/G.729

[Chip Sharp]

Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. Since I was busy in Q14, I must have missed
Joerg's presentation.  Since H.248 uses SDP for its text version, it should
be covered.

I'd just like to avoid what happened with RADIUS if possible.
:-)

Chip

At 06:20 PM 2/23/00 -0800, Stephen Casner wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Chip Sharp wrote:
> > At 01:11 PM 2/23/00 -0800, Hutton, Charles wrote:
> > >I have the same concerns for G.729E.
> >
> > I'd recommend that as SG16 defines new encoding types that it register them
> > with IANA.
> >
> > Theoretically, someone could register your codepoints for a different
> > algorithm.
>
>No.  As I mentioned in my previous response, the registration policy
>has been revised.  There will be no more assignments of static payload
>type numbers because mechanisms are now in place in various control
>protocols to dynamically define payload type number bindings for each
>session.  It should be clear that static assignments cannot continue
>indefinitely in a small number space.  This rationale is explained
>further in section 3 of the draft revision of RFC 1890, which is
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-08.txt
>
>My understanding is that H.245 provides a means to define dynamic
>payload types as part of the capability exchange using OIDs.  This is
>necessary for non-standard encodings, for example.  It should be used
>for future standard encodings as well to dynamically map from a larger
>encoding name space to the small payload type number space.
>
>In addition to whatever namespace(s) may be needed for ITU protocols,
>several IETF protocols use the MIME namespace, including the "rtpmap"
>attribute used for dynamic payload type mapping in SDP.  A few weeks
>ago, the IETF AVT working group sent a liaison statement to SG16 (or
>at least attempted to) via Joerg Ott to the Rapporteur of ITU SG16
>Q.13 to describe the procedure for defining new RTP payload formats.
>In particular, we encourage the registration of new payload formats in
>the MIME namespace according to the procedures in
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-01.txt
>
>I don't know the details of G.729E.  If it requires a different
>payload format than G.729, then I would encourage you to let AVT
>review the payload format specification and that you register the
>payload format in the MIME namespace.
>                                                         -- Steve

Support NetAid!  http://www.netaid.org
--------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp                 Consulting Engineering
Cisco Systems              Telco Bio-region
Reality - Love it or Leave it.
--------------------------------------------------