FW: [VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and profil e]

Rex Coldren coldrenr at agcs.com
Wed Mar 14 14:37:22 EST 2001


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


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 at LABS.COMSAT.COM
> > <mailto:simao.campos at LABS.COMSAT.COM> ]
> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 8:27 AM
> > 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 at acm.org>.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Simao.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20010314/e7ab4691/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list