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

Tom-PT Taylor taylor at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Wed Mar 14 15:56:33 EST 2001

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 at AGCS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and
profil e]


I believe you are correct.  However, I am not familiar with how the IETF
"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>
> < 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/20010314/040ec37f/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list