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

[Glen Freundlich]

I've made my plea to retain the G.723.1 payload format and codepoint,
and would suggest that other vendors do the same. We may have some data
collected from the IMTC H.323 interop test events that would reflect the
number of vendors that have successfully interoperated using G.723.1
(and probably H.263, possibly the GSM coders), and might be able to
provide those numbers. But, it's better for vendors to identify
themselves.

Glen


Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>  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
>      To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>      Subject: Re: FW: [VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on
>      RTP spec and profil e]
>
>      Francois,
>
>      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
>      attended?
>
>      Rex
>
>      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
>     > > To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>     > > 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/20010315/336373c3/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ggf.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: Card for Glen Freundlich
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20010315/336373c3/attachment-0006.vcf>