Outcome of the SG16 meeting just finished

[OKUBO Sakae]

Steve and AVT/MMUSIC colleagues,
Our position, which has not changed since we brought up this issue to the
notice of the IETF,  is similar to Tom's. We would like to see the
packetization of G.726 over RTP be made identical to what is defined for
AAL2 in the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. In this regard, we strongly
recommend that the audio MIME subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and
G726-40 be aligned to the ITU I.366.2 recommendation.  This  alignment
would include the static payload type 2.

If there is a need to interoperate with the "other," non-ITU  packing
scheme, we recommend that new MIME types be defined for those non-ITU
schemes  rather than for ITU-compatible schemes, which we think should be
associated with the current MIME definitions.

Rajesh Kumar
Cisco Systems

At 08:33 AM 10/15/2002 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>For your action if it affects you.  There is a clash between the
>packetization of G.726 over RTP and AAL2, and a proposal to adopt the AAL2
>packetization universally.  Comments are requested.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Casner
>[<mailto:casner at packetdesign.com>mailto:casner at packetdesign.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM
>To: mmusic at ietf.org
>Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers
>
>The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any
>implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in
>particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32,
>and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.
>
>This notice is being sent to multiple mailing lists to reach as many
>interested parties as possible; please reply only to avt at ietf.org.
>
>Background:
>
>The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport
>Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889
>and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status.  Two drafts have been
>prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement:
>
>     draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt
>     draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt
>
>These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the
>IESG.  In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for
>publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations
>for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile:
>
>     draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06.txt
>
>Issue:
>
>The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio
>samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the
>octet.  This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2
>transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins
>with the most-significant bit.  Implementers of systems that operate with
>both transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP
>packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid
>requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between
>packings.
>
>Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an
>approved standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has
>been part of the RTP Profile drafts since 1997.  Therefore,
>implementations of both packings are likely to exist.  Furthermore, since
>the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other than 32K
>until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings
>for those rates.  As a consequence, there is no course of action that will
>make everyone happy.
>
>Proposal:
>
>After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed
>that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with
>I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC.  The MIME subtype
>registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in
>draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the
>packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to
>the changed packetization.  In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which
>is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by
>draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning.
>
>Consequences:
>
>We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the
>packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore
>objects to the change.  Any such systems already in the field would
>produce garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant
>implementations, and not detect the error.  This is a significant
>consideration, although draft specifications are not guaranteed to remain
>unchanged.
>
>We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice
>Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as
>currently specified in the RTP Profile draft.  This is consistent with
>ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail.  Since the VPIM systems use
>MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be
>conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as proposed.  However,
>voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to
>reformat the data.
>
>********************************************************************
>*  We are seeking statements from interested parties both for and  *
>*  against this proposal, particularly with motivations.           *
>********************************************************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>mmusic at ietf.org
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at lists.intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20021017/b4458e18/attachment-0001.htm>