Clarification needed about AMR codec support

Horvath Ernst ernst.horvath at
Mon Oct 18 10:01:38 EDT 2004

D-284 was a contribution to the October-2002 meeting of SG16, but Question
3/16 did not accept the proposed text because of conflicts with the existing
AMR definitions in H.245. The editor of D-284 was invited to bring a revised
proposal to the next meeting, which seemingly did not happen. That's the
reason why the parameters proposed in D-284 never became a part of H.245.
Hope this solves your doubts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri at]
Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2004 23:41
To: itu-sg16 at
Cc: paulej at
Subject: Clarification needed about AMR codec support


This email is regarding a clarification needed about a document submitted to
SG16(SG 16 - Delayed contribution 284).

In the Document titled "Update on AMR speech codec support for H.245", Table
X.4 a parameter "octetAlign"
is mentioned. But the same is missing from the latest H245 formal

As per the document(Delayed contribution 284),  "octetAlign" parameter can
be used to specify
whether the bandwidth efficient or Octet aligned mode of operation is used.

Since, In the formal spec, this parameter is missing, how should we
negotiate whether
we want to use Bandwidth efficient or Octet aligned operation.

I also see other parameters(modeSet, ModeChangePeriod, ModeChangeNeighbour,
Crc,  robustSorting and interleaving)
mentioned in your document, but are missing from the formal spec.

Any information about how to negotiate those parameters?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list