Clarification needed about AMR codec support

Venkata Nanduri vnanduri at
Mon Oct 18 13:17:47 EDT 2004


If that is the case, how those parameters can be negotiated using H245?

Any information in this regard is highly appreciated...

Similar parameters for SIP are defined in RFC3267, Section 8.1.


At 10:01 AM 10/18/2004 -0400, Horvath Ernst wrote:
>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