Clarification needed - H245 Specification

[Venkata Nanduri]

Venkata,
 
they could be added as optional parameters to the existing defintions for
AMR in H.245 Annex I. AMR is defined as a generic capability, which is
extensible. Just make sure that the additional parameters use new
identifiers. There should also be some text describing the meaning and usage
of the new parameters, and if applicable, their relationship with existing
parameters.
 
This would require sending a delayed contribution to the next SG16 meeting
(note the deadline - 4 November 2004 - and the procedural aspects - Paul
Jones may be able to advice you). If accepted, the changes could still be
edited into the draft for H.245 version 11.
 
Ernst
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri at cisco.com]
Sent: Montag, 18. Oktober 2004 19:18
To: Horvath Ernst
Cc: paulej at cisco.com; itu-sg16 at external.cisco.com; vdukki at cisco.com
Subject: RE: Clarification needed about AMR codec support



Hi,

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.

Thanks
Venkata

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


Venkata,
 
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.
 
Ernst 


-----Original Message----- 

From: Venkata Nanduri [ mailto:vnanduri at cisco.com
<mailto:vnanduri at cisco.com> ] 

Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2004 23:41 

To: itu-sg16 at external.cisco.com 

Cc: paulej at cisco.com 

Subject: Clarification needed about AMR codec support



Hi,



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
specification.



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?



Thanks 

Venkata 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20041019/886da8a6/attachment-0001.htm>