Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267

simao.campos at ITU.INT simao.campos at ITU.INT
Wed Jan 26 03:19:33 EST 2005


All,

I think that it would be too confusing to have two annexes dealing with
the same coding. 

I suggest that Annex I be revised, even if it means a total rewriting of
it. Just consider whether the previous definitions should be maintained
as a matter of backward compatibility with existing systems.

Best regards,
Simao
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Venkata Nanduri [mailto:vnanduri at cisco.com] 
> Sent: 26 January 2005 03:04
> To: Dave Lindbergh
> Cc: itu-sg16 at external.cisco.com; ari.lakaniemi at NOKIA.COM
> Subject: Re: Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think existing Annex - I in H.245 is written much before 
> RFC3267 is written and hence it out of sync in content.
> 
> The RTP format mentioned in Annex - I is different from what 
> is mentioned in RFC3267.
> 
> Even if we want to incorporate this material in existing 
> Annex - I, it will be like replacing the entire Annex - I 
> content with the new content..
> 
> Thanks
> Venkata
> 
> 
> At 07:50 PM 1/25/2005 -0500, Dave Lindbergh wrote:
> >Is there a reason why this needs to be a separate Annex to 
> H.245?   I'd 
> >prefer to incorporate this material into an existing Annex, just to 
> >reduce the amount of clutter in H.245.
> >
> >--Dave
> >
> >At 05:32 PM 1/24/2005, Venkata Nanduri wrote:
> >>Dear SG16 experts,
> >>
> >>I would like the attached proposal to be submitted to next 
> meeting of
> >>SG16 group to be held at
> >>Melbourne in February last week, 2005.
> >>
> >>Before I submit the proposal formally, I would like to get 
> some early 
> >>feedback on the proposal from experts in the group.
> >>
> >>Can you please review the document and let me know your comments?
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>Venkata
> >
> >----------
> >Dave Lindbergh
> >Polycom, Inc.
> >100 Minuteman Road
> >Andover MA 01810  USA
> >Voice: +1 978 292 5366
> >Email: lindbergh at 92F1.com
> >H.320, H.323 video by arrangement
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3006 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20050126/0d7afb5d/attachment-0006.bin>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list