Proposal to support AMR codec in H.245 using RFC3267

Venkata Nanduri vnanduri at
Tue Jan 25 21:04:12 EST 2005


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
be like replacing the entire Annex - I
content with the new content..


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
>the amount of clutter in H.245.
>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?
>Dave Lindbergh
>Polycom, Inc.
>100 Minuteman Road
>Andover MA 01810  USA
>Voice: +1 978 292 5366
>Email: lindbergh at
>H.320, H.323 video by arrangement
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3578 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list