<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=047354720-14032001>It's
simply a matter of implementors reporting. The key point is that the
Working Group Chair has to know exactly which features of the RFC were tested
and which not. In the case of the G723 payload type, there are no options
to worry about: it's simply a matter of different implementations agreeing on
RTP payload type 4 and subsequently transmitting RTP-encapsulated packets in
accordance with G.723.1, using one frame (30 ms) per packet or such other value
as specified by the A:ptime attribute. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Rex Coldren
[mailto:coldrenr@AGCS.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:37
PM<BR><B>To:</B> ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: FW:
[VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and profil
e]<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Francois,
<P>I believe you are correct. However, I am not familiar with how the
IETF determines <BR>"interoperable implementations". Is is simply a
matter of vendors reporting with whom <BR>they interoperate or is there some
IETF-sponsored interop event that needs to be <BR>attended?
<P>Rex
<P>Francois Audet wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"> <SPAN class=410255723-13032001><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#800000><FONT
size=-1>Guys,</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#800000><FONT size=-1>This payload type = 4 for
G.723.1 has been in H.225.0 for many
years. </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#800000><FONT size=-1>Don't we have many
interoperable H.323 products using PT=4 for
G.723?</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001><FONT
size=-1><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#800000>Won't it be a major
interoperability problem if this payload type</FONT></FONT> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#800000>is removed from the A/V
specification?????</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><FONT size=-1>> -----Original
Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> From: Simao Campos-Neto [ <A
href="mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM">mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=-1>> <<A
href="mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM">mailto:simao.campos@LABS.COMSAT.COM</A>>
]</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 8:27 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=-1>> To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>> Subject: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on RTP spec and profile]</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=-1>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>> Dear colleagues,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>> please see in the attached that audio payload formats for
G.723.1,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> called there "G723", has been removed
from the latest RTP A/V profile</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> because of the
lack on information that interoperable implementations of</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>> them exist. Other audio payload formats have also been removed,
e.g.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> H263 (this is not the same as H263-2000),
GSM-HR, GSM-EFR, If you know</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> of such
implementations, there is still some VERY short time (less than</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=-1>> 2 weeks) before the IETF issues the repeat WG last
call. Please provide</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> any such information
directly to Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>> Best regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=-1>> Simao.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>