<!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 5.00.2014.210" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=133395406-19032001>Glen,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=133395406-19032001>Were
do I have to plea, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=133395406-19032001>Roni
Even</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=133395406-19032001>Acccord Networks</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Glen Freundlich
[mailto:ggf@AVAYA.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:54
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>I've made my plea to retain the G.723.1 payload format
and codepoint, and would suggest that other vendors do the same. We may have
some data collected from the IMTC H.323 interop test events that would reflect
the number of vendors that have successfully interoperated using G.723.1 (and
probably H.263, possibly the GSM coders), and might be able to provide those
numbers. But, it's better for vendors to identify themselves.
<P>Glen <BR>
<P>Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"> <SPAN class=047354720-14032001><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=-1>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. </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=-1><B>From:</B> Rex Coldren [<A
href="mailto:coldrenr@AGCS.COM">mailto:coldrenr@AGCS.COM</A>]</FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=-1><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 14, 2001
2:37 PM</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=-1><B>To:</B>
ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=-1><B>Subject:</B> Re: FW: [VoIP-list] FW: [Fwd: AVT WG last call on
RTP spec and profil e]</FONT></FONT> <BR> </DIV>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
size=-1><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#800000>Guys,</SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001>This
payload type = 4 for G.723.1 has been in H.225.0 for many
years. </SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001>Don't we have many interoperable H.323 products
using PT=4 for G.723?</SPAN><SPAN class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001>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?????</SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN><SPAN
class=410255723-13032001></SPAN></FONT></FONT>> -----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></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>