Re: [AVT] RFC3558 header-free packet format question

Hi, Lars-Erik/Magnus,

Thank you both for the explanation. Yes, it makes sense now. Does the intended 
ROHC-LLA/CDMA2000 operation (as described by both of you) must require the 
one-frame-per-packet limitation on the header-free format? This is not obvious to me at least.

regards,
-Qiaobing

Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:

> Qiaobing,
> 
> The header-free format was included to make no-overhead-over-the-air
> possible, then obviously assuming IP/UDP/RTP header compression on
> the wireless link. By using RFC 3242, the header overhead can be
> totally eliminated under certain conditions, thus one frame per RTP
> packet can make much sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> /L-E
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
>>Qiaobing Xie
>>Sent: den 17 september 2004 05:51
>>To: AVT List
>>Cc: adamli@icsl.ucla.edu
>>Subject: [AVT] RFC3558 header-free packet format question
>>
>>
>>Hi, Adam,
>>
>>The text in section 4.2 of RFC3558 **seems** to indicate that 
>>only ONE speech frame is 
>>allowed per RTP packet when header-free format is used. This 
>>seems to be overly limiting and 
>>may severely hinder the usage of this payload format (e.g., I 
>>don't think any over-the-air 
>>link can afford to use one frame per RTP packet arrangement, 
>>and if over-the-air link can 
>>not use header-free format, what would be its purpose?). One 
>>would think that as long as the 
>>same codec rate (hence the layout and size) is in use, more 
>>than one frame should be able to 
>>be unambiguously carried in a header-free RTP packet.
>>
>>Maybe I missed something.
>>
>>regards,
>>-Qiaobing
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>>avt@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt