Re: [AVT] Common Format: draft-ietf-avt-evrc-07, draft-mathai-avt-smv-00, Purevoice, etc.

--> "Adam Li" writes:
>I suppose it would not be too hard to have a common format that works for
>both EVRC and SMV. There is nothing in the current draft that is codec
>specific which would prevent this. It does reduce the complexities of
>protocols and implemenation. I am not sure if it is allright to design one
>common RTP payload format for more than one codec. Have there been any such
>case before? Are there any special issues need to pay additional attention
>to?

I would certainly encourage payload formats which are as similar - and as
simple - as possible, provided that doesn't adversely affect performance.
Each format will still need a separate MIME type registration and (dynamic) 
payload type identifier, though. 

If the formats really are identical, it might make sense to combine them 
in the same way we did for AMR and AMR-WB. The SMV format hasn't had much
discussion so far though, so we want to be sure that format is stable
before trying to merge it with another.

>Although based on RFC 2658 (for PureVoice), the current EVRC draft has some
>significant difference from it already. There is an addition packet type, to
>name one. Including the PureVoice in this draft may imply obsoleting RFC
>2658 and possibly the devices that have implemented it. Maybe the Chairs and
>Kyle (who authored RFC 2658, and is also an author for the EVRC draft) can
>give us some more suggestion on what should we do.

I don't think this is worth making the existing PureVoice format obsolete.

Colin

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