Re: [AVT] Moving draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-01.txt forward

Vladimir,

On Monday, Nov 3, 2003, at 06:23 Europe/London, Vladimir Ulybin wrote:
> Together with advantages (encryption for security needs, the same
> port/address for RTP+audio and RTP+t38) the proposed encapsulation of
> T.38 into RTP has some disadvantages.
>
> 1. The protection from and recovery of packet lost in T.38 is usually
> stronger than that of RTP. So, using the RTP error correction for T.38
> seems to be problematic.
>
> 2. The bi-directional switching between Voice-Band-Data and T.38 modes
> remains problematic as in current implementations because the RTP
> payload of VBD has no ID of fax session.
>
> The more attractive approach is given in delayed contribution 303 of
> CISCO (May 2003, ITU-T, Study Group 16) to support RTP encapsulated 
> into
> T.38. That idea is inversed to the discussed one, and has more
> capabilities for implementation of reliable fax transfer.

Since the RTP payload format for T.38 is being developed in ITU-T SG16, 
these comments would be better suited to that forum. The MIME type 
registration we are developing here is dependent on that work, and will 
only be published as an RFC when the ITU completes the revision to T.38 
including the payload format.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

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