RE: [AVT] How is SDP a=fmtp used for RFC 2198?

"Mundra, Satish" <smundra@telogy.com> Fri, 09 April 2004 00:29 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15965 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjtY-0005Gf-TN for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:29:23 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i390TKdX020236 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:29:20 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjtT-0005BB-Cm; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:29:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjTm-0000kL-4K for avt@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:02:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12775 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:02:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBjTj-0000LF-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:02:40 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBial-0001gD-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:05:52 -0400
Received: from go4.ext.ti.com ([192.91.75.132]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBh91-0006b7-00 for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:33:08 -0400
Received: from dlep91.itg.ti.com ([157.170.152.55]) by go4.ext.ti.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i38LWP0g004109; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:32:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from gtmentos.telogy.design.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep91.itg.ti.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i38LWOlB010560; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:32:25 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by gtmentos.telogy.design.ti.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2FGG0NSY>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:32:24 -0400
Message-ID: <A03FFB626FA02D4A9C68DBA5B228AF1E0958A7@gtmentos.telogy.design.ti.com>
From: "Mundra, Satish" <smundra@telogy.com>
To: 'Colin Perkins' <csp@csperkins.org>, Tim Melanchuk <timm@convedia.com>
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, avt@ietf.org, paulej@packetizer.com, Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Subject: RE: [AVT] How is SDP a=fmtp used for RFC 2198?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:32:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Does this mean that if one wants to provide redundancy for different
encoding methods on "m=" line, one can not do so using a single RED PT ?  
See example below where redundancy is desired for both 97 and 98.

m=audio 5678 RTP/AVP 0 97 98 99 100
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=rtpmap:98 t140/8000
a=rtpmap:99 red/8000
a=rtpmap:100 red/8000
a=fmtp:99 97/97/97/97/97
a=fmtp:100 98/98/98


Satish Mundra



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org] 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:33 AM
> To: Tim Melanchuk
> Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; avt@ietf.org; 
> paulej@packetizer.com; Gunnar Hellstrom
> Subject: Re: [AVT] How is SDP a=fmtp used for RFC 2198?
> 
> 
> On 2 Apr 2004, at 19:45, Tim Melanchuk wrote:
> > to clarify with respect to using rfc2198 redundancy with rfc2833 
> > telephone events, the sdp for the example on page 10 of 
> rfc2833, which 
> > shows 3 events in one packet, would have had:
> >
> > a=rtpmap:96 red/8000
> > a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
> > a=fmtp:96 97/97/97
> >
> > as well, at most 3 telephone-events could occur in one 
> packet. is this 
> > interpretation correct?
> 
> Yes, according to Section 5 of RFC 2198:
> 
>     To receive a redundant stream, this is all that is 
> required.  However
>     to send a redundant stream, the sender needs to know 
> which codecs are
>     recommended for the primary and secondary (and tertiary, etc)
>     encodings.  This information is specific to the redundancy format,
>     and is specified using an additional attribute "fmtp" 
> which conveys
>     format-specific information.  A session directory does 
> not parse the
>     values specified in an fmtp attribute but merely hands it to the
>     media tool unchanged.  For redundancy, we define the format
>     parameters to be a slash "/" separated list of RTP payload types.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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