Re: [codec] #18: Frame Sizes

+1 

Also, it seems that people working on maximizing efficient use of the network might want size much long than 20 ms. 

On May 1, 2010, at 4:57 AM, stephen botzko wrote:

> I'm not sure there ought to be a "SHALL" on this.  Obviously it needs to be reasonably small for low delay.  
> 
> However, the possible frame sizes are often driven by the underlying technology (transform size being one example).  If we decided on 10 and 20 ms for example, would we actually rule out a codec technology that had to run at 7.5, 15 and 22.5? 
> 
> Stephen Botzko
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 6:45 AM, codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #18: Frame Sizes
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:
>     Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:
> Component:  requirements            |     Version:
>  Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Which frame size(s) shall the CODEC support?
> 
> --
> Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/18>
> codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html