[ipcdn] VAD implementation
Manish RATHI <manish.rathi@st.com> Wed, 29 September 2010 16:56 UTC
Return-Path: <manish.rathi@st.com>
X-Original-To: ipcdn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipcdn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A653A6E14 for <ipcdn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjU7fICDccm4 for <ipcdn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog106.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851373A6B4C for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([167.4.1.35]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob106.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKTKNv6qBZPWUj2XUWTrSR/fhTSvvoHH7T@postini.com; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:57:16 UTC
Received: from zeta.dmz-us.st.com (ns4.st.com [167.4.80.115]) by beta.dmz-us.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 14979C0 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:53:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (safex1hubcas2.st.com [10.75.90.16]) by zeta.dmz-us.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 41A1D4F9 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:57:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com ([10.75.90.1]) by SAFEX1HUBCAS2.st.com ([10.75.90.16]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:56:56 +0200
From: Manish RATHI <manish.rathi@st.com>
To: "ipcdn@ietf.org" <ipcdn@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:56:55 +0200
Thread-Topic: VAD implementation
Thread-Index: Actf91JoH5+rFB+ZR0Spokj9rsAaZw==
Message-ID: <F8B002B1B3BA5342BA0E4153603A884DD9F3F202D6@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F8B002B1B3BA5342BA0E4153603A884DD9F3F202D6SAFEX1MAIL1st_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [ipcdn] VAD implementation
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:59:21 -0000
Hi, What's the difference in VAD implementation for G.711 described in G.711 Appendix-II and G.711 VAD requirements mentioned in "IMTC voice-over-ip Service Interoperability Implementation Agreement 1.0" Thanks
- [ipcdn] VAD implementation Manish RATHI