[payload] Progressing draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-00

["Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear AVTEXT and PAYLOAD list members,

 

At IETF 81 I presented the initial draft for G.711.0 payload format
(draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-00). This email solicits opinions for
continuing the work in this draft.

 

This draft had the usual detail expected in a payload format draft PLUS
some recommendations and use cases for employing the (lossless and
stateless) G.711.0 compression "in the middle" of an end-to-end G.711
call/session.

 

The rough consensus I interpreted from presenting the G.711.0 draft was
that this draft should be split into two drafts:

 

1 - A "G.711.0 only" payload format draft (mostly the existing draft
without Section 6).

 

and

 

2 - A "G.711.0 use cases / best practices" draft describing use of
G.711.0 in the middle of an end-to-end G.711 call (mostly Section 6).

 

>>>ISSUE 1: Any objection to this partitioning or other suggestion?

 

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the former be a AVT PAYLOAD
draft (e.g. draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-01) and the latter be a AVT EXT
draft (e.g., draft-ramalho-avtext-g7110usecases-00).

 

>>>>ISSUE 2: Any objection to partitioning the draft into two drafts
targeted for two different IETF AVT WGs or other suggestion?

 

The idea (which I agree with) is that the payload draft be targeted to
be an eventual standards track RFC and the avtext draft be targeted to
be an informational RFC. This suggestion was only briefly mentioned at
the meeting, but was supported in my discussions afterwards.

 

>>>>ISSUE 3: Any comments on this goal?

 

Assuming the partitioning proposed above is accepted, the only
significant open items for the G.711.0 payload format draft are:

 

OPEN ITEM 1 - Is the specification of multiple G.711.0 "channels" within
a single G.711.0 RTP session desired? If so, is the proposed method
acceptable (reserving a presently unused "prefix code" as a channel
delimiter and changing the decoding heuristic in Section 4.2.3)?

 

and

 

OPEN ITEM 2 - The specification of the storage mode for long recordings.

 

>>>>ISSUE 4: Any commentary on the above issues are welcome.

 

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions you have.

 

Michael Ramalho

 

 

Michael Ramalho
Technical Leader
Product Development
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]



Cisco Systems, Inc.
4564 Tuscana Drive
Sarasota, FL 34241-4201
United States
http://ramalho.webhop.info
Skype: mramalho_mar42

 

 

 Think before you print.


This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

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