Re: [payload] Request for G.711 RTP Payload Format to be adopted as a PAYLOAD work item

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

(I left the subject line intact, but was tempted to adjust the subject line to say G.711.0).

I support adopting G.711.0 by PAYLOAD as a new RTP payload format.  For better or worse, G.711 is widely deployed and G.711.0 provides losses compression of that widely-deployed codec.

-d

On Mar 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Michael Ramalho (mramalho) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ali Begen, Roni Even (PAYLOAD WG Chairs) and Payload WG,
>  
> This email requests that the RTP payload format for ITU-T Rec. G.711.0 be a formal work item for the PAYLOAD WG.
>  
> The G.711.0 RTP payload draft (draft-ramalho-payload-g7110) has been discussed at past IETFs and is listed as a “related document” for the PAYLOAD working group (see: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/payload/).
>  
> The history/chronology of G.711.0 work in the IETF Payload Working Group follows after my signature for those interested.
>  
> If adopted, a milestone submit date of December 2013 is suggested.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Michael Ramalho
>  
> >>Chronology of G.711.0 Work in the IETF PAYLOAD WG<<
>  
> >> IETF 81 Quebec, Canada, July 24-29, 2011
>  
> I presented the G.711.0 “Compression Segments” draft at the PAYLOAD meeting held within the AVTEXT timeslot. This draft was a combination of a “G.711-like” RTP payload specification and text describing how G.711.0 could be used as a lossless compression mechanism for “G.711.0 segments” of an end-to-end G.711 session.
>  
> In discussion that ensued at that meeting it was decided that this draft should be split into two drafts:
>  
> Draft 1: “G.711.0 RTP Payload Format” draft (targeted as standards track RFC), and
> Draft 2: “G.711.0 Use Cases” draft (targeted as informational RFC).
>  
> Soon after IETF 81 this was accomplished by the following drafts: draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-01.txt (G.711.0 RTP payload format) and draft-ramalho-g7110-segments-00.txt (G.711.0 “use cases”).
>  
> As the G.711.0 payload draft is nearly identical to the G.711 RTP payload specification, there was little debate on the mailing lists about it outside of the storage mode definition (the G.711 RTP payload specification did not have a storage mode defined).
>  
> >>IETF 83 Paris, France, March 27, 2012
>  
> I presented: draft-ramalho-g7110-segments-00 during the PAYLOAD segment inside of the AVTEXT meeting slot (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-avtext-6.pdf ).
>  
> I did not present on the G.711.0 payload format draft, as the only issue being debated on the list for this draft was the storage mode – and the storage mode agreements were converging to a solution on the mailing list.
>  
> I renewed the G.711.0 RTP payload specification with a new version (draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-02.txt) which captured the email discussions on the storage mode issues.
>  
> I let the use case draft (draft-ramalho-g7110-segments-00) expire due to lack of interest on the mailing list. I believe interest will revive when the payload specification is complete.
>  
> >>Summary: This email requests the G.711.0 RTP Payload Format be a formal working group item with an associated milestone (December 2013 suggested).