similar to: First draft for Speex RTP profile - Please send your comments

Hi all, Please find below the -01 update to draft-herlein-speex-rtp-profile, as submitted to the IETF. Regards Phil <p>-------------------8<-----------------------------------8<--------------------- <p><p>Internet Engineering Task Force Greg Herlein Internet Draft Jean-Marc Valin

Hello, What's the purpose of the 'sr' sdp parameter ? The sample rate is already given in the a=rtpmap line ? Simon Le dim 29/06/2003 à 12:12, philkerr@elec.gla.ac.uk a écrit : > Hi all, > > Please find below an updated Speex Internet Draft document. > > It would be good if we could book some time for discussion on Speex at the IETF > meeting in Vienna (scheduled

Alfred E. Heggestad wrote: > <...> > > If we don't get any comments in 1 week (by 22. May 2007) we will go ahead > and submit it to the IETF. Of course you can comment on it also after it > has been submitted, but we would like to get the input from the Speex > community first.. > thanks for all the input. please find attached an updated version of the draft. I

Hi Please find an updated version of the Speex I-D attached. The only change is addition of the copyright conditions in Appendix A, as requested by Ivo. Many thanks for your input. I will give you a few more days before submitting to AVT working group /alfred Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote: > Do not forget to add the "Copying conditions" to the RFC. > > Check

Hi, We'd like to announce the first draft for the Speex RTP profile. It was written essentially by Greg Herlein, with some help from Simon Morlat and I. We'd like to get some feedback on it before it is sent to the IETF. Basically this will allow all SIP based VoIP applications using Speex to inter-operate. For those interested, there's already Simon's LinPhone (www.linphone.org)

Hi all, Please find below an updated Speex Internet Draft document. It would be good if we could book some time for discussion on Speex at the IETF meeting in Vienna (scheduled for 14th July). The cutoff for submission is 9:00am EDT, (GMT -04:00), 30th June. Comments and feedback welcomed! Regards Phil

Looks good to me. Jean-Marc Alfred E. Heggestad a ?crit : > Hi > > Please find an updated version of the Speex I-D attached. The only > change is addition of the copyright conditions in Appendix A, > as requested by Ivo. > > Many thanks for your input. > > I will give you a few more days before submitting to AVT working group > > > /alfred > > Ivo

Hi all We are about to send an updated version of the internet draft "RTP Payload Format for the Speex Codec" to the IETF AVT working group. Before submitting we would like your input, if you have any comments or input please send them to the mailing list. If we don't get any comments in 1 week (by 22. May 2007) we will go ahead and submit it to the IETF. Of course you can comment

Do not forget to add the "Copying conditions" to the RFC. Check http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments That page contains a section titled "Template for RFC authors to release additional rights". To follow that guideline a section like the following should be added: x. Copying conditions The author(s) agree to grant third parties the irrevocable right to

Here my comments: Page 3: To be compliant with this specification, implementations MUST support 8 kHz sampling rate (narrowband)" and SHOULD support 8 kbps bitrate. The sampling rate MUST be 8, 16 or 32 kHz. There is a type above after (narrowband), there is a " extra character. I don't understand what is the motivation to specify "SHOULD support 8 kbps

Hi Jack, > You're comments are welcome. Here they are... 3.1 RTP Header Payload Type (PT): I don't see an alternative to using a value of the dynamic range (96-127). IIRC, other ranger are reserved for fixed values assigned by IETF. "A dynamic payload type MUST be used - i.e., one in the range [96,127]." 3.2 Payload Header If you refer to RFC2119, please keep the capital

comment inline. On Wed, 16 May 2007, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> Page 3: >> >> To be compliant with this specification, implementations MUST support >> 8 kHz sampling rate (narrowband)" and SHOULD support 8 kbps bitrate. >> The sampling rate MUST be 8, 16 or 32 kHz. >> >> There is a type above after (narrowband), there is a " extra

On Wed, 16 May 2007, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >>> The main idea is that Speex supports many bit-rates, but for one reason >>> or another, some modes may be left out in implementations (e.g. for RAM >>> or network reasons). What we're saying here is that you should make an >>> effoft to at least support (and offer) the 8 kbps mode to maximise >>>

The latest revision of the draft profile for use of Speex in RTP is attached. We plan on submitting this - or a modified version of this, based on immediate feedback - to the IETF on Monday for consideration at the next meeting. Major differences in this revision are: - removed the discussion in the MIME section. It's a duplicate of the SDP discussion anyway, and may or may not match the

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Hi Aymeric, > > Yes, I'm receiving the emails but haven't had enough time to look into > the details yet. I've seen you responded to many comments, so what are > the ones for which we still need to respond? Summary is there: https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2837/ As I understand: we need to change

> Page 3: > > To be compliant with this specification, implementations MUST support > 8 kHz sampling rate (narrowband)" and SHOULD support 8 kbps bitrate. > The sampling rate MUST be 8, 16 or 32 kHz. > > There is a type above after (narrowband), there is a " extra character. > > I don't understand what is the motivation to specify "SHOULD

>> The main idea is that Speex supports many bit-rates, but for one reason >> or another, some modes may be left out in implementations (e.g. for RAM >> or network reasons). What we're saying here is that you should make an >> effoft to at least support (and offer) the 8 kbps mode to maximise >> compatibility. > > I understood this. But as you may know: the

All: Attached please find yet another RTP profile revision (v5). You can also find the document at: http://www.herlein.com/downloads/speex/docs/ Changes: - added vbr, cng, ebw, sr optional parameters to MIME - added vbr, cng, ebw a=fmtp options for SDP use - added required document attributes for submission to IETF and IANA (format and author contact information). Note that we

Hi Jean-Marc, Alfred and Greg, Are you receiving the mails from IETF about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex The mails are not coming from AVT mailing list, but I think we are all 3 part of a minimal list (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex at tools.ietf.org) dedicated to latest discussion about the draft. I have answered some questions, but there are small changes and adaptation still required to the ietf

The latest revision of the draft RTP Profile is attached for review. This will be submitted to the IETF Audio-Video Transport Working Group for consideration immediately, so if you have any more comments, let us know. In addition, we will be applying for an official MIME type. Note that the AVP code and the MIME type in this latest revision have been changed from "SPX" to