similar to: [AVT] Open Speech Repository (fwd)

I'm looking for advise on troubleshooting QOS problems. After much searching and reading online (Google, Voip-Info Wiki, etc.) I don't feel any closer to finding the right tools to solve my problem. Any info you would like to share would be much appreciated, and I'm sure the thread will server others in the future. The problem : ------------- I'm having intermittent problems

All: The latest draft RTP Payload Format for Speex is available via the IETF. See below for details. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:56:23 -0500 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce: ; Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-herlein-avt-rtp-speex-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. <p>

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

All: My presentation to the IETF on the proposed Speex payload format did not occur. Details below. Progress continues, though, towards getting the Speex payload format approved. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:58:23 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org> To: Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com> Cc: avt@ietf.org Subject: Re: [AVT]

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

FYI, -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org> Subject: Working group last call: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex-05.txt Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:25:03 +0100 Size: 2054 Url: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20080331/289739db/attachment.eml

Hi, some good news from IETF :) /alfred -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> Subject: [AVT] Protocol Action: 'RTP Payload Format for the Speex Codec' to Proposed Standard Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 06:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Size: 3867 Url:

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

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 Jean-Marc, thank you for that suggestion! It seems that the file "fixed_c6x.h" is not part of the Opus sources, so the compiler cannot find it after enabling the TI_C6X_ASM config option. Maybe it was only part of an early version of the Opus sources? I looked for the file in versions V1.1, V1.1.1, V1.2alpha and V1.3 but did not found it. Do you have an idea, where I can get the

Hi Robert, The file is not distributed in the official releases, but I can find it in the git repository. Cheers, Jean-Marc On 10/22/2018 03:53 AM, Robert Madinger wrote: > Hi Jean-Marc, > > thank you for that suggestion! > It seems that the file "fixed_c6x.h" is not part of the Opus sources, so the compiler cannot find it after enabling the TI_C6X_ASM config option.

Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote: > Do not forget to add the "Copying conditions" to the RFC. > > Check http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments > I would be happy to add this statement. Could you let me know where to insert this statement in the xml document? I am using xml2rfc to generate the draft. Or alternatively point to other documents (.xml sources) that have the

On 6/1/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > No, keep as is. It is definitely not public domain, since it's > BSD-licensed and "patent-free" will open futile and unnecessary > discussions (on what it's supposed to mean) at the IETF. I was under the impression that Speex, like Vorbis and FLAC had its specification under the PD, and only the

> I was under the impression that Speex, like Vorbis and FLAC had its > specification under the PD, AFAIK, under US law, the only way for something to fall in the public domain is for either 1) the author to be an employee of the US government or 2) the author to be dead for more than X years (X being larger than the age of Mickey Mouse). To the best of my knowledge (did I miss

Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> Also, we need to know why there is a "license" chapter (chapter 9) >> and we need to remove it because ietf don't like it... > > IIRC, the reason for the license is to make the document compatible with > the Debian licensing guidelines or something like that. > I would like to know if we should keep this additional license chapter

On 3/30/09, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > It seems to be related to debian, that doesn't like the fact that not > everyone is allowed to modify these documents. If it's that much > problem, I'd say just remove it. Guys, both the Vorbis RTP and the Ogg media types RFCs have this clause. It did not raise any problem. If there are problems

On 5/31/07, Alfred E. Heggestad <aeh@db.org> wrote: > Could you let me know where to insert this statement in the xml > document? I'm no expert, but I recommend adding it in the Full Copyright Statement section. More or less like this: Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as

Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves a ?crit : > Also, another correction that you may want to do: > > Over the Introduction section, Speex is described as "Free > software/open-source". I believe this should be replaced altogether > with "Patent-free and royalty-free. Specification under the Public > Domain." No, keep as is. It is definitely not public domain, since

Sorry for the delay. On 4/13/09, Alfred E. Heggestad <aeh at db.org> wrote: > Ivo, could you also review the updated memo-status/copyright notice, > located on page 1-2 ? Is this a new standard for writing Internet drafts? I've never seen it in other documents. Specifically, this part: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created,