similar to: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex-01.txt

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

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

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

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

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

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:55:21PM -0800, Greg Herlein wrote: > If such a thing happens, discussion of the RTP profile draft > would be most welcome - please get responses back to the > list! Now, if this were finalised before the conference then we could do a demo and use it for broadcasting the lectures streams around the world... What is currently the best way of doing this? I'm

> 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

Hello to all speex developers, I have question regarding payload length of narrowband speex in RTP. I were watching tcpdump of the xlite softphone and have found that it uses weird payload length namely 75 Bytes I went through various source and without success. To be clear: For 8000Hz sample in 20 ms that is 160 samples per frame. This makes 50 frames per sec. modes bit-rate 8 kbit/s

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

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

> Otherwise Greg, can you send the latest version of the RTP draft so I > can put it on the site (the current one is getting old)? Attached for all to see. Greg -------------- next part -------------- Internet Engineering Task Force Greg Herlein Internet Draft Jean-Marc Valin draft-herlein-speex-rtp-profile-06

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

>> 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

Hi, On http://www.speex.org/docs/manual/speex-manual/node11.html#SECTION001140000000000000000 the bitrate for Speex Wideband mode 9 and 10 is 9 34,400 10 42,400 On http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex-03 the bitrate for Speex Wideband mode 9 and 10 is 9 34.2 kbit/s 10 42.2 kbit/s I believe the draft contains the right values: E.g. mode 10 Narrowband mode 7 -> 492

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)

>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Herlein <gherlein@herlein.com> writes: Greg> The IETF has already assigned -02: ... to indicate it's Greg> expired. I'll ask if they want to use -02 or -03. They posted a policy statement a couple of weeks back. The expired notice is to be replaced by the next version of the draft if any is forthcoming. So it'll be -02.

>> Consider a device that only has enough ROM to store one set of >> quantization tables (the limitation could also be about speed, network, >> ...). If you specify MUST be able to decode, then it means that this >> device simply *cannot* implement the spec *at all*. This is bad for >> interoperability. > > For me: device which don't have all mode

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