Speex dev - Feb 2009 - ietf discussion about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex

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 draft...

tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/

Some (all?) of the comments seem to be available here,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2837/

-Ivo

Tks ivo,

I missed this comment:
>Discuss [2009-02-25]:
>Although the MIME specification does not appear to forbid the same
>content type parameter from appearing twice (something that's unlikely
>to work in practice), it is explicit that order of parameters is not
>significant (meaning a processor is free to re-order them).
>
>RFC 2045, p 10 at the bottom:
>  "The ordering of parameters is not significant."
>
>That means it is not acceptable for a media type registration to impose
>an ordering restriction on content-type parameters as this one does.
>
>So if you want order to matter, you need to encode the mode values as
>a comma-separated or space-separated list.
I guess a comma separated list will be mandary here... Instead of the 
current way.

Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/


On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote:
> Some (all?) of the comments seem to be available here,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2837/
>
> -Ivo
>

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?

	Jean-Marc

Aymeric Moizard a ?crit :
> 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 draft...
> 
> tks,
> Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
> amsip - http://www.antisip.com
> osip2 - http://www.osip.org
> eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speex-dev mailing list
> Speex-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
> 
>

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 "mode" definition to be ONLY a list of comma
separated
  values. This is because order of several modes has no importance
  according to another rfc about SDP...

We need a few adjustment:
* cng and vbr should be optionnal to folow.
* ptime rouding text is not well understood
* it should be specified that the code is only defined for mono.
* ..

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...

Probably a little more...

Aymeric
> 	Jean-Marc
>
> Aymeric Moizard a ?crit :
>> 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 draft...
>>
>> tks,
>> Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
>> amsip - http://www.antisip.com
>> osip2 - http://www.osip.org
>> eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speex-dev mailing list
>> Speex-dev at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
>>
>>
>

Sorry to top-post, but I think we also have some work to do about RTP
packetization of Theora. See discussion on the XMPP Jingle list:

http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/2009-March/000721.html

I'm happy to help on this.

On 2/27/09 4:21 AM, 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?
> 
> 	Jean-Marc
> 
> Aymeric Moizard a ?crit :
>> 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 draft...
>>
>> tks,
>> Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
>> amsip - http://www.antisip.com
>> osip2 - http://www.osip.org
>> eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url :
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20090303/a45ce6b0/attachment.bin