Subject: [AVT] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT)

The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from
any implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in
particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24,
G726-32, and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.

This notice is being sent to multiple mailing lists to reach as many
interested parties as possible; please reply only to [email-masked].

Background:

The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs
1889 and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status.  Two drafts
have been prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement:

    draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-11.txt
    draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12.txt

These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the
IESG.  In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for
publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype
registrations for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile:

    draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06.txt

Issue:

The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs
audio samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of
the octet.  This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for
ATM AAL2 transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E,
which begins with the most-significant bit.  Implementers of systems
that operate with both transports or gateway between the two have
requested that the RTP packetization be changed to match the I.366.2
packetization to avoid requiring two different DSP implementations
and/or translation between packings.

Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an
approved standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has
been part of the RTP Profile drafts since 1997.  Therefore,
implementations of both packings are likely to exist.  Furthermore,
since the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other
than 32K until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the
I.366.2 packings for those rates.  As a consequence, there is no
course of action that will make everyone happy.

Proposal:

After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is
proposed that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be
consistent with I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC.  The
MIME subtype registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40
in draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the
packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore
apply to the changed packetization.  In addition, RTP static payload
type 2, which is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by
draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning.

Consequences:

We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the
packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and
therefore objects to the change.  Any such systems already in the
field would produce garbled audio when interoperated with
RFC-compliant implementations, and not detect the error.  This is a
significant consideration, although draft specifications are not
guaranteed to remain unchanged.

We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the
Voice Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample
packing as currently specified in the RTP Profile draft.  This is
consistent with ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail.  Since the
VPIM systems use MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32,
there would not be conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as
proposed.  However, voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP
would be forced to reformat the data.

********************************************************************
*  We are seeking statements from interested parties both for and  *
*  against this proposal, particularly with motivations.           *
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Oren Peleg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:47:48 +0200

Another Proposal could be: For the I.366.2 packetization, make a new MIME registration & Use a Dynamic Payload Type value.

Please Comment,

Oren P.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Casner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:24 AM
To: AVT WG
Subject: [AVT] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers

Background:

Issue:

Proposal:

Consequences:

---

From: Rajesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:34:39 -0700

Steve and AVT/MMUSIC colleagues,
Our position, which has not changed since we brought up this issue to the 
notice of the IETF,  is similar to Tom's. We would like to see the 
packetization of G.726 over RTP be made identical to what is defined for 
AAL2 in the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. In this regard, we strongly 
recommend that the audio MIME subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and 
G726-40 be aligned to the ITU I.366.2 recommendation.  This  alignment 
would include the static payload type 2.

If there is a need to interoperate with the "other," non-ITU  packing 
scheme, we recommend that new MIME types be defined for those non-ITU 
schemes  rather than for ITU-compatible schemes, which we think should be 
associated with the current MIME definitions.

Rajesh Kumar
Cisco Systems

At 08:33 AM 10/15/2002 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

>For your action if it affects you.  There is a clash between the 
>packetization of G.726 over RTP and AAL2, and a proposal to adopt the AAL2 
>packetization universally.  Comments are requested.
>
>From: Stephen Casner 
>[<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers
>
>The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any 
>implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in 
>particular any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, 
>and G726-40 or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.
>
>Protocol (RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889 
>and 1890, respectively) to Draft Standard status.  Two drafts have been 
>prepared to revise these RFCs for advancement:
>
>publication as a Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations 
>for all the encoding names defined in the RTP Profile:
>
>The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio 
>samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the 
>octet.  This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2 
>transport specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins 
>with the most-significant bit.  Implementers of systems that operate with 
>both transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP 
>packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid 
>requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between 
>packings.
>
>implementations of both packings are likely to exist.  Furthermore, since 
>the RTP Profile did not include packetizations for rates other than 32K 
>until 2001, some RTP implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings 
>for those rates.  As a consequence, there is no course of action that will 
>make everyone happy.
>
>Proposal:
>
>After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed 
>that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with 
>I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC.  The MIME subtype 
>registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in 
>draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the 
>packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to 
>the changed packetization.  In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which 
>is bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by 
>packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore 
>objects to the change.  Any such systems already in the field would 
>produce garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant 
>implementations, and not detect the error.  This is a significant 
>consideration, although draft specifications are not guaranteed to remain 
>unchanged.
>
>We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice 
>Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as 
>currently specified in the RTP Profile draft.  This is consistent with 
>ITU-T Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail.  Since the VPIM systems use 
>MIME type audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be 
>conflict in meaning if the latter were changed as proposed.  However, 
>voicemail systems that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to 
>reformat the data.
>
>mmusic mailing list
>[email-masked]
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic 
>

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:47:59 -0400

Actually, all I meant to do was to provide a neutral summary.  Consultations
within my organization seem to tend toward the point of view that the
discrepancy is not a big deal and it would be better to preserve backward
compatibility.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajesh Kumar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:35 PM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Michael Frendo; Cary FitzGerald; Richard Platt;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers

Steve and AVT/MMUSIC colleagues,
Our position, which has not changed since we brought up this issue to the
notice of the IETF,  is similar to Tom's. We would like to see the
packetization of G.726 over RTP be made identical to what is defined for
AAL2 in the ITU I.366.2 recommendation. In this regard, we strongly
recommend that the audio MIME subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and
G726-40 be aligned to the ITU I.366.2 recommendation.  This  alignment would
include the static payload type 2.

Rajesh Kumar
Cisco Systems 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Stephen Casner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 AM 
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: [MMUSIC] Seeking input from G.726 ADPCM implementers 

The IETF Audio/Video Transport working group is seeking input from any
implementers of systems using the G.726 ADPCM audio encoding, in particular
any that use the MIME audio subtypes G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40
or the RTP static paylod type 2 for G726-32.

Background: 

The AVT working group is seeking to advance the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) and its associated Profile for A/V Conferences (RFCs 1889 and 1890,
respectively) to Draft Standard status.  Two drafts have been prepared to
revise these RFCs for advancement:

These drafts have been "tentatively approved" for publication by the IESG.
In addition, a new companion draft has been approved for publication as a
Proposed Standard to specify MIME subtype registrations for all the encoding
names defined in the RTP Profile:

Issue: 

The packetization of G.726 audio specified in the RTP Profile packs audio
samples into octets beginning with the least-significant bit of the octet.
This is at odds with the packetization of G.726 audio for ATM AAL2 transport
specified in ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2 Annex E, which begins with the
most-significant bit.  Implementers of systems that operate with both
transports or gateway between the two have requested that the RTP
packetization be changed to match the I.366.2 packetization to avoid
requiring two different DSP implementations and/or translation between
packings.

Both specifications have existed for some time: I.366.2 has been an approved
standard since 1999, and the packing for the G726-32 rate has been part of
the RTP Profile drafts since 1997.  Therefore, implementations of both
packings are likely to exist.  Furthermore, since the RTP Profile did not
include packetizations for rates other than 32K until 2001, some RTP
implementations may have used the I.366.2 packings for those rates.  As a
consequence, there is no course of action that will make everyone happy.

Proposal: 

After consultation with the IETF Transport Area Directors, it is proposed
that the draft RTP Profile packetization be changed to be consistent with
I.366.2 Annex E before it is published as an RFC.  The MIME subtype
registrations for G726-16, G726-24, G726-32, and G726-40 in
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mime-06, which refer to the specification of the
packetizations in draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would therefore apply to
the changed packetization.  In addition, RTP static payload type 2, which is
bound to the G726-32 encoding and packetization by
draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-12, would also change its meaning.

Consequences: 

We have already heard from one vendor that has implemented the
packetizations according to the current RTP Profile draft and therefore
objects to the change.  Any such systems already in the field would produce
garbled audio when interoperated with RFC-compliant implementations, and not
detect the error.  This is a significant consideration, although draft
specifications are not guaranteed to remain unchanged.

We have also been informed that the format for G.726 audio in the Voice
Profile for Internet Mail (RFC 2421/2) uses the same sample packing as
currently specified in the RTP Profile draft.  This is consistent with ITU-T
Recommendation X.420 for X.400 mail.  Since the VPIM systems use MIME type
audio/32KADPCM rather than audio/G726-32, there would not be conflict in
meaning if the latter were changed as proposed.  However, voicemail systems
that transmit messages over RTP would be forced to reformat the data.

_______________________________________________ 
mmusic mailing list 
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic 
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt