The IESG has approved the following document: - 'RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.711.1 ' <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation G.711.1 is an embedded wideband extension of the Recommendation G.711 audio codec. This document specifies a payload format for packetization of G.711.1 encoded audio signals into the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This is a reasonably standard RTP payload format. The document has been reviewed by the AVT working group and all open issues were addressed Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Media type review was conducted starting May 7th 2008, with no objections raised. Vendors who contributed to the G.711.1 specification have indicated their intent to support this payload. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Cullen Jennings. RFC Editor Note Section 4.1 2nd paragraph OLD The 5 most significant bits are reserved for further extension and MUST be set to zero. NEW The 5 most significant bits are reserved for further extension and MUST be set to zero and MUST be ignored by receivers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- --- Section 4.2 1st paragraph OLD After this payload header, the audio frames are packed in order of time, that is, oldest first. All frames MUST be of the same mode, indicated by the MI field of the payload header. NEW After this payload header, the consecutive audio frames are packed in order of ^^^^^^^^^^^^ time, that is, oldest first. All frames MUST be of the same mode, indicated by the MI field of the payload header. --- --- Section 8 last paragraph OLD This payload format and the G.711.1 encoding do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in the receiver-end computational load and thus are unlikely to pose a denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological datagrams. NEW This payload format and the G.711.1 encoding do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in the receiver-end computational load and thus are unlikely to pose a denial-of-service threat due to the receipt of pathological datagrams. In addition, they do not contain any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ type of active content such as scripts. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
