1 / 7

August 1st 2012 IETF 84 meeting

MMusic Offer/Answer Considerations for G.723 Annex A and G.729 Annex B (draft-muthu-mmusic-offer-answer-g723-g729-00) . August 1st 2012 IETF 84 meeting. Authors: Muthu A M. Perumal, R Parthasarathi. Agenda. Problem Statement Solution considerations Current Status Next Steps.

beata
Download Presentation

August 1st 2012 IETF 84 meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MMusicOffer/Answer Considerations for G.723 Annex A and G.729 Annex B(draft-muthu-mmusic-offer-answer-g723-g729-00) August 1st 2012 IETF 84 meeting Authors: Muthu A M. Perumal, R Parthasarathi

  2. Agenda • Problem Statement • Solution considerations • Current Status • Next Steps

  3. Problem Statement • Offer/Answer considerations are not specified for the following codec parameters in RFC4856 • annexa parameter of G723 • annexb parameter for G729, G729D and G729E • Many implementations considers the Annex B (or Annex A) flavor as incompatible with the non-Annex B (or non-Annex A) flavor of the same codec • Undesirable user experience • Call failure when no other common codec to use • Undesirable codec matched and used

  4. Solution Considerations • REQUIRE that the answer contain "no" if the offer contained "no". •  Forbid the answer from explicitly containing "yes" when the offer contained "no", but allow the answer to implicitly contain "yes" (via the default) and treat it as "no”

  5. Current Status • Originally submitted to Payload WG and had lot of mailing list discussion • Presented this draft at IETF-83 in the AVTEXT session • No open issues, except a suggestion to cross check with existing implementations • Resubmitted to MMUSIC as a BCP, following instructions from the Chairs & AD guidelines.

  6. Next Steps • Adding milestone in the charter for this problem? • Adopting this draft for the milestone? • Ask for more review

  7. Problem Statement Offer with G279 and no annexb parameter: v=0 o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com s= c=IN IP4 host.atlanta.example.com t=0 0 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 18 a=rtpmap:18G729/8000 End result: Call failure Expectation: Least common denominator (i.eG.729) be used Answer with G729annexb=no: v=0 o=bob 1890844326 1890844326 IN IP4 host.bangalore.example.com s= c=IN IP4 host.bangalore.example.com t=0 0 m=audio 19140 RTP/AVP 18 a=rtpmap:18G729/8000 a=fmtp:18annexb=no

More Related