I think the problem is that (according to the rules) the ptime
attribute is not related to a specific profile but to a specific
media description:
> m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
> a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000
> a=ptime:20
> a=rtpmap: 8 PCMA/8000
> a=ptime:30

So I guess, officially, you can only really have one ptime parameter
associated with each "m=" line.
Personally I can't see why we couldn't use multiple packet times
in the way you suggested but maybe it'll break some implementations.
I don't know.

As a recap, I remember the various other proposals to handle the multiple
profiles:
  m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
  a=mptime:20 30
  a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000
  a=rtpmap: 8 PCMA/8000

or:
  m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
  a=x-ptime:20 30
  a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000
  a=rtpmap: 8 PCMA/8000


I have another idea:  be explicit about the packet times used
for each profile (like with rtpmap):

  m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
  a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000
  a=rtpmap: 8 PCMA/8000
  a=ptimemap: 0 20
  a=ptimemap: 8 30

But, as you can see, it's less efficient that the mptime
or x-ptime parameters.


Can anyone say how far away we are before all this
"mulitple packet time" stuff is standardised?

Attila



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 March 2003 22:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: link.xie; Attila Sipos; 'Christian Stredicke';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for muliple codecs
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why don't you use normal RTPMAP stuff, without any extensions 
> and/or x-
> parameters?
> 
> Your SDP would look like:
> 
> m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
> a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000
> a=ptime:20
> a=rtpmap: 8 PCMA/8000
> a=ptime:30
> 
> Or, have I missunderstood your issue?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer Holmberg
> Ericsson Finland
> 
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think Link.xie is right that till the attribute is
> > registered 'X-mptime' should be the attribute name used.
> >
> > Though, we should move towards standardizing this
> > attribute in a draft.... because chances are other
> > implementations will not understand this unregistered
> > attribute and may lead to inter-op issues later.
> > PacketCable seems to have taken a step forward already
> > in this regard.
> >
> > PS: Some more digging into the archive shows that we did
> >     agree to bring out a draft on the 'mptime' attrib
> >     for exactly the same reason.... Perhaps Kevin and
> >     Colin could tell if one is already on its way :)
> >     Else we can prepare one now ?
> >
> > (ref:
> > 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/mmusic/curren
> t/msg01030.ht
> > ml)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Siddharth.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Siddharth Toshniwal
> > Hughes Software Systems
> > Prestige Opal                   http://www.hssworld.com
> > 146, Infantry Road          Ph (O): +91-80-2286390 (7094)
> > Bangalore-560001, India           Mobile: +91-9845154068
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "link.xie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/12/2003 04:49:12 PM
> >
> > To:   "Attila Sipos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Christian 
> Stredicke'"
> >       <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Siddharth J 
> Toshniwal/HSSBLR)
> >
> > Subject:  Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for muliple codecs
> >
> > I think X-mptime is better. Cause in rfc2327,
> >  "Unregistered attributes should begin with "X-" to  
> prevent inadvertent
> > collision with registered attributes"
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Attila Sipos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'Christian Stredicke'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'link.xie'"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Attila Sipos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:44 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for muliple codecs
> >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Link Xie, thanks for your response:
> > > > >     m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8
> > > > >     a=X-ptime: 20 30
> > >
> > > Following Siddharth's link
> > >
> > 
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2003-F
> ebruary/00455
> > 6
> > > .html
> > >
> > > It seems that from this link the answer is to use "mptime":
> > >
> > > >So instead of redefining ptime, create a new "mptime" 
> parm that has a
> > > >construct similar to the m line:
> > > >
> > > >m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0 4 18
> > > >A=mptime:10 30 30
> > > >
> > >
> > > The packetcable spec (from 
> http://www.packetcable.com/specifications/ )
> > > 
> http://www.packetcable.com/downloads/specs/PKT-SP-EC-MGCP-I06-
> 021127.pdf
> > > also seem to use mptime:
> > >
> > > (taken from PacketCable(tm) Network-Based Call Signaling Protocol
> > > Specification)
> > >
> > > m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 96 97 0
> > > a=rtpmap:96 G726-32/8000
> > > a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
> > > a=mptime: 10 - 10
> > >
> > > Here, rfc2833 doesn't have a packet time so it's shown with a '-'
> > > (rfc2833 is supposed to have the same packet time as the selected
> > > audio codec).
> > >
> > >
> > > Which is correct mptime or X-ptime?
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Attila
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Christian Stredicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 12 March 2003 08:31
> > > > To: 'link.xie'; 'Attila Sipos'
> > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: AW: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for 
> muliple codecs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The "X-" is a bad idea. We were using this in another
> > > > scenario and many
> > > > SDP parsers complained about "x-" headers. Better use
> > > > something without
> > > > "x-" (e.g. "xptime").
> > > >
> > > > Christian
> > > >
> > > > > -----Urspr
> >
> >   
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > �ngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:sip-implementors-
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von link.xie
> > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. M�rz 2003 03:46
> > > > > An: Attila Sipos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Betreff: Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for 
> muliple codecs
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,Attila
> > > > >     I think your suggestion is wrong. We also use 
> this solution
> > > > before.
> > > > > But we find that the meaning of 2 "m=" line repesent 
> 2 media stream.
> > > > So
> > > > > it's not suitalbe for this case.
> > > > >     Our solution is introducing a new attribut "X-mptime"
> > > > which means
> > > > > multiple ptime
> > > > >    and the SDP would like:
> > > > >
> > > > >     m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8      ----- 0 means g711u-law
> > > > and 8 means
> > > > > g711a-law
> > > > >     a=X-ptime: 20 30                          -----20 for
> > > > g711u 30 for
> > > > > g711a
> > > > >
> > > > >     I think this can solve your problem
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regard
> > > > > Link.Xie
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Attila Sipos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:33 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] SDP packet times for 
> muliple codecs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For multiple codecs we can have an SDP like this:
> > > > > > m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 8      ----- 0 means 
> g711u-law and 8 means
> > > > > g711a-law
> > > > > > a=ptime:20
> > > > > > But this is only correct if the packet times match for
> > > > > > u-law and a-law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if you have a system where, for some reason, the
> > > > > > codecs have different packet times?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you do this?
> > > > > > m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 0 -             ---- g711-ulaw
> > > > > > a=ptime:20
> > > > > > m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 8               ---- g711 a-law
> > > > > > a=ptime:30
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Attila
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://www.vegastream.com>
> > > > > > VegaStream : A World of difference for your Integrated
> > > > Communications
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to