Qiaobing,
The header-free format was included to make no-overhead-over-the-air
possible, then obviously assuming IP/UDP/RTP header compression on
the wireless link. By using RFC 3242, the header overhead can be
totally eliminated under certain conditions, thus one frame per RTP
packet can make much sense.
Cheers,
/L-E
-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Qiaobing Xie
Sent: den 17 september 2004 05:51
To: AVT List
Cc: adamli at icsl.ucla.edu
Subject: [AVT] RFC3558 header-free packet format question
Hi, Adam,
The text in section 4.2 of RFC3558 **seems** to indicate that
only ONE speech frame is
allowed per RTP packet when header-free format is used. This
seems to be overly limiting and
may severely hinder the usage of this payload format (e.g., I
don't think any over-the-air
link can afford to use one frame per RTP packet arrangement,
and if over-the-air link can
not use header-free format, what would be its purpose?). One
would think that as long as the
same codec rate (hence the layout and size) is in use, more
than one frame should be able to
be unambiguously carried in a header-free RTP packet.
Maybe I missed something.
regards,
-Qiaobing
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt