Re: [AVT] RE: <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-03.txt>: sampling rate

[Qiaobing Xie <Qiaobing.Xie at motorola.com>]

Colin Perkins wrote:

<snip>
> > In fact, if it _is_ possible for the encoder to use multiple rates 
> > (like VMR-WB), isn't it a lot easier on both sides if we can just us 
> > 16KHz for RTP and avoid having the play games if we want to switch 
> > input rates dynamically?  Setting the timestamp at the sender end is 
> > trivial.
> >
> >         Also, sticking with a strict timestamp rate == sample rate 
> > dictate means that various classes of codecs won't fit well, will be 
> > harder to write and/or use with RTP, or won't be developed because the 
> > transports for them would be painful.
>
> I agree. This is a limitation of the way RTP has evolved, using the 
> input sampling rate for the audio timestamp. Unfortunately changing the 
> meaning of the RTP timestamp will break things, so we're stuck with the 
> current model.

I'd think that RTP will have to keep evolving and adapting in order to survive and be 
relevant. Otherwise, its ability to support newer codecs like vmr-wb (which happens to be 
the future of voice communications) will diminish. That would be bad for this community, IMO.

regards,
-Qiaobing


_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt