Re: [AVTCORE] [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03.txt

Hi Roni,
you are totally right - it is the header embedded in the payload as described in chapter 4 in which they both differ - and consecutively chapter 5 (the payload example). 
ETSI TS 100 392-3-8 does not address the other chapters like Congestion Control Considerations, payload format parameters, mapping to SDP and security considerations.

Your proposal sounds brilliant to me - totally OK with it
All the best
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even (A) <[email protected]> 
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2019 14:26
To: REISENBAUER Andreas <[email protected]>; Tuominen, Antti <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Klaus-Peter Höhnsch ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brandhuber Udo ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Joachim Hagedorn ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03.txt

Hi Andreas,
Before sending the document to publication I would like to clarify the difference between this document and the ETSI one. My understanding is that the difference is in the payload header as specified in section 4.

I think it is time to send the document to publication but since it has been sometime since the last WGLC I will have a short WGLC before publication  request

Let me know if this is OK with you
Roni Even
AVTcore co-chair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: REISENBAUER Andreas
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:27 PM
> To: Tuominen, Antti; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; Roni Even (A)
> Cc: Klaus-Peter Höhnsch ([email protected]);
> Brandhuber Udo ([email protected]); Joachim Hagedorn
> ([email protected])
> Subject: FW: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03.txt
> 
> Hi Antti, Roni, payload working group
> 
> I did an update of the draft-ietf-tetra. Thanks a lot for your 
> comments Antti - according your feedback we changed references from 
> the historical ETSI TS
> 100 392-3-6 to ETSI TS 100 392-3-8. Indeed we did not change the 
> control bit structure. As it is well defined in our 
> draft-ietf-payload-tetra we do not need a bit equivalency to any ETSI standard.
> 
> According Antti's comment regarding, it seems a bit superfluous to 
> specify another slightly different format:
> There is one single specification (ETSI TS 100 392-3-8 ) addressing 
> both circuit switched lines as well as for transport via RTP and it 
> specifically addresses the application of a TETRA Intersystem 
> Interface rather than a generic TETRA audio payload for RTP. Because 
> of this fact the cited standard is little more TDM-stylish rather than 
> pure RTP. There are attributes included as part of the payload which 
> are either superfluous or at least confusing for pure RTP 
> communications (e.g. call reference, traffic type which identifies 
> codec, frame number – supposed to handle slipped frames in SDH). For 
> this reasons we (the authors) of this draft think it is worth to 
> specify a pure IP way to propagate TETRA payload via RTP and therefore ask IANA to register “audio/TETRA” as a valid payload type according the specification given here.
> 
> Best regards
> Andreas
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: payload <[email protected]> On Behalf Of internet- 
> [email protected]
> Sent: Freitag, 26. Juli 2019 21:05
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Payloads WG of 
> the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : RTP Payload Format for the TETRA Audio Codec
>         Authors         : Andreas Reisenbauer
>                           Udo Brandhuber
>                           Joachim Hagedorn
>                           Klaus-Peter Höhnsch
>                           Stefan Wenk
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 15
> 	Date            : 2019-07-26
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document specifies a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
>    format for TETRA encoded speech signals.  The payload format is
>    designed to be able to interoperate with existing TETRA transport
>    formats on non-IP networks.  A media type registration is included,
>    specifying the use of the RTP payload format and the storage format.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-tetra/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-payload-tetra-03
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt