Subject: [payload] Fwd: Latest MELP RTP Payload draft (UNCLASSIFIED)

From: "Dave Satterlee (Vocal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:17:55 -0400

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Latest MELP RTP Payload draft (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: 	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 21:23:57 +0000
From: 	Lee, John <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>

Dave and Victor,
I concur with the latest draft.
Thanks,

John Lee

JSIL Cert Center

(O) 256-955-8969

(BB) 256-698-8985

/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain privileged
and/or proprietary information that is intended solely for the person or entity to which
it is addressed. Moreover, it may contain export restricted technical data controlled by
Export Administration Regulations (EAR) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR). Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or re-export to foreign or domestic
entities by anyone other than the intended recipient in accordance with EAR and/or ITAR
regulations is prohibited.

/

---

From: "Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:42:06 -0400

Hi John,

Thank you for your comments and confirming this special case.

As you may have seen a revised draft (03) has been posted.  I think this
should be close to final.  We are awaiting Roni and Ali to advise on the
next step(s).

Thanks to everyone on this mailing group for your support and comments.

Victor & David

From: Lee, John [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:32 AM
To: Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; SHERIDAN, LARRY M (Michael) JR CTR
USARMY RDECOM AMRDEC (US)
Subject: RE: Latest MELP RTP Payload draft (UNCLASSIFIED)

Victor,

‎I don't believe it would break anything, but it might introduce a new edge
case that would need to be considered by our vendors. I don't think we can
speak for them. Worst case scenario, we end up levying a separate
requirement on our systems prohibiting something that is permitted (but not
required) in the RFC to ensure interoperability. So, I do not think there is
a problem with proceeding if that behavior is desired.

From: Victor Demjanenko, Ph.D.

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:28 AM

To: Lee, John

Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Latest MELP RTP Payload draft (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi John,

You have always been quick with responses and appreciate that.  We have one
item that we would like your opinion on before we change/clarify in our next
draft.  It has been pointed out that according to our spec the MELP RTP
packet may contain no speech coder frame and no comfort noise frame.  We can
either prohibit this or we can permit it.  One possibly useful permission is
to us an empty frame to indicate an otherwise idle receiver.  This would
indicate the absence of a radio receive signal.  One can argue that this is
the role of RTP keep-alive but the keep-alive mechanism could be from a
different layer in some implementation?  

Do you have any comments or preference?

Will be break anything if we allow an empty MELP RTP packet?

A quick response would be helpful as we are about to post a revised draft.

Thanks,

Victor

From: Lee, John [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 5:24 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Latest MELP RTP Payload draft (UNCLASSIFIED)

Dave and Victor,

Thanks,

John Lee

JSIL Cert Center

(O) 256-955-8969

(BB) 256-698-8985

  _____  

The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain
privileged and/or proprietary information that is intended solely for the
person or entity to which it is addressed. Moreover, it may contain export
restricted technical data controlled by Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Any review,
retransmission, dissemination, or re-export to foreign or domestic entities
by anyone other than the intended recipient in accordance with EAR and/or
ITAR regulations is prohibited.