Subject: [AVT] need help

From: rahul agrawal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:48:02 +0000 (GMT)

sir
     i wnat some help. i am working on the source coding, when i run it then i found bytestream so in this i want to insert error, that means i want to generate error file, so please ifd you have an idea then please tell me about this. just give me an idea, how will i generate error file.

thanks 

[email-masked] wrote:
Send avt mailing list submissions to
[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of avt digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Working group last call: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus-06.txt
(Colin Perkins)
2. Update (-12) of Timed Text draft (Rey Jose)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:08:42 +0000
From: Colin Perkins 
Subject: [AVT] Working group last call:
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus-06.txt
To: IETF AVT WG 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

As Magnus has noted, this version is intended to be final. Please 
review before 4th March 2005 to ensure there have been no last-minute 
problems introduced. If there are no objections received by that time, 
we will request the IESG publish this as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Colin

On 16 Feb 2005, at 15:49, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the post WG last call update of the draft. With big help from 
> Stephan Wenger and Dave Singer have we reworked the language. We also 
> found a minor bug regarding how the TFI field was sent when the 
> payload included FT=10-13 and the clarified the security and 
> implementations concerns around interleaving. Due to the extensive 
> amount of changes, we think there is need for the WG to get a chance 
> to look at these changes before publication is requested. Therefore we 
> have asked Colin to issue a second WG last call on the draft.
>
> We have also produced a nice side by side diff of the changes that can 
> be retrieved here:
> http://standards.ericsson.net/westerlund/amrwbplus-diff-5vs6.html
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group 
>> of the IETF.
>> Title : RTP Payload Format for Extended AMR Wideband (AMR-WB+) 
>> Audio Codec
>> Author(s) : J. Sjoberg, et al.
>> Filename : draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus-06.txt
>> Pages : 38
>> Date : 2005-2-15
>> 
>> This document specifies a real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload
>> format for Extended AMR Wideband (AMR-WB+) encoded audio signals.
>> The AMR-WB+ codec is an audio extension of the AMR-WB speech 
>> codec.
>> It encompasses the AMR-WB frame types and a number of new frame
>> types designed to support high quality music and speech. A media
>> type registration for AMR-WB+ is included in this specification.
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amrwbplus 
>> -06.txt
>
>
> -- 
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:41:23 +0100
From: "Rey Jose" 
Subject: [AVT] Update (-12) of Timed Text draft
To: 
Cc: "Magnus Westerlund \(KI/EAB\)" ,
Colin Perkins 
Message-ID:
<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi all,

A new revision is out. Until it goes through the ID manager queue it is
available at:
http://www.prdcg.panasonic.de/ietf/docs/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-3gpp-timed-te
xt-12.txt

In short, the changes reflect the results of the offline discussions as
posted in a previous email to the list :
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05106.html

In detail:

In Section 4 RTP Payload header definitions changed from:

"TYPE 5 units do not make use of the timestamp, but instead become
active upon reception and not at the time instant indicated by the
timestamp. Therefore, if RTP packets contain only one TYPE 5 unit or
only (several) TYPE 5 unit(s), the RTP timestamp SHALL be set to the
current value of RTP timestamp plus one. Adding one (1) unit, as
opposed to just using the current timestamp, further allows the use of
the timestamp for identifying RTP packets that carry fragments of the
same text sample.
"
To 

"TYPE 5 units receive their timestamp from the first non-TYPE 5 unit
following them in the payload or from the RTP packet header itself, if
there are only TYPE 5 unit(s) or if one or several TYPE 5 units follow a
sample of unknown duration (see Section 4.1.2, SDUR definition). If
there are no non-TYPE 5 units that follow, the timestamp of the sample
description is calculated in the usual way, i.e. by adding sample
duration and timestamp value of the last unit encountered (see case a)
in Figure 10). Finally, note that for TYPE 5 units, the timestamp
actually does not represent the instant when they are played out, but
instead the instant at which they become available for use. " 

And in Section 4.5 on aggregate payloads, the following :

"o TYPE 5 units MAY be placed anywhere in the aggregate and they
SHALL NOT be regarded for calculating the timestamp of the subsequent
units. This is because they usually do not belong to any text sample in
particular, but may apply to several. For timestamp calculations, TYPE
5 units MUST simply be ignored, i.e. by jumping to the next unit. For
setting the timestamp in packets containing only TYPE 5 units refer to
Section 4, timestamp definition."

Changed to:

"o Regarding sample descriptions in aggregate payloads: since TYPE
5 units may potentially apply to several units in the stream, a sender
shall ensure that a copy of the sample description is received before
the affected text sample is due. Therefore, a copy of the sample
description SHOULD be placed in the payload before the text sample it
applies to. Of course, if several text samples in a payload use the
same sample description, once per payload is enough. A sender MAY
choose to omit the sample description if it knows by some other means,
such as payload specific feedback messages [21], that the sample
description has arrived at the receiver or if it employs additional
transport resiliency measures (Section 5), for example. "

Cheers,
---------------------------------------------
Jose Rey mailto:[email-masked]
P R D C G - Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
Phone/Fax: +49(0)6103766-134/166
--------------------------------------------- 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

End of avt Digest, Vol 10, Issue 28
***********************************

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt