[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 3952

   Internet Draft                                            Alan Duric
   draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ilbc-05.txt                                 Telio
   Category: Experimental                           Soren Vang Andersen
   May 24th, 2004                                    Aalborg University
   Expires: November 24th, 2004


                    RTP Payload Format for iLBC Speech


Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet experimental standards track
   protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
   suggestions for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition
   of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
   standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes the RTP payload format for the internet Low
   Bit Rate Coder (iLBC) Speech developed by Global IP Sound (GIPS).
   Also, within the document there are included necessary details for
   the use of iLBC with MIME and SDP.


Table of Contents

   Status of this Memo................................................1
   Copyright Notice...................................................1
   Abstract...........................................................1
   Table of Contents..................................................1
   1. INTRODUCTION....................................................2
   2. BACKGROUND......................................................2
   3. RTP PAYLOAD FORMAT..............................................2
   3.1 Bitstream definition...........................................3
   3.2 Multiple iLBC frames in a RTP packet...........................6
   4. IANA CONSIDERATIONS.............................................6
   4.1 Storage Mode...................................................6
   4.2 MIME registration of iLBC......................................7
   5. MAPPING TO SDP PARAMETERS.......................................9
   6. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................10
   7. REFERENCES.....................................................11
   7.1 Normative references..........................................11
   7.2 Informative references........................................11
   8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................12
   9. AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES.............................................12
   Full Copyright Statement..........................................12

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004



1. INTRODUCTION

   This document describes how compressed iLBC speech as produced by
   the iLBC codec [1] may be formatted for use as an RTP payload type.
   Methods are provided to packetize the codec data frames into RTP
   packets. The sender may send one or more codec data frames per
   packet, depending on the application scenario or based on the
   transport network condition, bandwidth restriction, delay
   requirements and packet-loss tolerance.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].


2. BACKGROUND

   Global IP Sound (GIPS) has developed and defines a speech
   compression algorithm for use in IP based communications [1]. The
   iLBC codec enables graceful speech quality degradation in the case
   of lost frames, which occurs in connection with lost or delayed IP
   packets.

   Some of the applications for which this coder is suitable are: real
   time communications such as telephony and videoconferencing,
   streaming audio, archival and messaging.

   The iLBC codec [1] is an algorithm that compresses each basic frame
   (20 ms or 30 ms) of 8000 Hz, 16-bit sampled input speech, into
   output frames with rate of 400 bits for 30 ms basic frame size and
   304 bits for 20 ms basic frame size.

   The codec has support for two basic frame lengths: 30 ms at 13.33
   kbit/s and 20 ms at 15.2 kbit/s, using a block independent linear-
   predictive coding (LPC) algorithm. When the codec operates at block
   lengths of 20 ms, it produces 304 bits per block which MUST be
   packetized in 38 bytes. Similarly, for block lengths of 30 ms it
   produces 400 bits per block which MUST be packetized in 50 bytes.
   The described algorithm results in a speech coding system with a
   controlled response to packet losses similar to what is known from
   pulse code modulation (PCM) with a packet loss concealment (PLC),
   such as ITU-T G711 standard [10], which operates at a fixed bit rate
   of 64 kbit/s. At the same time, the described algorithm enables
   fixed bit rate coding with a quality-versus-bit rate tradeoff close
   to what is known from code-excited linear prediction (CELP).


3. RTP PAYLOAD FORMAT

   The iLBC codec uses 20 or 30 ms frames and a sampling rate clock of
   8 kHz, so the RTP timestamp MUST be in units of 1/8000 of a second.

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 2]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004

   The RTP payload for iLBC has the format shown in the figure bellow.
   No addition header specific to this payload format is required.

   This format is intended for the situations where the sender and the
   receiver send one or more codec data frames per packet. The RTP
   packet looks as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      RTP Header [4]                           |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                                                               |
   +                 one or more frames of iLBC [1]                |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 1, Packet format diagram

   The RTP header of the packetized encoded iLBC speech has the
   expected values as described in [4]. The usage of M bit SHOULD be as
   specified in the applicable RTP profile, for example, RFC 3551 [5],
   where [5] specifies that if the sender does not suppress silence
   (i.e., sends a frame on every frame interval), the M bit will always
   be zero. When more then one codec data frame is present in a single
   RTP packet, the timestamp is, as always, that of the oldest data
   frame represented in the RTP packet.

   The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is
   outside the scope of this document, and will not be specified here.
   It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular class of
   applications will assign a payload type for this encoding, or if
   that is not done, then a payload type in the dynamic range shall be
   chosen by the sender.

3.1 Bitstream definition

   The total number of bits used to describe one frame of 20 ms speech
   is 304, which fits in 38 bytes and results in a bit rate of 15.20
   kbit/s. For the case with a frame length of 30 ms speech the total
   number of bits used is 400, which fits in 50 bytes and results in a
   bit rate of 13.33 kbit/s. In the bitstream definition, the bits are
   distributed into three classes according to their bit error or loss
   sensitivity. The most sensitive bits (class 1) are placed first in
   the bitstream for each frame. The less sensitive bits (class 2) are
   placed after the class 1 bits. The least sensitive bits (class 3)
   are placed at the end of the bitstream for each frame.

   Looking at the 20/30 ms frame length cases for each class: The class
   1 bits occupy a total of 6/8 bytes (48/64 bits), the class 2 bits
   occupy 8/12 bytes (64/96 bits), and the class 3 bits occupy 24/30
   bytes (191/239 bits). This distribution of the bits enables the use
   of uneven level protection (ULP). The detailed bit allocation is
   shown in the table below. When a quantization index is distributed

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 3]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004

   between more classes the more significant bits belong to the lowest
   class.

   Bitstream structure:

   ------------------------------------------------------------------+
   Parameter                         |       Bits Class <1,2,3>      |
                                     |  20 ms frame  |  30 ms frame  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Split 1  |   6 <6,0,0>   |   6 <6,0,0>   |
                   LSF 1    Split 2  |   7 <7,0,0>   |   7 <7,0,0>   |
   LSF                      Split 3  |   7 <7,0,0>   |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Split 1  | NA (Not Appl.)|   6 <6,0,0>   |
                   LSF 2    Split 2  |      NA       |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                            Split 3  |      NA       |   7 <7,0,0>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  20 <20,0,0>  |  40 <40,0,0>  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Block Class.                      |   2 <2,0,0>   |   3 <3,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Position 22 sample segment        |   1 <1,0,0>   |   1 <1,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
   Scale Factor State Coder          |   6 <6,0,0>   |   6 <6,0,0>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sample 0          |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
   Quantized       Sample 1          |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
   Residual           :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
   State              :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
   Samples            :              |   :    :      |   :    :      |
                   Sample 56         |   3 <0,1,2>   |   3 <0,1,2>   |
                   Sample 57         |      NA       |   3 <0,1,2>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               | 171 <0,57,114>| 174 <0,58,116>|
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 4]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


                            Stage 1  |   7 <6,0,1>   |   7 <4,2,1>   |
   CB for 22/23             Stage 2  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
   sample block             Stage 3  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  21 <6,0,15>  |  21 <4,2,15>  |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <2,0,3>   |   5 <1,1,3>   |
   Gain for 22/23           Stage 2  |   4 <1,1,2>   |   4 <1,1,2>   |
   sample block             Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  12 <3,1,8>   |  12 <2,2,8>   |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   8 <7,0,1>   |   8 <6,1,1>   |
               sub-block 1  Stage 2  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                            Stage 3  |   7 <0,0,7>   |   7 <0,0,7>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 2  Stage 2  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,0,8>   |
   Indices                  Stage 3  |   8 <0,0,8>   |   8 <0,0,8>   |
   for CB          ------------------+---------------+---------------+
   sub-blocks               Stage 1  |      NA       |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 3  Stage 2  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |      NA       |   8 <0,7,1>   |
               sub-block 4  Stage 2  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   8 <0,0,8>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  46 <7,0,39>  |  94 <6,22,66> |
   ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <1,2,2>   |   5 <1,2,2>   |
               sub-block 1  Stage 2  |   4 <1,1,2>   |   4 <1,2,1>   |
                            Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |   5 <1,1,3>   |   5 <0,2,3>   |
               sub-block 2  Stage 2  |   4 <0,2,2>   |   4 <0,2,2>   |
                            Stage 3  |   3 <0,0,3>   |   3 <0,0,3>   |
   Gains for       ------------------+---------------+---------------+
   sub-blocks               Stage 1  |      NA       |   5 <0,1,4>   |
               sub-block 3  Stage 2  |      NA       |   4 <0,1,3>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                            Stage 1  |      NA       |   5 <0,1,4>   |
               sub-block 4  Stage 2  |      NA       |   4 <0,1,3>   |
                            Stage 3  |      NA       |   3 <0,0,3>   |
                   ------------------+---------------+---------------+
                   Sum               |  24 <3,6,15>  |  48 <2,12,34> |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   Empty frame indicator             |   1 <0,0,1>   |   1 <0,0,1>   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   SUM                                 304 <48,64,192> 400 <64,96,240>



   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 5]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004

   Table 3.1 The bitstream definition for iLBC.

   When packetized into the payload the bits MUST be sorted as: All the
   class 1 bits in the order (from top and down) as they were specified
   in the table, all the class 2 bits (from top and down) and finally
   all the class 3 bits in the same sequential order.


3.2 Multiple iLBC frames in a RTP packet

   More than one iLBC frame may be included in a single RTP packet by a
   sender.

   It is important to observe that senders have the following
   additional restrictions:

   SHOULD NOT include more iLBC frames in a single RTP packet than will
   fit in the MTU of the RTP transport protocol.

   Frames MUST NOT be split between RTP packets.

   Frames of the different modes (20 ms and 30 ms) MUST NOT be included
   within the same packet.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the number of frames contained within an RTP
   packet is consistent with the application.  For example, in a
   telephony and other real time applications where delay is important,
   then the fewer frames per packet the lower the delay, whereas for a
   bandwidth constrained links or delay insensitive streaming messaging
   application, more then one or many frames per packet would be
   acceptable.

   Information describing the number of frames contained in an RTP
   packet is not transmitted as part of the RTP payload.  The way to
   determine the number of iLBC frames is to count the total number of
   octets within the RTP packet, and divide the octet count by the
   number of expected octets per frame (32/50 per frame).


4. IANA CONSIDERATIONS

   One new MIME sub-type as described in this section is to be
   registered.

4.1 Storage Mode

   The storage mode is used for storing speech frames (e.g. as a file
   or e-mail attachment).

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 6]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


   +------------------+
   | Header           |
   +------------------+
   | Speech frame 1   |
   +------------------+
   :                  :
   +------------------+
   | Speech frame n   |
   +------------------+

   Figure 2, Storage format diagram

   The file begins with a header that includes only a magic number to
   identify that it is an iLBC file.

   The magic number for iLBC file MUST correspond to the ASCII
   character string:

         o for 30 ms frame size mode:"#!iLBC30\n", or "0x23 0x21 0x69
         0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x33 0x30 0x0A" in hexadecimal form,

         o for 20 ms frame size mode:"#!iLBC20\n", or "0x23 0x21 0x69
         0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x32 0x30 0x0A" in hexadecimal form.


   After the header, follow the speech frames in consecutive order.

   Speech frames lost in transmission MUST be stored as "empty frames",
   as defined in [1].


4.2 MIME registration of iLBC

   MIME media type name: audio

   MIME subtype: iLBC

   Optional parameters:

   All of the parameters does apply for RTP transfer only.

        maxptime:The maximum amount of media which can be
                 encapsulated in each packet, expressed
                 as time in milliseconds. The time SHALL be
                 calculated as the sum of the time the media
                 present in the packet represents. The time SHOULD be
                 a multiple of the frame size. This attribute is
                 probably only meaningful for audio data, but may be
                 used with other media types if it makes sense. It is
                 a media attribute, and is not dependent on charset.
                 Note that this attribute was introduced after RFC
                 2327, and non updated implementations will ignore
                 this attribute.

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 7]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


         mode:    The iLBC operating frame mode (20 or 30 ms) that will
                  be encapsulated in each packet. Values can be 0, 20
                  and 30 (where 0 is reserved, 20 stands for preferred
                  20 ms frame size and 30 stands for preferred 30 ms
                  frame size).

        ptime:   Defined as usual for RTP audio (see [7]).

   Encoding considerations:
                  This type is defined for transfer via both RTP (RFC
                  3550) and stored-file methods as described in Section
                  4.1, of RFC XXXX. Audio data is binary data, and must
                  be encoded for non-binary transport; the Base64
                  encoding is suitable for Email.

   Security considerations:
                  See Section 6 of RFC XXXX.

   Public specification:
                  Please refer to RFC XXXX [1].

   Additional information:
                  The following applies to stored-file transfer
                  methods:

                  Magic number:
                  ASCII character string for:
                  o 30 ms frame size mode "#!iLBC30\n" (or 0x23 0x21
                  0x69 0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x33 0x30 0x0A in hexadecimal)
                  o 20 ms frame size mode "#!iLBC20\n" (or 0x23 0x21
                  0x69 0x4C 0x42 0x43 0x32 0x30 0x0A in hexadecimal)


                  File extensions: lbc, LBC
                  Macintosh file type code: none
                  Object identifier or OID: none

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
                  alan.duric@telio.no

   Intended usage: COMMON.
                  It is expected that many VoIP applications will use
                  this type.

   Author/Change controller:
                  alan.duric@telio.no
                  IETF Audio/Video transport working group

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 8]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


5. MAPPING TO SDP PARAMETERS

   The information carried in the MIME media type specification has a
   specific mapping to fields in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
   [7], which is commonly used to describe RTP sessions.  When SDP is
   used to specify sessions employing the iLBC codec, the mapping is as
   follows:

         o The MIME type ("audio") goes in SDP "m=" as the media name.

         o The MIME subtype (payload format name) goes in SDP
         "a=rtpmap" as the encoding name.

         o The parameters "ptime" and "maxptime" go in the SDP
         "a=ptime" and "a=maxptime" attributes, respectively.

         o The parameter "mode" goes in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by
         copying it directly from the MIME media type string as
         "mode=value".

   When conveying information by SDP, the encoding name SHALL be "iLBC"
   (the same as the MIME subtype).

   An example of the media representation in SDP for describing iLBC
   might be:

     m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 97
     a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000

   If 20 ms frame size mode is used, remote iLBC encoder SHALL receive
   "mode" parameter in the SDP "a=fmtp" attribute by copying them
   directly from the MIME media type string as a semicolon separated
   with parameter=value, where parameter is "mode", and values can be 0
   and 20 (where 0 is reserved and 20 stands for preferred 20 ms frame
   size). An example of the media representation in SDP for describing
   iLBC when 20 ms frame size mode is used might be:

     m=audio 49120 RTP/AVP 97
     a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000
     a=fmtp:97 mode=20

   It is important to emphasize the bi-directional character of the
   "mode" parameter - both sides of a bi-directional session MUST use
   the same "mode" value.

   The offer contains the preferred mode of the offerer.  The answerer
   may agree to that mode by including the same mode in the answer, or
   may include a different mode.  The resulting mode used by both
   parties SHALL be the lower of the bandwidth modes in the offer and
   answer.

   That is, an offer of "mode=20" receiving an answer of "mode=30" will
   result in "mode=30" being used by both participants.  Similarly, an

   Duric, Andersen                                            [Page 9]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004

   offer of "mode=30" and an answer of "mode=20" will result in
   "mode=30" being used by both participants.

   This is important for the a case such as when one end point utilizes
   a bandwidth constrained link (e.g. 28.8k modem link or slower),
   where only the lower frame size will work.

   Parameter ptime can not be used for the purpose of specifying iLBC
   operating mode, due to fact that for the certain values it will be
   impossible to distinguish which mode is about to be used (e.g. when
   ptime=60, it would be impossible to distinguish if packet is
   carrying 2 frames of 30 ms or 3 frames of 20 ms etc.).

   Note that the payload format (encoding) names are commonly shown in
   upper case. MIME subtypes are commonly shown in lower case.  These
   names are case-insensitive in both places.  Similarly, parameter
   names are case-insensitive both in MIME types and in the default
   mapping to the SDP a=fmtp attribute


6. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

   RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
   are subject to the general security considerations discussed in [4]
   and any appropriate profile (e.g. [5]).

   As this format transports encoded speech, the main security issues
   include confidentiality and authentication of the speech itself. The
   payload format itself does not have any built-in security
   mechanisms. Confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by
   encryption, therefore external mechanisms, such as SRTP [9], MAY be
   used for that purpose. The data compression used with this payload
   format is applied end-to-end; hence encryption may be performed
   after compression with no conflict between the two operations.

   A potential denial-of-service threat exists for data encoding using
   compression techniques that have non-uniform receiver-end
   computational load. The attacker can inject pathological datagrams
   into the stream which are complex to decode and cause the receiver
   to become overloaded. However, the encodings covered in this
   document do not exhibit any significant non-uniformity.

   Duric, Andersen                                           [Page 10]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


7. REFERENCES

7.1 Normative references

   [1] Andersen, et al., "Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC)", IETF
      Draft, May 2004.

   [2] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate requirement
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
      9, RFC 2026, October 1996

   [4] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson, "RTP:
      A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", IETF RFC 3550,
      July 2003.

   [5] H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
      Conferences with Minimal Control" IETF RFC 3551, July 2003.

   [6] Handley & Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP Payload
      Formats", BCP 36, RFC 2736, December 1999.

   [7] M. Handley and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol",
      IETF RFC 2327, April 1998

   [8] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
      Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
      IETF RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [9] Baugher, et al., "The Secure Real Time Transport Protocol", IETF
      RFC 3711, March 2004.

7.2 Informative references

   [10] ITU-T Recommendation G.711, available online from the ITU
      bookstore at http://www.itu.int.


   Duric, Andersen                                           [Page 11]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004


8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   The authors wish to thank Henry Sinnreich, Patrik Faltstrom and Alan
   Johnston for great support of the iLBC initiative and for their
   valuable feedback and comments.


9. AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES

   Alan Duric
   Telio AS
   Stortingsgt. 8
   Oslo, N-0161
   Norway
   Phone:  +47 21673505
   Email:  alan.duric@telio.no

   Soren Vang Andersen
   Department of Communication Technology
   Aalborg University
   Fredrik Bajers Vej 7A
   9200 Aalborg
   Denmark
   Phone:  ++45 9 6358627
   Email:  sva@kom.auc.dk

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an

   Duric, Andersen                                           [Page 12]

   INTERNET DRAFT RTP Payload format for iLBC Speech          May 2004

   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

   Duric, Andersen                                           [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/