draft-ietf-payload-melpe-00.txt   draft-ietf-payload-melpe-01.txt 
Payload Working Group Victor Demjanenko Payload Working Group Victor Demjanenko
Internet-Draft David Satterlee Internet-Draft David Satterlee
Intended Status: Standards Track VOCAL Technologies, Ltd. Intended Status: Standards Track VOCAL Technologies, Ltd.
Expires: May 5, 2016 November 2, 2015 Expires: August 11, 2016 February 8, 2016
RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec
draft-ietf-payload-melpe-00 draft-ietf-payload-melpe-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed This document describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed
Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder algorithm Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder. MELPe's
developed by Atlanta Signal Processing (ASPI), Texas Instruments three different speech encoding rates and sample frames sizes are
(TI), SignalCom (now Microsoft) and Thales Communications with noise supported. Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are
preprocessor contributions from AT&T under contract with NSA/DOD as detailed. Also, within the document there are included necessary
international NATO Standard STANAG 4591. All three different speech details for the use of MELP with SDP.
encoding rates and sample frames sizes are included. Comfort noise
procedures and packet loss concealment are detailed. Also, within
the document there are included necessary details for the use of MELP
with SDP.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Conventions, Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 MELPe Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 MELPe Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1 2400 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1 2400 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2 1200 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2 1200 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 600 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.3 600 bps Bitstream Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 MELPe Comfort Noise Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2 MELPe Comfort Noise Bitstream Definition . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Multiple MELPe frames in a RTP packet . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3 Multiple MELPe frames in a RTP packet . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4 Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4 Payload Format Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1 Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 Media Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2 Mapping to SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 Discontinious Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5 Discontinious Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6 Packet Loss Concealment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6 Packet Loss Concealment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9 RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9 RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2 Background 2 Background
The MELP speech coder was developed by the US military as an upgrade The MELP speech coder was developed by the US military as an upgrade
from LPC-based CELP standard vocoder for low bit-rate communications from LPC-based CELP standard vocoder for low bit-rate communications
[MELP]. MELP was further enhanced and subsequently adopted by NATO [MELP]. MELP was further enhanced and subsequently adopted by NATO
as MELPe for use by its members and Partnership for Peace countries as MELPe for use by its members and Partnership for Peace countries
for military and other governmental communications [MELPE]. for military and other governmental communications [MELPE]. The MELP
speech coder algorithm developed by Atlanta Signal Processing (ASPI),
Texas Instruments (TI), SignalCom (now Microsoft) and Thales
Communications with noise preprocessor contributions from AT&T under
contract with NSA/DOD as international NATO Standard STANAG 4591.
Commercial/civilian applications have arisen because of the low bit- Commercial/civilian applications have arisen because of the low bit-
rate property of MELPe with its (relatively) high intelligibility. rate property of MELPe with its (relatively) high intelligibility.
As such MELPe is being used in a variety of wired and radio As such MELPe is being used in a variety of wired and radio
communications systems. VoIP/SIP systems need to transport MELPe communications systems. VoIP/SIP systems need to transport MELPe
without decoding and re-encoding in order to preserve its without decoding and re-encoding in order to preserve its
intelligibility. Hence it is desirable and necessary to define the intelligibility. Hence it is desirable and necessary to define the
proper payload formatting and use conventions of MELPe in RTP proper payload formatting and use conventions of MELPe in RTP
payloads. payloads.
The MELPe codec [MELPE] supports three different vocoder bit rates; The MELPe codec [MELPE] supports three different vocoder bit rates;
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/