Skip to main content

RTP Payload Format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) Codec
RFC 8130

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-04-21
06 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2017-03-30
06 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8130, changed title to 'RTP Payload Format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8130, changed title to 'RTP Payload Format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) Codec', changed abstract to 'This document describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder.  MELPe's three different speech encoding rates and sample frame sizes are supported.  Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are described in detail.', changed pages to 30, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-03-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2017-03-30
06 (System) RFC published
2017-03-27
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-03-21
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-03-06
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-02-16
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-02-16
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2017-02-16
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2017-02-15
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2017-02-08
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-02-08
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-02-08
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-02-08
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-02-08
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-02-08
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-02-07
06 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2017-02-07
06 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2017-02-07
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-02-07
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-02-07
06 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-06.txt
2017-02-07
06 (System) New version approved
2017-02-07
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Victor Demjanenko" , "David Satterlee"
2017-02-07
06 Victor Demjanenko Uploaded new revision
2017-02-02
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-02-02
05 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I have a small issue, but I think it is important to address:

in Section 4.1: media type parameters not specified in the …
[Ballot comment]
I have a small issue, but I think it is important to address:

in Section 4.1: media type parameters not specified in the MIME type registration, even though they are described later in the document. The MIME type registration will be pasted to a separate file on IANA website, so it must be self contained.
2017-02-02
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-02-01
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2017-02-01
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-02-01
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2017-02-01
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-02-01
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-02-01
05 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
- Reference to RFC5405 should be updated to RFC8085 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis)
- Please also add the following:
OLD:
"[...] applications that use …
[Ballot comment]
- Reference to RFC5405 should be updated to RFC8085 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis)
- Please also add the following:
OLD:
"[...] applications that use
  RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
  UDP layer [RFC5405]."
NEW:
"[..] applications that use
  RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
  UDP layer [RFC5405] and MAY as well implement a transport circuit breaker
  [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]."
2017-02-01
05 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-02-01
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-02-01
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2017-02-01
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2017-01-31
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-01-31
05 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-01-31
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-01-31
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-01-27
05 Brian Carpenter Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list.
2017-01-26
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-01-26
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-01-25
05 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-01-25
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2017-01-25
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-02-02
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2017-01-20
05 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2017-01-20
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-01-20
05 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-05.txt
2017-01-20
05 (System) New version approved
2017-01-20
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Victor Demjanenko" , "David Satterlee"
2017-01-20
05 Victor Demjanenko Uploaded new revision
2017-01-18
04 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-01-13
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2017-01-10
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-01-10
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the audio subregistry of the Media Types located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

four new Media Types are to be registered as follows:

Name: MELP
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP2400
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP1200
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP600
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RTP Payload Format media types subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/

four new media types are to be registered as follows:

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP2400
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP1200
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP600
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entires for Clockrate and Channels for each of the four new entires in the RTP Payload Format media types subregistry?

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2016-12-25
04 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list.
2016-12-25
04 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. Sent review to list.
2016-12-24
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2016-12-24
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2016-12-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2016-12-22
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2016-12-22
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2016-12-22
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2016-12-21
04 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-12-21
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, "Roni Even" , payload@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, "Roni Even" , payload@ietf.org, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed
  Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder.  MELPe's
  three different speech encoding rates and sample frames sizes are
  supported.  Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are
  detailed.

INTERNET DRAFT  RTP Payload Format for the MELPe CodecDecember 13, 2016





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-melpe/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-melpe/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2387/





2016-12-21
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was changed
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell
This is my AD Evaluation:

I think the draft is ready for IETF last call. I have a couple of editorial comments that can be …
This is my AD Evaluation:

I think the draft is ready for IETF last call. I have a couple of editorial comments that can be addressed
along with any LC feedback.:

-3, 3rd paragraph: The last sentence seems redundant with the first sentence of paragraph 2.

- 3.3, last paragraph: "...it is recommended to inspect the coder
  rate bits contained in the last octet"
Is "recommended" intended as RECOMMENDED? From context, it seems likely but not certain.
2016-12-21
04 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-12-15
04 Roni Even Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-12-15
04 Roni Even Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even
What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is …
What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This document will be a standard track RFC, it specifies and RTP payload format for MELPe Codec. RTP payload format are standard track documents.
The type is indicated on the title page

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder.  MELPe's three different speech encoding rates and sample frames sizes are supported.  Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are  detailed.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
The document was discussed in the meetings,  and on the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues, there was consensus on the content of the document.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are existing implementations and the authors came to the IETF to register the payload subtype name being already used. The request for a media type review was posted on September 8th, 2016.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd.
The responsible AD is Ben Campbell.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd reviewed the document in previous and current versions and found it ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document had reviews before and during the WGLC.  The comments during the WGLC were addressed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
None.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
There were comments about the need for four media subtype name and there was agreement that since they are being used already by implementations it will cause interoperability problem if not continuing with the RTP payload subtype names.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.  If not, explain why?
Yes. The authors confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is an IPR statement https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2387/ on the individual draft. The WG believe that it is on the codec itself and not on the RTP payload and see no problem with this IPR.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The WG understand the document and agree with it.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No issues
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Media type was reviewed. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/sQ0bP-CjgU-x8VNFiPXjmQF-8VU
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are none
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
IANA section is OK

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No  new IANA registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
None were needed
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-12-14
04 Roni Even Changed document writeup
2016-12-13
04 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04.txt
2016-12-13
04 (System) New version approved
2016-12-13
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Victor Demjanenko" , "David Satterlee"
2016-12-13
04 Victor Demjanenko Uploaded new revision
2016-09-08
03 Roni Even IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-08-19
03 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-03.txt
2016-08-08
02 Roni Even IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-06-22
02 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-02.txt
2016-02-17
01 Ali Begen This document now replaces draft-demjanenko-payload-melpe instead of None
2016-02-17
01 Ali Begen Notification list changed to "Roni Even" <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>
2016-02-17
01 Ali Begen Document shepherd changed to Roni Even
2016-02-08
01 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-01.txt
2015-11-03
00 Victor Demjanenko New version available: draft-ietf-payload-melpe-00.txt