diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt | 395 |
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..706afcf --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3802.txt @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group G. Vaudreuil +Request for Comments: 3802 Lucent Technologies +Obsoletes: 2422 G. Parsons +Category: Standards Track Nortel Networks + June 2004 + + + Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s Adaptive Differential Pulse Code + Modulation (ADPCM) MIME Sub-type Registration + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet 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). + +Abstract + + This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type + audio/32KADPCM Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation for toll + quality audio. This audio encoding is defined by the ITU-T in + Recommendation G.726. + +1. Introduction + + This document describes the registration of the MIME sub-type + audio/32KADPCM for toll quality audio. This audio encoding is + defined by the ITU-T in Recommendation G.726. This document + obsoletes an earlier sub-type registration contained in RFC 1911. + This document also obsoletes RFC 2422. + + 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 [REQ]. + + + + + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + +2. ITU-T Definition + + Recommendation G.726 [G726] defines the characteristics that are + recommended for the conversion of a 64 kbit/s A-law or m-law pulse + code modulation (PCM) channel at 8000 samples/second to and from a + 40, 32, 24 or 16 kbit/s channel. The conversion is applied to the + PCM bit stream using an adaptive differential pulse code modulation + (ADPCM) transcoding technique. This Recommendation obsoletes G.721 + which only defined the 32 kbit/s characteristics. + + Recommendation G.726 was prepared by Study Group 15 of the + Telecommunications Standardization Sector of the International + Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) and was approved under the ITU's + Resolution No. 2 procedure on the 14 of December 1990. + +3. MIME Definition + +3.1. audio/32KADPCM + + CCITT Recommendation G.726 [G726] describes the algorithm recommended + for conversion of a 64 kbit/s A-law or u-law PCM channel to and from + a 32 kbit/s channel (this is the same algorithm as described in the + deprecated G.721). The conversion is applied to the PCM stream using + an Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation (ADPCM) transcoding + technique. + + The MIME sub-type audio/32KADPCM is defined to hold binary audio data + encoded in 32 kbit/s ADPCM exactly as defined by ITU-T Recommendation + G.726. No header information shall be included as part of the audio + data. The content transfer encoding is typically either binary or + base64. + + An additional consideration that this document defines for clarity is + the choice of little endian ordering of the four bit code words. This + default ordering is defined in ITU-T Recommendation X.420 [X420] for + the equivalent X.400 body part, but is also detailed below in the + IANA Registration. + +3.2. VPIM Usage + + The audio/32KADPCM sub-type is a primary component of the VPIM + specification [VPIM]. In this context, the Content-Description and + Content-Disposition headers are used to succinctly describe the + contents of the audio body. As well, only the little endian bit + ordering is valid. Refer to the VPIM Specification for proper usage. + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + +4. IANA Registration + + To: ietf-types@iana.org + Subject: Registration of MIME media type audio/32KADPCM + + MIME media type name: audio + + MIME subtype name: 32KADPCM + + Required parameters: none + + Optional parameters: none + + Encoding considerations: + + Binary or Base-64 generally preferred + + Security considerations: + + There are no known security risks with the sending or playing + of raw audio data Audio data is typically interpreted only by + an audio codec. Unintended information introduced into the + data stream will result in noise. + + Interoperability considerations: + + The four bit code word ordering within a byte may differ + between existing implementations of G.726 codecs. Since this + content only permits the little endian ordering, codecs that + support the opposite ordering must reorder the code words + before storing to or retrieving from this content type. + + Published specification: + + ITU-T G.726 with little endian ordering + + Applications which use this media type: + + Primarily voice messaging + + Additional information: + + Magic number(s): ? File extension(s): .726 Macintosh File Type + Code(s): APCM + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + + Little Endian Ordering: + + The 4-bit code words of the G.726 encoding MUST be packed into + octets/bytes as follows: the first code word (A) is placed in + the four least significant bits of the first octet, with the + least significant bit (LSB) of the code word (A0) in the least + significant bit of the octet; the second code word (B) is + placed in the four most significant bits of the first octet, + with the most significant bit (MSB) of the code word (B3) in + the most significant bit of the octet. Subsequent pairs of the + code words shall be packed in the same way into successive + octets, with the first code word of each pair placed in the + least significant four bits of the octet. It is preferred + that the voice sample be extended with silence such that the + encoded value comprises an even number of code words. + However, if the voice sample comprises an odd number of code + words, then the last code word shall be discarded. + + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + |B3|B2|B1|B0|A3|A2|A1|A0| + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + MSB -> | 7| 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| <- LSB + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + + 32K ADPCM / Octet Mapping + + Person & email address to contact for further information: + + Glenn W. Parsons gparsons@NortelNetworks.com + + Gregory M. Vaudreuil GregV@ieee.org + + Intended usage: COMMON + + Author/Change controller: + + Glenn W. Parsons & Gregory M. Vaudreuil + +5. Security Considerations + + There are no known security risks with the sending or playing of raw + audio data Audio data is typically interpreted only by an audio + codec. Unintended information introduced into the data stream will + result in noise. + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + +6. References + +6.1. Normative References + + [G726] CCITT Recommendation G.726 (1990), General Aspects of + Digital Transmission Systems, Terminal Equipment - 40, 32, + 24,16 kbit/s Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation + (ADPCM). + + [VPIM2R2] Vaudreuil, G., and G. Parsons, "Voice Profile for Internet + Mail - version 2 (VPIMv2)", RFC 3801, June 2004. + + [REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + +6.2. Informative References + + [RFC 3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media + Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. + + [VPIM1] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Profile for Internet Mail", RFC + 1911, February 1996. + + [VPIM2] Vaudreuil, G., and G. Parsons, "Voice Profile for Internet + Mail - version 2", RFC 2421, September 1998. + + [X420] ITU-T Recommendation X.420 (1996) - ISO/IEC 10021-7:1996, + Message handling systems: Interpersonal messaging. + +7. Changes from RFC 2422 + + Only editorial and boilerplate changes from RFC 2422 have been made + to this document. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + +8. Authors' Addresses + + Gregory M. Vaudreuil + Lucent Technologies + 7291 Williamson Rd + Dallas, TX 75214 + United States + + EMail: gregv@ieee.org + + + Glenn W. Parsons + Nortel Networks + P.O. Box 3511, Station C + Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 + Canada + + Phone: +1-613-763-7582 + Fax: +1-613-763-2697 + EMail: gparsons@nortelnetworks.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 3802 32 kbit/s ADPCM June 2004 + + +9. 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 + 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. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + +Vaudreuil, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + |