Attention is currently required from: falconia, neels, pespin.

laforge has posted comments on this change by falconia. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/39869?usp=email )

Change subject: mgw: rtp-patch rfc5993hr: convert to each end's respective format ......................................................................

Patch Set 2:

(3 comments)

File src/libosmo-mgcp/mgcp_network.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/39869/comment/5bf24b1f_1f1c6782?usp=... : PS2, Line 646: exist 3 different RTP payload formats

There exist maybe lots of formats for HR, but there exist TWO widely deployed formats, plus we have […]

I don't really see why we would need to declare which of those formats are more widely deployed than others.

This comment is not an API doc but just a comment. It may be long but I'd rather have it than not have it.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/39869/comment/6c81cf96_e0bbe4c9?usp=... : PS2, Line 691: * consider the full RTP chain of a single call:

(my idea so far, can be in a future patch, is to not send any HR payload to a peer until we have received its first packet;

And what if both sides of the connection follow that policy? It will fail...

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-mgw/+/39869/comment/dd028f70_de311297?usp=... : PS2, Line 698: will always be RFC 5993

Ideally, according to 3GPP yes, but in practice, do we always convert to RFC5993? […]

On AoIP, there is no discussion. It is always RFC5993 as that is what (likely, quoting from memory) 3GPP TS 48.103 mandates. On other interfaces it's a different story.