[Asterisk-code-review] res pjsip: Add option to force G.726 to be treated as AAL2 p... (asterisk[13])

[Mark Michelson]

Mark Michelson has posted comments on this change.

Change subject: res_pjsip: Add option to force G.726 to be treated as AAL2 packed.
......................................................................


Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1

> From what I gathered AAL2 is a transport type, so to me it made
 > sense to say packed for a particular tranport type, i.e. g.726
 > packed for AAL2, or shortened to g.726 for AAL2. However, maybe I
 > misread it? Maybe "over" is a better word (as in g.726 over AAL2)?
 > Or something else if there is better convention?

Okay, so here's what's going on:
AAL2 is a transport. In its specification, it defines G.726 as using big-endian order for samples. A different specification (ITU X.420) specified G.726 as using little-endian order for samples. So in RFC 3551, they say that if you're using little-endian encoding, that's "G726-32" (or -16, -24, -40). If you're using big-endian encoding, that's "AAL-G726-32".

So in other words, the name AAL2 here is derived from a transport, but the actual meaning of the option here is to use the G.726 packing order as was defined in the spec for AAL2. So, I guess it's really splitting hairs about whether "G.726 for AAL2 packing order" is any better than "G.726 using the packing order defined by AAL2" or anything else.

-- 
To view, visit https://gerrit.asterisk.org/651
To unsubscribe, visit https://gerrit.asterisk.org/settings

Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ie7e21f75493d7fe53e75e12c971e72f5afa33615
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Project: asterisk
Gerrit-Branch: 13
Gerrit-Owner: Kevin Harwell <kharwell at digium.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Joshua Colp <jcolp at digium.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kevin Harwell <kharwell at digium.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Mark Michelson <mmichelson at digium.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Matt Jordan <mjordan at digium.com>
Gerrit-HasComments: No