Re: Comments on Draft RFC

If you look at the draft, it currently defines "u-law" and "a-law", and
will reference the appropriate audio telephony standards.  The proposal
I was agreeing with was to make a content-type "audio" with the phrase
"u-law" or "a-law" relegated to the ver-num or resource-reference
fields.  Is that not appropriate?  I think we really could use some more
guidance from people who are better versed in audio standards...