Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point calls supporting transcoding?
"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Sat, 03 April 2010 05:39 UTC
Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5AF3A68CF for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujvogcZYjN8N for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D6A3A68C6 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1Nxw4b-0004UV-Gj; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:39:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:39:09 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/1#comment:1
Message-ID: <071.db71a07d3a8eb1cd6269da2ddeaa0468@tools.ietf.org>
References: <062.4b6a3862c443b2d8917e027f2267f4d2@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 1
In-Reply-To: <062.4b6a3862c443b2d8917e027f2267f4d2@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point calls supporting transcoding?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:39:19 -0000
#1: Application: 2.1. Point to point calls supporting transcoding? ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Reporter: hoene@… | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: requirements | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Comment(by hoene@…): No consensus either until now. Again two opinions: a) "To have similar requirements as G.718 and to consider at least cross tandeming conditions with G722.2@12.65 in the characterization phase." b) "I think that transcoding must be an explicit non-goal for this codec." "Sorry, but I still do not understand the need for this testing. In a cell network to VoIP topology, the codec selected must be an ITU codec which we already know are working fine for transcoding. In a VoIP to VoIP topology the codec selected is the one defined by this WG and by definition no transcoding is needed. And that's it, no test needed, because nobody will use it this way." Again, I would suggest to look for volunteers who want to make the subjective tests with G.722.2 and CODEC. -- Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/1#comment:1> codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>
- [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point call… codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … James Rafferty
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … James Rafferty
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … James Rafferty
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … James Rafferty
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … James Rafferty
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Dr. Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #1: Application: 2.1. Point to point … Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #1: Point to point calls supporting t… codec issue tracker