IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] this weeks summary

Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> Fri, 14 May 2010 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mknappe@juniper.net>
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 A1A9B3A63EB for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2010 08:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 mE3whhKmeD3B for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2010 08:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635AB3A68B0 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 May 2010 08:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS+1ymI4omANmF9F8xUuUjXAUevO6Pdj7@postini.com; Fri, 14 May 2010 08:56:19 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Fri, 14 May 2010 08:53:13 -0700
From: Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net>
To: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 08:53:09 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] this weeks summary
Thread-Index: AcrvouSxwCvhij/GQOaYD+wavcY/SwD2qf68
Message-ID: <C812BFF5.1639E%mknappe@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <002e01caefa2$ef88c9a0$ce9a5ce0$@de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [codec] this weeks summary
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 14 May 2010 15:56:29 -0000

Yes, thanks everyone for a lot of great discussion over the past several
weeks on a number of different issues. I think we're at a good point to
review this discussion and see what strong consensus points have emerged,
and also highlight any remaining issues for particular discussion as we lead
up to the Maastricht meeting in July.

I will be writing up a summary of tracker issues this weekend to send out to
the alias, let's make a big push in the next two weeks to close issues where
possible in preparation for the July meeting.

Cheers,

Mike


On 5/9/10 11:10 AM, "Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Again, many emails this week. Any important results? My personal summary after
> reading them all again:
> 
> Raymond did a great job explaining the special requirements of high-density
> VoIP gateway. They are differ substantially to those of
> soft-phones (but are somewhat similar to VoIP phones with embedded CPUs). The
> requirements include low memory footprint, ultra-low
> delay, low complexity and mostly narrow band. But aren't those requirements
> already covered by existing codecs? Shall this working
> group provide a codec profile for end-to-gateway beside the profile for an
> end-to-end codec?
> 
> SpiritDSP and Christian were discussing the need for layered coding - no
> consensus yet...
> 
> The week before, we were discussing whether to consider Bluetooth and Wireless
> IP as use cases. It seems to be a rough consensus
> that wireless IP is in-scope and that Bluetooth is out-of-scope because it
> requires too special optimizations. However, battery
> powered, wireless devices might require low-complexity and low-bandwidth (and
> are in-scope?).
> 
> With best regards,
> 
>  Christian
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532
> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email