Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Herve Taddei <[e-mail]>]

It did not seem to be a major problem when for example IETF issued RFC 3592
(iLBC). For this codec the PLC is basically a non normative link on the
ITU-T G.711 PLC.

Besides, I don't think you would have any trouble to propose at ITU-T some
new appendices to G.711 and G.722 that could fit your goals. An appendix is
non normative (a bit like the informative reference to G.711 PLC in iLBC).
By the way, if I am not wrong, some basic ITU-T G.722 PLCs are RF.

Not considering G.711 and G.722 because they do not have RF appendices does
not sound to be optimal in term of interoperability, better to work on
making RF some new appendices.


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Steve Underwood
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:02 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

On 01/10/2010 03:57 PM, Koen Vos wrote:
> Quoting Herve Taddei:
>
>> [] some existing standard codecs (at least G.711, G.722) are already 
>> optimized for interactive Internet applications, []
>
> How can these codecs be optimized if their bitrates are many times 
> higher than state-of-the-art codecs?  You don't think bitrates matter 
> for interactive Internet applications?  I can assure you they do (for 
> congested/shared networks, WiFi/3G, conferences, video calling, 
> dial-up, etc).
Its not just about bit rates. G.711 and G.722 are only really optimised 
for internet applications when you include the Appendices. Those 
Appendices appear to be patent encumbered, so they fail a key criterion 
for this group's work.
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec