IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Thu, 14 March 2013 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25F121F8DAB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFW1o-mgUFBf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF0B21F8A0D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.40.5] (h87-96-134-129.dynamic.se.alltele.net [87.96.134.129]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2530293DE40; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <3246_1363214890_5141022A_3246_1976_1_34a49fde-fad7-4a0a-8b01-9d48a5b6eeab@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:51:12 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B94296F8-EFD8-424D-A09E-B2151427CD7D@edvina.net>
References: <31611_1363212891_5140FA5B_31611_17197_1_35788a76-852d-49ce-8987-d2be2f21fcaf@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D28EA3@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <3246_1363214890_5141022A_3246_1976_1_34a49fde-fad7-4a0a-8b01-9d48a5b6eeab@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: <stephane.proust@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <xavier.marjou@orange.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:51:56 -0000

13 mar 2013 kl. 23:48 skrev <stephane.proust@orange.com>om>:

> The reason is simply that AMR and AMR-WB are supported in billions of devices !
I think it's time to stop discussing historical numbers, current numbers and future numbers of installed codecs in various devices. We're all impressed, but it doesn't seem to change our position on the MTI codec list.

This is a very complex matrix and the codec landscape is every changing. That's why the offer/answer exchange is open for future additions. SIP only mandated a very small set of codecs in RFC 3261 over ten years ago. That did not stop the use of AMR, G722, H.264 or other codecs in SIP devices today. I've even seen Opus being used in SIP without updating RFC 3261. 

I'm pretty sure I will see quite a lot of offers with both AMR and H264 in WebRTC, as I have met them many times in my SIP life.

It seems that we need to clarify this openness to use any codec in the specification, since it seems to be widely misunderstood.

/O

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email