IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com> Tue, 01 March 2016 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697731B3FCE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JOYY2MvnpkMF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0613.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::613]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27D01B3948 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:02:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SonusNetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-sonusnet-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nDpmFrfq94spG3h9WPnq0+UzGDLcZC+JXyF2Kk5Y0jU=; b=FtrB3WnrHKdsdBMcmEcyxILIZL89KWJkQ/MDNxexy2Xz5KPtbv192bmzp+imWro4lm3QHYX/tBXb8YlA8Jg4SPbI2eIKBhbumhQosDx6fKHqZI7VG/BhTgzdkR7MSwh5tzClF+qi2zf8lDMS0at64hH/GhBWcOobQGYqGh3xYHk=
Received: from SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.129.157) by SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.129.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.409.15; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:02:24 +0000
Received: from SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.129.157]) by SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.129.157]) with mapi id 15.01.0409.024; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 19:02:24 +0000
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHRb/eiM09Ybg6t2Eavei5prgOW+p9EeOUQgAB4VQCAAAJvQIAABQwAgAAAciA=
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:02:24 +0000
Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB1551CDEEA6EA1C7A696972B7B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160224213121.376.85278.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD5OKxuQT2hdDHWdVxHGEcC3PuMMDjpaBpfAygRBa7-kdv79Rg@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB15519E82B0384EF6EC348B72B2B80@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56D1A080.7050901@alvestrand.no> <SN1PR0301MB1551A6D49F18116A70A107CCB2B80@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMB5pye7-tXgBFrzk+F-3dApY-4pEX_1Foob-ug6dmztXg@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551506B16DC14D555E98AD4B2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMAxR0_HzpqM3aQwVBX51G87+ZnYpd7AEwHsw0unpcPV1w@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551C791B62BC7311DB3897CB2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtonFCucoou8Es+0RCuBx-oa++w5__=EBXT7kVToksE4A@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB155111CC2AAC4D3B0962B3E6B2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMAk_jPu5Pd1kU6aEh2au5x-tE4v+c9zU5nzx64t47DUmQ@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB15518F98FD31A3BAE6505079B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56D55FE9.60408@alvestrand.no> <SN1PR0301MB15512FBBCA5186B4829FEFA8B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B374B9596@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <SN1PR0301MB1551D1333297368D66B150ACB2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxvf+HBknqxXXY=_t9sCFGUFMUczu6k5DkMS-M8aV0Sjxw@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551006A8D73179743E85322B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMBGzjJFbLpo4te12tpaFFS_aoEXmoARudkq1EbZ5AnuYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBGzjJFbLpo4te12tpaFFS_aoEXmoARudkq1EbZ5AnuYw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=sonusnet.com;
x-originating-ip: [73.29.18.75]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a34b50b0-3587-49ca-76f1-08d3420406b3
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1PR0301MB1551; 5:FH0x/ymLeoWClZD8D4mD4cvp7m+gokbdTq76tq4Ifqh1ebd0NqHdOVN38nuvFtnp+oyfRh0Trkz7gb6+4OuxsqrTGbCnQQowxNrXroF60uihtnsJ5bR18PQW/lv09MIYB2Abl7EH3mYv2F3us6T00Q==; 24:75XzvaU/UyqF/zRRIn2X4iOSRa9m714B2rPLTZfBC3LyQeXTBVpsDjtjdPFQwO7HYVJs6gbrMkhjaKinOL6BqSzeIYqhHLU4nNFiYxbyfuY=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN1PR0301MB1551;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN1PR0301MB15516352D06654CCC643EA27B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:SN1PR0301MB1551; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1PR0301MB1551;
x-forefront-prvs: 086831DFB4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(377454003)(24454002)(164054003)(2473001)(3846002)(6116002)(790700001)(3660700001)(2906002)(5003600100002)(102836003)(586003)(5008740100001)(86362001)(5001960100004)(81156009)(230783001)(76576001)(93886004)(99286002)(54356999)(122556002)(19609705001)(3280700002)(66066001)(40100003)(19625215002)(10400500002)(19300405004)(110136002)(1220700001)(189998001)(77096005)(2900100001)(4326007)(15975445007)(2950100001)(19580395003)(74316001)(11100500001)(5002640100001)(33656002)(1096002)(50986999)(16236675004)(87936001)(106116001)(92566002)(76176999)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1PR0301MB1551; H:SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SN1PR0301MB1551CDEEA6EA1C7A696972B7B2BB0SN1PR0301MB1551_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sonusnet.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Mar 2016 19:02:24.6755 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR0301MB1551
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1hIFuStcgpaoZEUIwHk4zzQXwIk>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:02:47 -0000

“that there will be a range imposed by browsers”
Why are we assuming this? There should be some justification for this statement (and this is what I fail to see/understand but am really open to good explanation for the need for this). The model I presented has a “default value” for browsers not an “enforced range”. Those two are different things.

Thanks,
Tolga

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
Cc: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>; Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>; Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tolga,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@sonusnet.com<mailto:tasveren@sonusnet.com>> wrote:

ii- As another general principle, introducing a restriction without a good reason is a bad idea IMHO. So far, I yet have to see a good argument in favor of an enforced range (other than that we should assume that intelligence level of app. developer’s is equal to a chimpanzee)

This is not a fair characterization of the point that has been made, and I'd appreciate your being careful with your wording.  The point that has been made is that there will be a range imposed by browsers and that standardizing that range avoids the complexity of discovery and/or random failure modes.  If you are arguing that there will be no enforced range at all, then the browser makers' assertion to the contrary seems to be problematic for accepting your argument.
regards,
Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email