IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 31 December 2012 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 13F3021F84DB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqlqqnKu9iI3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854BB21F8738 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qBVH4nNL048267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:04:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <50E1C5B1.3010603@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:04:49 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com> <50DC7830.1010206@alvestrand.no> <50E1C238.1080408@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <50E1C238.1080408@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
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: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:04:59 -0000

On 12/31/12 10:50, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 11:32 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Speaking as an individual:
>>
>> I am putting my name on 2), because I believe RECOMMENDED is too 
>> strong for secondary codecs.
>
> I am also voting for 2) for similar reasons (and in fact I'd probably 
> vote against a "SHOULD" also).
>

FWIW, RFC 2119 defines these terms to mean exactly the same thing:

     3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean...

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email