Re: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs?
"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Sun, 23 September 2012 15:09 UTC
Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 4C19D21F84AF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.915, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 kj1yMWION6hP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BD3A21F84A6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29418 invoked by uid 0); 23 Sep 2012 15:09:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2012 15:09:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=sI1IL3rXImIc/WU9i+8HdrrElhdz1WATFgQ8p97Y9wg=; b=Hbwqwaojrbnmwz/mDSZo+ZEgmXHeTcIUJwbKq+jGqjlatqVJ/7e/0gyqiuEr+pk4IrlYHwCcmeVGkHmXwwckY5SwsbRWMWQJbacii8n5Qrd5KN4+tIMHpeiFxEEclyQC;
Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=50869 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1TFnoD-0005Ch-AI for rtcweb@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:09:26 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <004101cd98f7$37afbae0$a70f30a0$@us> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040812A573@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040812A573@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:09:21 -0400
Message-ID: <006001cd999d$6a478680$3ed69380$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0061_01CD997B.E335E680"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac2Y9zZzgDBH7SjBQ/eFTQIiU1hVugAeLhdAAAs6m1A=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI 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: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:09:31 -0000
I understand that .. It would be helpful to run the consensus call ASAP so we could move on to something more interesting like resolving the offer/answer model. I was archiving some of my email today to free up disk space. From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:49 AM To: Richard Shockey; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? I believe that the answer to the question in the subject line was given in the message from the chairs at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05267.html. So the question is rather where we are with the non-MTI codecs? (the SHOULD codecs)? The chairs wrote in the same message: Ø Based on the discussion to date, the chairs will run a consensus call on Ø whether the WG should recommend specific codecs which will not be Ø mandatory to implement (i.e. will the document contain SHOULDs as well Ø as MUSTs for codec implementation)". If the response to that consensus Ø call indicates consensus for non-mandatory to implement recommendations, Ø we will run consensus calls on those codecs to be included at that level. Ø I think that that consensus call was not run yet. Regards, Dan From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Shockey Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:20 PM To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? I do want to make it clear that SHOULDs should be included. I really really believe 722 AMR WB needs to be included in order to properly interoperate with Public SIP Networks (the former PSTN) and soon to be deployed Voice over LTE. Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101 http//www.sipforum.org
- [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] BTW where are we at with MTI codecs? Magnus Westerlund