IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 18 January 2013 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 AF07A21F86D3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 VlLuK3qNE5yx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9EFD21F86CA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r0IKhlfV019230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:44:11 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:44:06 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:39:12 +0100
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
Thread-Index: Ac31mwJRRF21gTrTTfSMRU4gDiJFOgAIBB0A
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE20D7468AA60@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com> <24103_1358435764_50F815B4_24103_9252_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A076013@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAA79oD=kqbfHq9DCsVu06NPvcF=MxaGguNi-Tu5P-bXQxZPcAg@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338CF2F26@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF013BD3C3@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <B1E46FFE-7F62-4A10-AF80-FAC406BF428A@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1E46FFE-7F62-4A10-AF80-FAC406BF428A@phonefromhere.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:44:14 -0000

As stated that says that any additional wideband codec should have a lower priority than the mandatory to implement G.711.

I'd also suggest that that amendment if included in no way overrides an explicit statement by the user of their preferences.

Regard

Keith


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Tim Panton
> Sent: 18 January 2013 16:44
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
> Audio Codecs
> 
> 
> On 18 Jan 2013, at 11:31, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > On 17 January 2013 18:00 Andrew Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> I would propose:	:
> >>
> >> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it
> >> is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to
> >> maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for
> >> audio transcoding"
> >>
> >> This is enough to make implementers think about the transcoding issue.
> >>
> >
> > I think this is a very sensible proposal as we need to say something
> that indicates that just implementing the mandatory codec's is not the
> best solution and it seems that mentioning particular codec's is going to
> be take us down another rat hole.
> 
> Just for clarity, lets make that
> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it
> is beneficial that they are also included in the offer but at a lower
> priority than the MTI codecs
> in order to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the
> need for
> audio transcoding"
> 
> Tim.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email