IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 7BCAA21F8506 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:46:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 SsdPYb0C1eLr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1E021F8503 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:46:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=895; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1359046014; x=1360255614; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=dAAo+sR4o0qOUS4KYIctmvcU21cO6rbgyLQkV1AwkKQ=; b=BbFuGwIPOY0OIu/eGPuUWFc4mXSpDMYehyU5zc992/EP+L4Ca9nUTmY1 5VoNEa1vZrjn7DQIylPrtYx4QIgJskWd93TAWyL6bkZIAAYgAfKObWnTV moiDP6vpn5y6ijRZZFLIsXzhWT5D6edyWyDq+JL/WzVbqvHmUL4djKQKy E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAKhkAVGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABEvkgWc4IfAQEEHVwQAgEIIiQyJQIEDg2IEr4ckBphA4gsniiCeIIk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,530,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="164532657"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2013 16:46:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0OGkleM025798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.197]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:46:46 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call
Thread-Index: AQHN+lJlS8xNYunZw0yrsQtXbpVqGg==
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:45 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113397466@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <50FD4C4B.9020700@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMD7hYacr-P+iBdPiPYu4PWbMmu7tXYnYsNHRA18jogb=w@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11338EB86@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <50FEB1EC.9060803@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMDCn1M084-qcMWh38oao+A64ToQBZTo1wauyBbhD4mhjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDCn1M084-qcMWh38oao+A64ToQBZTo1wauyBbhD4mhjw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <1306B79B29E5A1428A35DC7E55E18B23@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call
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, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:54 -0000

We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs.

At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus". 

We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of potentially important codecs including a description why they should be considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations. 

In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".  That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific contexts, along with a short description of the context for each. Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the advantages and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.

The WG chairs
Magnus, Ted and Cullen

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status