IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 6A2161F0C74 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75MGtwWSlMbh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp004.apm-internet.net (smtp004.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A42821F8C9F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8264 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2013 19:35:15 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp004.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 13 Mar 2013 19:35:15 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC2A18A02C5; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:35:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.67.4.33] (unknown [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E08B018A029A; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:35:14 +0000 (GMT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <3769_1363194737_5140B371_3769_3650_1_6ccb4089-ab79-4913-a456-72b68a77f9a0@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:35:14 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D8D912E4-513B-453E-9801-CDC01CF7E6CB@phonefromhere.com>
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz> <20130313143808.DB3BD21F8E0C@ietfa.amsl.com> <D4421FE8-E18E-4248-9051-23C18899B40F@phonefromhere.com> <3769_1363194737_5140B371_3769_3650_1_6ccb4089-ab79-4913-a456-72b68a77f9a0@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: stephane.proust@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>, MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:35:17 -0000

On 13 Mar 2013, at 17:12, <stephane.proust@orange.com> <stephane.proust@orange.com> wrote:

>> I'd also like to point out that the "massive" transcoding cited already occurs between mobile devices that support various codecs (GSM, AMR etc) and the PSTN - (g711, g729) and the sky hasn't fallen yet.
> 
> But transcoding to G.711 has simply absolutely nothing to do in terms of impact on gateways costs and capacities !
> Transcoding to G.711 almost cost nothing.
> For your information: complexity of G.711 is around 0,01 WMPOS when AMR-WB is at 40 WMOPS and OPUS still higher... 
> So we speak about a factor of more than 1000 in terms  transcoding complexity and related impact on gateways !
> And even with respect to AMR, G.722 or AMR-WB, transcoding from/to OPUS will still be more costly
> 
> Stéphane


When the PSTN <-> mobile network gateways were first set up the cpus were 1000x slower. 
No one seriously considered imposing G711 on the mobile network, because it was unsuitable.

T.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email