Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Randall Gellens <> Thu, 30 August 2012 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A6121E803A for <>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkX6jnVmaqOZ for <>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E605E11E8102 for <>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1346287493; x=1377823493; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:mime-version:content-type:x-random-sig-tag: x-originating-ip; bh=TeSoPcv6N/Loc1LJ0P7nEK93QTpL2frNUfplUZkVuUU=; b=EzRJDN0+zQX7yE7NNF2A87HZuFwn6Wkvruci0THbRPl077fLM0GPoTk/ 9aaZ1gk+uXK4b/ndb+Hf7wnWuisxD7jhtD/o6ib8kJpzwOxGRF+mDd61a TRW1eASZWPNKNh7V/uDHA5A3mkT6z7VWfKlKs/opH9xjwn0vB9FoUZ/jO A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6819"; a="228650557"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2012 17:44:53 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,336,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="378352152"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2012 17:44:53 -0700
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:44:51 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240607cc646592bdbd@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:43:39 -0700
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>,
From: Randall Gellens <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: []
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:44:53 -0000

At 12:40 PM -0400 8/29/12, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:

>  I know these are not issues that Randell brought up, but I think this
>  discussion is no longer productive, and the consensus is clear, both to
>  people that attended in Vancouver and those outside.  The issues that
>  have been raised are simply not serious and are merely stalling tactics
>  at this point holding-up the rtcweb process.  Need I be more explicit
>  than that, considering a former player has already proposed a competing
>  standard to rtcweb about the real factors in play here?

I find the assertion that those who disagree with you are merely 
attempting to delay things to be false, unfair, and insulting.  There 
have been several viewpoints expressed, all backed by solid technical 
grounds.  Some of these views support Opus plus G.711, some support 
G.711 only, some support G.711 plus G.722, some support no MTI audio 
codec at this time.  None of these would prevent rtcweb from 
advancing.  Any of these views would allow implementations to support 
Opus as well as G.722, AMR and AMR-WB.  The nice thing about using 
SDP to negotiate a codec is that it allows any codec to be used.  The 
fact that a codec is not MTI doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't be 
supported (far from it).

It's a normal part of the IETF process that different views are 
expressed, each with technical reasoning.  Different participants are 
free to assign different weights to each reason, and this is also 
expected.  What's not a normal part of the process is to accuse other 
participants of bad intent.  That poisons the dialog and creates 
mistrust, especially of you.

Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
A long-forgotten loved one will appear soon.  Buy the negatives
at any price.