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

As suggested by the chairs, here is a draft indicating the motivations, as
well as a proposed way-forward, regarding "additional relevant audio
codecs" :
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00

I would like to present it during the IETF-86.

Cheers,
Xavier

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We chairs was considering inclusion in draft-ietf-webrtc-audio, but we
> didn't have any strong opinions on this. Based on that several WG
> participants thinks this should be an independent document, I thus
> decided that we will start out with an independent document. If the WG
> feels differently later we can always fold the text into the audio codec
> and processing requirements document.
>
> I would recommend that the individuals interested in contributing a
> codec writes an independent submission with focus on the codec
> considerations around the codec(s) they are interested in. Then we can
> merge this into a common WG document.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>
> On 2013-01-27 10:14, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Hi WG chairs,
> >
> > Clarification question:
> >
> >> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
> >> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
> >
> > Inclusion where?
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
> >> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
> >> call
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>