[rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 181D811E8137 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ozpdVzC+tYCe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A99511E812F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so5486383ggn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=nfAJo/ggPcOWW0u/9mT45N53hXgwIYBDjPZrPYrsIoU=; b=OecG4Um9Vy+FYpZKLcfVoLBSzeE16006q3jWo0F+nxV0tHj3poiUON8EwvNI/JDl/j 3ZFwiQXiUOJWYf0r/LBptYPpO6GLGPNvVLTClMlBJQbeOUMm1dyzVUkKw8CKRvtThngo swUQO88C7l2z/Kz2isdUZ0SHPf33a5SSyR/LfybTUHh6c5dT0Ps6aCFprWwcogUSaJv0 mImQ6hatN7cgoPXevkYY3xJJTkdbGxnmtH1VeW9IOv+kBXzjqJ4qfF1rd1a9G0oVS8IR WkTKL8dLq5RIoEJs2pfaCLeEGvY1u7bGcmiYYOK+FVIf18xmSbWNzPkOaFnaWqf+MUln B6JQ==
Received: by 10.68.232.170 with SMTP id tp10mr37271650pbc.59.1343668920574; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oa5sm8285452pbb.14.2012.07.30.10.21.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so10107811pbc.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.226.38 with SMTP id rp6mr36667741pbc.90.1343668918934; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.28.72 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:21:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuy5UB1WjM7CtKy6oczbP8ELKjA7ohmfxUZx=artoND7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff253bc9bdd5704c60f4cf5
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxwUxL4e+CGyRuY5LmQq+BLBWiTojiUFs2DedpabyioykgoKFB4kc/EWvrERH4bg6VaZyJ
Subject: [rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?
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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:22:02 -0000

Should we consider adding G.722 as a mandatory to implement audio codec? It
is low complexity and carries no royalty or license restrictions, it is
very good quality for voice audio communications at the same bandwidths as
G.711, and it is very widely implemented by the desktop IP phones.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 29, 2012 8:13 PM, "Ralph Giles" <giles@thaumas.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 12-07-29 6:44 PM, Maire Reavy wrote:
> >
> > > Mandating encumbered codecswould force open-source projects to violate
> > > the spec (by not implementing a mandatory codec).  For this reason and
> > > the reasons Justin cites, we believe Opus, G.711 and VP8 are the best
> > > mandatory-to-implement choices for the spec.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >  -r
> >
>
> +1
>
> CB
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>