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

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 01 August 2012 11:26 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 8653021F863F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 04:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 bkmELIDibxeO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 04:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5843521F8608 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 04:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.34] (bau56-1-78-229-103-109.fbx.proxad.net [78.229.103.109]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1027C37A905; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:35:08 +0100 (BST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <CAD5OKxuy5UB1WjM7CtKy6oczbP8ELKjA7ohmfxUZx=artoND7g@mail.gmail.com> <5016D714.4030908@digium.com>
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <5016D714.4030908@digium.com>
Message-Id: <31030B23-2924-402E-AD6A-2E0467C22882@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:33:21 +0200
To: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A5355d)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:26:11 -0000

I (personally) am against making g711 or g722 MTI audio codecs. There are network environments where they will behave significantly worse than opus (in silk mode). Neither codec will adapt to variable available bandwidth or cope well with packet loss -as seen on the edge of wifi networks and on 3G networks . 

We should not be encouraging the use of legacy codecs by making them MTI. 

When I mentioned H261 as a compromise MTI video codec, I was told that better codecs existed and that we should adopt them. Same goes for audio. 

Tim.  

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:48, "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> wrote:

> On 07/30/2012 12:21 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I would certainly support making G.722 mandatory to implement.
> 
> -- 
> Kevin P. Fleming
> Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
> Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
> Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb