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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stéphane,

Fair points, however, I am strongly believe that what is most relevant
now is that the people interested in this actually generate some text.
Thus having people submit text in individual documents. Then based on
what we have and the WG's reaction to such text(s) we can decide if it
makes more sense to fold it into the existing audio WG document or
create a new WG document.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2013-01-28 17:02, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>> We chairs was considering inclusion in draft-ietf-webrtc-audio, but we didn't have any strong opinions on this
>> I thus decided that we will start out with an independent document
> 
> If the Chairs have still no strong opinion about this, I would request to leave this somewhat editorial issue still open.
> 
> It makes more sense that all the relevant information for audio and especially the relevant codecs with their different status be clearly listed in the same "webrtc audio" specification. Especially because we want to address the same interoperability issue.
> This will be more consistent and readable.
> 
> Then, if more informative text on additional codecs is needed, a separate document can be considered to avoid overloading this webrtc audio document with purely informative text.
> 
> Stéphane	
> 
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Magnus Westerlund
> Envoyé : lundi 28 janvier 2013 09:12
> À : Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc : Cullen Jennings (fluffy); [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call
> 
> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>> Behalf Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------