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

Tell me how that does not take us back to a position where you have already failed to obtain consensus.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: 27 January 2013 21:04
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Burger Eric; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
> call
> 
> I agree.
> 
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:08, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >> Of Burger Eric
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:39 PM
> >> To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> >> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
> >> call
> >>
> >> A different document would be good. No need to to have an argument over
> >> non-normative text hold up publication.
> >>
> >> On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:14 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
> <dromasca@avaya.com>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb