Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 3682121F84F3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3y73hCrAIwd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s29.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s29.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7A621F84F2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU401-EAS85 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s29.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:41:51 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [166.147.94.9]
X-EIP: [3uE+xBWFhcvMf1j20n6iJ0kFfHwGFjq5]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU401-EAS85810F1B7E00B95230D7F293B40@phx.gbl>
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com> <000801cd7c06$2de34710$89a9d530$@us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <000801cd7c06$2de34710$89a9d530$@us>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:41:50 -0700
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2012 00:41:51.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[17952130:01CD7C11]
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:41:58 -0000

I also support the selection of OPUS and G.711 as MTI. G.722 can be a SHOULD; it is widely supported.



On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:24 PM, "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> wrote:

> Reading this list is occasionally an act of torture banned by several
> conventions ..but since you ask.
> 
> I completely support the selection of Opus and G.711 as mandatory to
> implement audio codec's ..however I'm very very open minded about supporting
> G.722. It has it merits.  It should be totally obvious to most that if you
> even think about interconnecting to public E.164 networks the default option
> for VoLTE and Enterprise Voice networks is going to be G.722. 
> 
> If it is your goal to create globally useful stove pipes fine,  but
> interconnection with existing carrier real time networks is IMHO a rational
> goal. 
> 
> As for Video .. for goodness sakes just get over it people. H.264 is totally
> implemented everywhere on the planet Earth. So what about the intellectual
> property problems. It's not like VP8 doesn't have problems either. 
> 
> I'll save my comments about the SDP offer/answer issue for another day. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
> 
> 
> At the last meeting we took a hum on selecting Opus and G.711 as the
> mediatory to implement audio codecs. If there is any new opinions please
> send them to the list by August 30th, after which the chairs will make a
> determination of consensus.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cullen
> 
> Please note that the following IPR disclosure have been made on these
> codecs. They can be found at 
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
> 
> 
> 2010-11-07    
> . ID # 1445
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (1)"
> 2010-11-07    
> . ID # 1446
> "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00"
> 2010-11-12    
> . ID # 1447
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (2)"
> 2011-03-23    
> . ID # 1520
> "Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-27    
> . ID # 1524
> "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-29    
> . ID # 1526
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-29    
> . ID # 1525
> "Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-07-23    
> . ID # 1602
> "Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-07"
> 2012-01-25    
> . ID # 1670
> "Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-10"
> 2012-03-12    
> . ID # 1712
> "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (1)"
> 2012-04-02    
> . ID # 1741
> "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (2)"
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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