Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

First, for the chairs: Please, please close this Call for Consensus, to 
avoid further email avalanches on this topic. I'd expect the chairs to 
potentially follow up with a more narrow call (e.g. centering on wording 
as below), but that's their decision of course.

On 2013/01/19 1:43, Tim Panton wrote:
>
> On 18 Jan 2013, at 11:31, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 17 January 2013 18:00 Andrew Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> I would propose:	:
>>>
>>> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it
>>> is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to
>>> maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for
>>> audio transcoding"
>>>
>>> This is enough to make implementers think about the transcoding issue.
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a very sensible proposal as we need to say something that indicates that just implementing the mandatory codec's is not the best solution and it seems that mentioning particular codec's is going to be take us down another rat hole.
>
> Just for clarity, lets make that
> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it
> is beneficial that they are also included in the offer but at a lower priority than the MTI codecs
> in order to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for
> audio transcoding"

I was thinking about the priority issue a few days ago, and came to the 
conclusion that this may be too specific. Assume that I have a mobile 
phone with MTI codec in software and another codec in hardware, and the 
later is significantly more power efficient. Assume I'm talking with 
another user on a similar phone. Then given these assumptions, I guess 
we both would prefer to use our hardware codecs, but that doesn't happen 
if the MTI codecs have priority.

So I'd leave out the priority issue, and just keep the rest of the text.


Regards,   Martin.