IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com> Mon, 03 September 2012 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@qualcomm.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 F091D21F8697 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Vkzl3RwmyjbF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466F021F847B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1346697081; x=1378233081; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:x-random-sig-tag: x-originating-ip; bh=suwgX0haXatEj//mrdd2kTB0nuwZWARgN3Uuf8PoNnE=; b=Oz6r06RkUltex4P0UdggTTHJ5+wp0OXBi9WekaNZSI4YmJTqNiXjb1Ao qZLUJ/cG68LJEi9U6sArcMdiqgsxXVSEKt4LMawJRUUeshrEFVlqOlwE4 CJHsCSyC7xna+WrdPh/mckybGzJmA8hyxFOKkZWebEiqS0p3rATzfl8RH w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6824"; a="232424150"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2012 11:31:20 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,361,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="294188062"
Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 03 Sep 2012 11:31:20 -0700
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240601cc6aa58a7171@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <00a701cd89fc$e681e9d0$b385bd70$@us>
References: <p06240603cc63f3f41ca9@[99.111.97.136]> <503F46C5.2090607@alvestrand.no> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE240CBCCD8@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel- lucent.com> <503F61CC.1010709@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D278D@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <503FC1BF.5020004@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D2B0F@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <5040541C.5020008@alvestrand.no> <20120831133845.GW72831@verdi> <5040CE32.5050003@jesup.org> <20120831151247.GY72831@verdi> <p06240608cc66e4862829@[99.111.97.136]> <00a701cd89fc$e681e9d0$b385bd70$@us>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:23:36 -0700
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>, 'John Leslie' <john@jlc.net>, 'Randell Jesup' <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet 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: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:31:22 -0000

At 1:52 PM -0400 9/3/12, Richard Shockey wrote:

>  So why, pray tell, did the IETF go through the grief of developing OPUS if
>  its most useful application will not mandate its implementation.

So OPUS won't be used unless it's mandated?

If OPUS has the benefits ascribed to it here, then developers will 
flock to it and it doesn't need to be mandated.  (If it doesn't have 
the benefits, then it shouldn't be mandated.)

>  SHOULD for 722 AMR-WB is very helpful in integration with Enterprise and
>  Mobile networks.
>
>  Its August .. clearly the silly season for technical discussions.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>  Randall Gellens
>  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:09 PM
>  To: John Leslie; Randell Jesup
>  Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>  Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
>
>  At 11:12 AM -0400 8/31/12, John Leslie wrote:
>
>>   Our issue here is Mandatory-to-Implement. It is very important to 
>>  have at least one MTI audio codec. I could live with that being G.711, 
>>  because I trust the market to _actually_ implement others.
>
>  Exactly.  The discussion has been going in my view off-track into debates
>  about which codec is best for which environments.  The real issue is
>  mandatory versus recommended.
>
>  We can pick G.711 as MTI and rely on implementers to support others.
>
>  --
>  Randall Gellens
>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- One never sits in
>  hotel lobby chairs, my dear.  One never knows whom has been sitting in them
>  before one.
>      --unknown
>  _______________________________________________
>  rtcweb mailing list
>  rtcweb@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus.           --Firesign Theatre

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email