Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Wed, 29 August 2012 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 71E3411E80EA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 13oBINoxxvQX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AA80511E809C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12806 invoked by uid 0); 29 Aug 2012 22:16:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2012 22:16:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=bAH+/M1QeDRAMPGPtVDpFR8K3ntM/+T3X5w8qmUZ6PA=; b=gmzxn7++/MXRcyvrOdlxXevMI7FVv0V7xjYcIbIBAkOQJ0llt8EpWIJ8VQhGvq//HPAXKxkFRKEfWKwqrzrtOD5DZFmFmVL/cTy6m+lGRTD2wK08sUQBRXldBAywF7Ml;
Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=63674 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1T6qYp-0002hQ-5R; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:16:31 -0600
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>
To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com> <503DED41.7080906@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <503DED41.7080906@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:16:27 -0400
Message-ID: <014401cd8633$efd76fe0$cf864fa0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac2F0DTZOl5flESQQ8mmAu5kY/5sNwAY2X4Q
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us}
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:16:36 -0000

Fine works for me but please 722 WB for SHOULD. Of course none of this will
be of any significance if you can't agree on a reasonable offer/answer model
that interoperates with public SIP networks ( previously called the PSTN ) 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:22 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Since the number of people stating their opinion has been large, I'll just
reiterate the opinion I had (and hummed for) in Vancouver:

Opus and G.711 should be mandatory to implement for RTCWEB.

Since the question of whether there's any value to making the decision now
has been raised:

The first interoperable products implementing RTCWEB are shipping within a
very short timeframe. Those first implementations will shape the market for
what's actually used in practice.
In order to allow applications requiring high quality sound to be among the
first ones developed, those first products need to include a common choice
of a high quality codec.

Having the RTCWEB WG state as a decision that this codec should be Opus
helps in making sure these products ship with Opus.

The time to decide is now.

                   Harald

[Note - the same logic applies to video codecs, but I've accepted that it's
impossible to make a consensus decision at this time on that issue. 
We'll just live with the consequences of that.]

On 08/16/2012 07:15 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> 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