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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 26 December 2012 23:52 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 3535A21F8CD8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:52:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 T+gxKIC-Yzx4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B9621F8C6C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU405-EAS49 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:52:10 -0800
X-EIP: [jlqLBBQr9C4M/PWt+1SSsHDSK84rfZEb]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU405-EAS49AFEC0DE7586D2E6BEF3093390@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f2694c02-b8bc-40ca-bdfa-babc27dcb291_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:52:01 -0800
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Dec 2012 23:52:10.0215 (UTC) FILETIME=[0517BF70:01CDE3C4]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended 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, 26 Dec 2012 23:52:15 -0000

I quite liked "thawing" actually - since the audio codecs in question are frozen from a distant era :)
________________________________
From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>
Sent: ‎12/‎26/‎2012 1:14 PM
To: Eric Burger<mailto:eburger-l@standardstrack.com>; rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs


On Dec 26, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 25, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We then either have a nice big section in this present document describing the current state of the art of various networks with various codecs *OR* we have an Informational Implementor's Guide that describes the current state of the art of various networks, as well as the pitfalls of popular but hard codecs, like G.722.
>
> Would someone be willing to summarize a list of codecs that at some people have argued strongly in favor of along with the main advantage of thawing that codec. I'm thinking of a list that looks something like
>
> AMR-WB   Gets you interop with existing 3GPP
>
> Having a list like this would be a handy quick references to discussion.
>
>

Change  "thawing"  to "having" in above

(Curse you autocorrect)




_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb