Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

Roman Shpount <> Wed, 29 August 2012 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6605C21F84DA for <>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.575
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6zVlrX5e7RC for <>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D60F21F84D8 for <>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so2990394qan.10 for <>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=chzS3v7qbFhmEx08BfDkr6hW3gQltiYSb0RSZtYOzho=; b=iy91uBONF2TMXwYnLLaaBjfCJlP+3incUdc6lNurDVagZPp345IXeABAMJQ9oJJySu lkZO5uwAGJgnXyDy9fweoOp4Wl4gQaoe1c7vwbbgBByRLT8CCfN9BtQGIEnNmrRtm6Ob 5FzY7yNi1aLOpQT6eg/bGd0hDwhZiWxHbh0LINxhABMGN3Ocht54XJfqGcSAASBc7wls LIR8aMG3FKwTMu+Mz31bCfoy63hcae8hj1TTvom/PQdKIx6eEJs7+T0ijNJ17ZsdxDJJ oblj1UZlIhsMJeP2jmM9thrSJ8C1Ukf0jvCHcVa2+VzK8emf8pKCSBVcy0SeZnintdg6 z1/w==
Received: by with SMTP id gn9mr1143949qab.42.1346213636571; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id l3sm17234450qan.19.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo14 with SMTP id fo14so158280vcb.31 for <>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id ib8mr199628vcb.25.1346213635288; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:13:55 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: Alan Johnston <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cfc88a85f07604c85fc9f8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4yJ3cdYC2mMnd7ztzorVZaUNQtbmBcwHlJCJ7PHn911T9qFcXfR52wqdo3lY7LoBRiiiC
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 04:13:58 -0000

Not that I have anything against Opus, but what exactly makes Opus an
internet codec? What is internet codec anyway? Makes this all kind of a
meaningless argument.

I would argue that for my broadband internet connection G.722 is a perfect
internet codec. I do not care about bandwidth savings of Opus, and quality
wise, for the voice conversation, I cannot hear any difference.

I would argue G.711 should be the MTI codec. The rest can be left up to
browser implementers. We can argue all we want, but the best royalty free
low bitrate codec available will be the one everybody supports. We can
force it to be Opus, but even if we don't, it will still be Opus on its
merit alone. G.722 will probably end up being supported as well, since it
is free, pretty good quality, and easy to implement.

P.S. Not that I am arguing for it, I am surprised no one made a case for
iSAC, since it is also royalty free, low bit rate, and very high quality.
It is event named "internet Speech Audio Codec".
Roman Shpount

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Alan Johnston

> The RTCWEB effort needs an Internet codec.  This is why Opus is the
> right choice.  RTCWEB also needs one codec for backwards compatibility
> with the VoIP world.  This is why G.711 is also the right choice.
> Any G.mumble codec is NOT an Internet codec and will not have the same
> performance on the Internet as one that was designed for the Internet!
>  If anyone doesn't understand what that means, go back and examine the
> CODEC Working Group archives to get educated.
> If someone wants another codec instead of Opus, then they need to
> propose another Internet codec.  Otherwise, we are not serving the
> Internet.
> - Alan -
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list