IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 31 December 2012 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 D194921F8799 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:33:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 gosYpC8o9sdO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F28821F8694 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBVBWfFA013210; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:33:25 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.49]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:33:24 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.146]) by 008-AM1MMR2-015.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.49]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:33:23 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: adam@nostrum.com, ssokol@digium.com
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
Thread-Index: AQHN5F75KGER8UnZokqrcUx5QDpaGJgyy3Bw
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:33:23 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623433A4@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <7daabbec-07cc-421e-b6d4-5292b9c063b5@zimbra> <50DC9187.6010300@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <50DC9187.6010300@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.21.81.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2012 11:33:24.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[A505CF70:01CDE74A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:33:32 -0000

Hi,

Yes, I agree Adam's proposal would be the best approach. A codec alone will not solve the interop issues with IMS or other external VoIP systems, but as Adam says, transcode-free operation at the (media) gateway would be an important consideration. 

Markus

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of ext Adam Roach
>Sent: 27 December, 2012 20:21
>To: Steve Sokol
>Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
>Audio Codecs
>
>On 12/27/12 11:05, Steve Sokol wrote:
>> I don't see unmediated legacy interoperability as likely to happen
>
>Ugh. I hate repeating this, but there is a radical difference between dealing
>with computationally cheap things like bundling, ICE, SCTP and even (from a
>relative perspective) encryption and dealing with re-encoding media.
>
>Transcoding perceptibly increases end-to-end latency. Transcoding
>perceptibly degrades the final audio stream. All other gatewaying functions
>can be done cheaply enough that the user cannot tell a difference.
>
>Which is why I think there is *utility* to listing commonly used codecs and
>explaining where/how they are used. I really do want to see this as part of a
>guidance section for implementors.
>
>However, I don't think any of those reasons rise to the level of an RFC
>2119 "SHOULD" level statement.
>
>/a
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email