IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com> Thu, 27 December 2012 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger-l@standardstrack.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 47F8621F8BEA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:31:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 s0FGXA9yYtRC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.215.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB47A21F890D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-74-76-86-197.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.76.86.197]:53534 helo=[192.168.0.191]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <eburger-l@standardstrack.com>) id 1ToEUq-00062Y-RT for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:31:44 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Eric Burger <eburger-l@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU405-EAS49AFEC0DE7586D2E6BEF3093390@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:31:46 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <095DB9F1-E82E-471E-95F9-1472FFAC68E2@standardstrack.com>
References: <BLU405-EAS49AFEC0DE7586D2E6BEF3093390@phx.gbl>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:31:48 -0000

Bernard said this as a joke, but as many think there is some truth behind every joke, this *is* the issue. By the time we finish the work group, ideally in 2015 (Cullen - thanks for the CDN 100!), *all* of the codecs that someone thinks is really important to have implemented OR ELSE will be passé, obsolete, or their patents expired.

That is why I do not see the value of publishing a long list of SHOULD codecs to implement. It would be much more useful to implementers to explain which codecs go to what and why.

Now, if we can agree on some good codecs that MUST be implemented, I can get behind that.

Happy Holidays,
Eric

On Dec 26, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I quite liked "thawing" actually - since the audio codecs in question are frozen from a distant era :)
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> Sent: ‎12/‎26/‎2012 1:14 PM
> To: Eric Burger; 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email