IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 17 January 2013 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 43CA621F8634 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:07:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-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 tKiOW8HXAlyn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9536721F8587 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r0HJ7Esj090744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:07:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <50F84BE1.1010404@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:07:13 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steve Sokol <ssokol@digium.com>
References: <da75049e-76db-45da-974b-3e7ad66130f1@zimbra>
In-Reply-To: <da75049e-76db-45da-974b-3e7ad66130f1@zimbra>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: 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: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:07:21 -0000

On 1/17/13 12:00, Steve Sokol wrote:
>
> While it is not an optimal "internet codec", it costs nothing to to 
> include G.722, so perhaps we can all agree that it should be included 
> unless there is some reason not to do so.
>

By which you mean it adds nothing to the licensing cost. Integration, 
testing, and perpetual maintenance are not free.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email