IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Consensus vs. Voting (was Re: Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs)

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 14 January 2013 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 5A1CE21F89E5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 54AT-knga7Yx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D60721F8818 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr12so2147820wgb.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=MMsi21gn/Pui6BXLFSD5gWVk5whgYP4QmPMY6YnB7LY=; b=e8RUlxtAHavt+B4pBza7UpCeLEuGT9o3qdv8MrzqZXI+TY/g2r+gyhPSSEiESLE/xz u4PJv4tC0v1CHz7mv5ZCyLBnHWYxsKuPzVby7cDwOkdzm5eewyqgfHXz/2Rtfqs231bn fJhaCEh1nzES6lfqXQiWFzA8aifhC3YpWNvwuN++AU2+DiNCoRzoqeM/bNex8ShVX9dF LkKZ/FUqtp72STZJyfsLxg+TwHziqilNULTH1H2zPYsQkZG0JMUyTzAhLdwMHy0+KRQF jgSlOPen6atkE2r8A9uZwyniNU6kAltz73BG+NP5fJaUlJTEahyjryt/wsMEkGSPN7Vb kZAA==
X-Received: by 10.180.101.104 with SMTP id ff8mr14254125wib.11.1358189508446; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s16sm158145wii.0.2013.01.14.10.51.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn17so1524636wib.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.82.41 with SMTP id f9mr14163487wiy.25.1358189505778; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.16.134 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:51:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50F44AF0.4060304@nostrum.com>
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com> <6515_1357907583_50F0067F_6515_1738_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A0747CC@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BLU0-SMTP880A602A311CE05C9DC39FD0290@phx.gbl> <A26C56D5-C501-4823-8099-62AF7910B8A4@ntt-at.com> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D16813E56EC@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <50F41D97.1030508@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxtsWMfAV=K4sM+zLXoyVCgihwujH2gG9ziA5GuEtsU0sQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F43ACA.80206@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxug2qB+Xi_cp87Lt7BiPwJ1Eq1rNuioj+zDZFf=RRckPw@mail.gmail.com> <50F44AF0.4060304@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:51:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxs7Ueto0k-5TWnQtgb+Pocp-SSu3ctr3qFs5qrcPgMtkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d041826e607929e04d344232a"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlHPYj5AR/X4mJEx/rtgWyTb0Ixh3WwFR9sz6sqpSTV5x+fAJ1ue91GznlUUaU/ByMk1u9o
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus vs. Voting (was Re: 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, 14 Jan 2013 18:52:03 -0000

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> You vastly overstate your case when you claim that G.722 support in WebRTC
> clients is *required* to interwork with some legacy clients. The facts on
> the ground are that such support simply makes it easier. It really is a
> "gee, wouldn't it be nice" feature.
>

The question is the question of cost of transcoding. It is not
insignificant or not a simple "gee, wouldn't it be nice". As I've mentioned
earlier it is possible to build a media gateway that will handle encryption
and ICE with the density of a few thousand calls per server CPU. It would
not be possible if G.722 to OPUS transcoding is required. So, the argument
to support G.722 is that it removes the need for transcoding (and
subsequently need for jitter buffering, which introduces delays and
requires even more resources on the media gateway). What is the argument
against it?

_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email