Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk> Fri, 24 August 2012 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <neils@vipadia.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 9E62F21F8493 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 XG0r+gQRywIL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EAA21F847D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbky2 with SMTP id y2so162861lbk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=RZkBDOfDbagn+y0TM4oOjTyVqWH6O6JL1SGJ3HMPXBo=; b=M/5APHfoo7N7JcCsxW3BAd3Sz4UZkSCFMkji1rTkIt2UH5+lmyHk2USDlIa38rPCCt 3GEdalYrQez2Y95A4NmrZD+3gpIEvjHxKeF7ianPLBghg5fk5ahD2MxjjpFs8vFXfGnT fNrf2HpKFkgTaPo+OotedT86M+rBpuHFH8U0Lpd2CVqoIoaL1cMnFmhwsBl1of8Heh74 WYhGPwQPrZ8kiiwAX15WDzWjeTz6yqVDnG55gD6iVtaVV+VLAwyv2PlhPnxUakdp7Fjq NCSAUWwtrIW2Z1SKfp2jQr7nfhTLCmpQ1g3XrwLlef8XHWn59abWwlONI/GulsUQFsU1 xo0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.112.136 with SMTP id iq8mr4586896lab.18.1345791170358; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: neils@vipadia.com
Received: by 10.114.0.79 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DA165A8A2929C6429CAB403A76B573A514696F7E@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com> <20330_1345535870_50333F7E_20330_3420_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A029156@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5033A2FF.4000603@jesup.org> <DA165A8A2929C6429CAB403A76B573A514696F7E@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:52:50 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 64CfutaXPPsRqzvdIZvZnnXJS6w
Message-ID: <CABRok6kL5w5y_Lg+AUokqrFb8Nv17JyyCkmoZPP7Pc7yGZmoHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
To: Lishitao <lishitao@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQSVwNeW8nhFbjR/k6md/drxRyHZx1UOnr844yWrr55Y+qn/AGjswfcWEU42yiAXix3Sg3
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on 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: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:52:54 -0000

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Lishitao <lishitao@huawei.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Randell Jesup
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:02 PM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
>>
>> > With respect to OPUS, it has currently no footprint on the market, its
>> implementation complexity and resulting costs are unknown, including with
>> respect to IPRs issues, and some performance aspects are still to be more
>> deeply assessed, like for instance quality with packet losses and jitter which is a
>> key issue for usage over internet.
>>
>> Opus was designed within the IETF specifically to handle usage over the
>> Internet better than existing codecs.
>>
>
> My understanding for choosing the MTI codec is to find the baseline so that the negotiation can be successful,
> We are not here to find the best one.
>
> If we consider the situation that G.711 has been widely used on the market, mandating G.711 only as the baseline(MTI) is more appropriate
>
> shitao.

This should not be a question purely of interop with legacy devices,
but primarily one about what is the minimum level of interop that is
acceptable for WebRTC to WebRTC negotiated calls.

If G711 is the only MTI codec then we can easily end up in a situation
where that is all we have available for cross browser WebRTC to WebRTC
calls, which would greatly undermine the effort to replace browser
plugins.

Neil