IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 17 January 2013 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 6B46621F876E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 aARw6fre0hsg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4920421F875C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fn20so2066811lab.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=o6m3LVeM85PaH+BwA+2zC65BkZyWY4H8vF8civQlC84=; b=1DY08SZKbwTwYzgwLu5wawE+VMsvsGlIHF13Mo1PETLBNry46AQnTsmjlORdOyN9sg wKQDih/74nqSefyV/xXw4NCJurPlmf5EWJKA6uFZ639P8IY5slWR6Ti8RlCwWaeCfGhL bbZPF1kHG0Z++rpRM5czSl6sp6zVa6ybn+/atH8XbrDr7BxjlQVQCjfPQNxlcKixhjfC PpN7jwifZGhhAwJF6VQqAjyKcTpz7ocL/6VUVBKVgy5GeOQTbslVfirzXACteH+esQhh vEO13cXsl2WQOpkUz+jAA6PqvbBlM65brN7fqzfmfcMnyPsF1l9YLXokKs6EfRWbSXsX 8rWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.98.232 with SMTP id el8mr1346010lbb.121.1358381019012; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.57.20 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50F5A74C.3030203@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> <CAD5OKxs7Ueto0k-5TWnQtgb+Pocp-SSu3ctr3qFs5qrcPgMtkQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F4619F.7040208@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxu3_JJ3zS8hCeG-nHM72t=0j--ihUR8E5NvL9--wmmnEA@mail.gmail.com> <7CBFD4609D19C043A4AC4FD8381C6E2602386636@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <50F5A74C.3030203@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:03:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXRcFHj4gi6WEDDqU+S-adnjd91wQW4bL2S6pO8YtzE3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:03:44 -0000

On 15 January 2013 11:00, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> what's getting lost here is whether people think these codecs should be
> "recommended" (English word, consult your dictionary) or "RECOMMENDED"
> (unfortunate IETF-specific term of art, consult RFC 2119).

Since Adam is having so much luck, I'd like to get a clearer answer to
this questions from the proponents of the 2119 SHOULD:

If we don't say "webrtc implementations SHOULD implement
G.722/AMR/AMR-WB", what is the failure mode for your application?
Keeping in mind that - because this isn't 2119 MUST - you have to
expect that some non-negligible proportion of clients will not support
this no matter how much extra ink we using in printing large letters,
how much pain does this really cause you?

I expect that the transcoding costs are what this come down to.  Does
anyone care to quantify this?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email