Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Tue, 04 September 2012 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@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 A1ADB21F865C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 02:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 b6gsQy2fd9m2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 02:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FDC21F865B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty12 with SMTP id y12so2575880bkt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 02:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eU6aGHer8kAd/V1Gnh5mCeu4TpUVrjZMYOXJiMMRZ0Y=; b=gBKcFOVI9fT8poZjySl+yRdyyRC5KKy67ufvuf1evXV5deyxOlUVrmO8oOTpIrAUbC q3Y73VrbdVnH6HgxQaRyXmqVxcf+85sAZpDFH1pl6kbo2Zh6ELEVvipq66FosJN9GMli LUjiifIEr4qqEZrXmRbYtlDEjeD40eSmeSZZWccTl4njjktNRU41bg+L/VwuDexgXchZ 5CpioMDFvr9DtG9bh6XWhnGc61zLiu7AD65tsNdURJTAUkSy7DmqjAd1I+owIPKCzIGr cU5rBByzXCc4a7qk2KCAoFszDOhDBrNyyQIITKkYr1kXQMGuwsS9YySTFWoBPU40b9g3 yeFQ==
Received: by 10.204.148.86 with SMTP id o22mr8057552bkv.59.1346751021702; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 02:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (252.pool80-103-134.dynamic.orange.es. [80.103.134.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n17sm9709145bks.6.2012.09.04.02.30.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Sep 2012 02:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5045CA2B.2070406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:30:19 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <p06240603cc63f3f41ca9@[99.111.97.136]> <503F46C5.2090607@alvestrand.no> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE240CBCCD8@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel- lucent.com> <503F61CC.1010709@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D278D@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <503FC1BF.5020004@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D2B0F@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <5040541C.5020008@alvestrand.no> <20120831133845.GW72831@verdi> <5040CE32.5050003@jesup.org> <20120831151247.GY72831@verdi> <p06240608cc66e4862829@[99.111.97.136]> <00a701cd89fc$e681e9d0$b385bd70$@us> <p06240601cc6aa58a7171@[99.111.97.136]> <504571BC.9020103@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <504571BC.9020103@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
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: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:30:23 -0000

Maybe an stupid question, but how it is planned to enforce the mandated 
codecs implementation? What prevents any of those "corporations" not 
implementing a mandated codec in their WebRTC products?

Best regards
Sergio

El 04/09/2012 5:13, Basil Mohamed Gohar escribió:
> History has shown time and again the companies with sufficient market 
> power will opt to implement their own proprietary and/or patented 
> formats, or formats which benefit them financially, over royalty free, 
> widely-available formats, even when their own formats are technically 
> inferiors.  Take, for example, Windows Media Audio, MP3, and AAC in 
> the audio realm (in contrast to Vorbis) and Windows Media Video and 
> also Quicktime formats (when, at the time, technically superior, more 
> standardized formats exists, such as the MPEG family, though that has 
> it's own problems).
>
> Mandating the implementation a royalty free format is about the only 
> way to get such corporations to implement it, even if it is 
> technically superior, as the above examples demonstrate.
>
> On 09/03/2012 02:23 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>> At 1:52 PM -0400 9/3/12, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>
>>>  So why, pray tell, did the IETF go through the grief of developing 
>>> OPUS if
>>>  its most useful application will not mandate its implementation.
>>
>> So OPUS won't be used unless it's mandated?
>>
>> If OPUS has the benefits ascribed to it here, then developers will 
>> flock to it and it doesn't need to be mandated.  (If it doesn't have 
>> the benefits, then it shouldn't be mandated.)
>>
>>>  SHOULD for 722 AMR-WB is very helpful in integration with 
>>> Enterprise and
>>>  Mobile networks.
>>>
>>>  Its August .. clearly the silly season for technical discussions.
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of
>>>  Randall Gellens
>>>  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:09 PM
>>>  To: John Leslie; Randell Jesup
>>>  Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>  Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
>>>
>>>  At 11:12 AM -0400 8/31/12, John Leslie wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Our issue here is Mandatory-to-Implement. It is very important to 
>>>>  have at least one MTI audio codec. I could live with that being 
>>>> G.711,  because I trust the market to _actually_ implement others.
>>>
>>>  Exactly.  The discussion has been going in my view off-track into 
>>> debates
>>>  about which codec is best for which environments.  The real issue is
>>>  mandatory versus recommended.
>>>
>>>  We can pick G.711 as MTI and rely on implementers to support others.
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Randall Gellens
>>>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself 
>>> only
>>>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- One never 
>>> sits in
>>>  hotel lobby chairs, my dear.  One never knows whom has been sitting 
>>> in them
>>>  before one.
>>>      --unknown
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  rtcweb mailing list
>>>  rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
>