Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> “that there will be a range imposed by browsers”
>
> Why are we assuming this? There should be some justification for this
> statement (and this is what I fail to see/understand but am really open to
> good explanation for the need for this). The model I presented has a
> “default value” for browsers not an “enforced range”. Those two are
> different things.
>
>
>
We are assuming it because some of the browser vendors participating have
said so. Other data would be, of course, welcome.

Ted



Thanks,
>
> Tolga
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Hardie [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:58 PM
> *To:* Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>; Stefan Håkansson LK <
> [e-mail]>; Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt>
> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard
>
>
>
> Hi Tolga,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ii- As another general principle, introducing a restriction without a good
> reason is a bad idea IMHO. So far, I yet have to see a good argument in
> favor of an enforced range (other than that we should assume that
> intelligence level of app. developer’s is equal to a chimpanzee)
>
>
>
> This is not a fair characterization of the point that has been made, and
> I'd appreciate your being careful with your wording.  The point that has
> been made is that there will be a range imposed by browsers and that
> standardizing that range avoids the complexity of discovery and/or random
> failure modes.  If you are arguing that there will be no enforced range at
> all, then the browser makers' assertion to the contrary seems to be
> problematic for accepting your argument.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>