IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 17 January 2013 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 62DF311E80E7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:27:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 UZb6fgiRvNK4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9435511E80E5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r0H0RFwH017504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:27:15 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:27:15 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:27:13 +0100
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consensus vs. Voting (was Re: Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs)
Thread-Index: Ac30RiHDIN4HPxgmQ0WVkri8v0U+rwAApB3g
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE20D7468A700@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.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> <CABkgnnXRcFHj4gi6WEDDqU+S-adnjd91wQW4bL2S6pO8YtzE3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXRcFHj4gi6WEDDqU+S-adnjd91wQW4bL2S6pO8YtzE3w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84
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 00:27:18 -0000

I do not think transcoding is the only issue.

If you refer back to the earlier mail from Stephane, there was also the point, which I agree with, that if you have a licensed version of any codec on your device, ideally you want your browser to support that codec. You don't want to be told that you cannot talk to another user who only has codec B, when you have already paid the license fee to use codec B, just because your browser vendor decides it is not its favourite codec.

There are an awful lot of licensed AMR codecs out there that people still want to use.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Martin Thomson
> Sent: 17 January 2013 00:04
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus vs. Voting (was Re: Call for Consensus
> Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs)
> 
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email