IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Sat, 22 December 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 2C66421F8A1E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:09:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.773, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 gsA-O+t08eX7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9EF21F8976 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.159] (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qBMH9kqd060788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:09:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623356EF@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50D3E3BF.7070609@mozilla.com> <50D48DD8.3050702@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxvXaK-hVRDdJ-Ua6i6Q2AkXRRjTdvXwXth+A+_ih9Nafw@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0139B118@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0139B118@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-D86817BE-39D3-466C-8CD7-73002C150CFC"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B6F64BDD-F726-4F9A-B350-96889614D463@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403)
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:12:19 -0600
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:09:49 -0000

Recommendations or *normative* recommendations? 

I think the former is a very good idea. The latter,  not so much. 

/a

On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:17, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:

> I agree with Roman’s comments below.
>  
> So +1 for providing some recommendations on additional audio codec’s for RTCWEB.
>  
> Andy
>  
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
> Sent: 21 December 2012 21:43
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
>  
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> What I think would be beneficial would be a section documenting codecs in widespread use today, where they're used, and what is gained by including them in WebRTC implementations (mostly transcoder-free interop with those other implementations). Documenting that AMR is used in 3GPP VoIP networks would allow implementors to make an educated decision about the benefit of including that codec. A similar mention that many modern VoIP phones support G.722 and/or AAC-LD would provide similar guidance.
>  
> In reality very few phones support AAC-LD. 
>  
> For me the major concern is support for G.722. There is no reason not to support it. None. It is free, it is efficient, and it sounds better then G.711 any day of the week. It was not made an MTI for political reasons to promote OPUS. I think it deserves a SHOULD in the standard.
>  
> As far  as AMR and AMR-WB are concerned, they should be implemented if your platform provides it. I, personally, would never pay a license fee for these codecs, but if implementing a browser on a cell phone where these codecs are present, I would make an extra effort to support them. So, these codecs probably do not deserve a SHOULD, but some guidance to implementers is probably required.
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email