Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

A different document would be good. No need to to have an argument over non-normative text hold up publication.

On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:14 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:

> Hi WG chairs,
> 
> Clarification question: 
> 
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
> 
> Inclusion where? 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
>> call
>> 
>> 
>> We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting
>> Recommended Audio Codecs.
>> 
>> At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus".
>> 
>> We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of
>> potentially important codecs including a description why they should be
>> considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations.
>> 
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
>> That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific
>> contexts, along with a short description of the context for each.
>> Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the advantages
>> and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden
>> understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
>> 
>> The WG chairs
>> Magnus, Ted and Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb