Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Agreed (as long as by G.711 we mean both PCMA and PCMU).

On 8/17/12 5:22 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> I agree that Opus and G.711 should be the MTI audio codecs for
> WebRTC.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Bernard Aboba 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
> I also support the selection of OPUS and G.711 as MTI. G.722 can
> be a SHOULD; it is widely supported.
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:24 PM, "Richard Shockey" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>> Reading this list is occasionally an act of torture banned by
>> several conventions ..but since you ask.
>> 
>> I completely support the selection of Opus and G.711 as mandatory
>> to implement audio codec's ..however I'm very very open minded
>> about
> supporting
>> G.722. It has it merits.  It should be totally obvious to most
> that if you
>> even think about interconnecting to public E.164 networks the
> default option
>> for VoLTE and Enterprise Voice networks is going to be G.722.
>> 
>> If it is your goal to create globally useful stove pipes fine,
>> but interconnection with existing carrier real time networks is
>> IMHO a
> rational
>> goal.
>> 
>> As for Video .. for goodness sakes just get over it people.
>> H.264
> is totally
>> implemented everywhere on the planet Earth. So what about the
> intellectual
>> property problems. It's not like VP8 doesn't have problems
>> either.
>> 
>> I'll save my comments about the SDP offer/answer issue for
>> another
> day.
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
> On Behalf Of
>> Cullen Jennings (fluffy) Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 PM 
>> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: [rtcweb]
>> Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
>> 
>> 
>> At the last meeting we took a hum on selecting Opus and G.711 as
>> the mediatory to implement audio codecs. If there is any new
>> opinions
> please
>> send them to the list by August 30th, after which the chairs
>> will
> make a
>> determination of consensus.
>> 
>> Thanks, Cullen
>> 
>> Please note that the following IPR disclosure have been made on
>> these codecs. They can be found at
>> 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
>> 
>> 
>> 2010-11-07 . ID # 1445 "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about
>> IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and
>> draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (1)" 2010-11-07 . ID # 1446 
>> "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00" 2010-11-12 . ID # 1447 "Broadcom
>> Corporation's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00
>> (2)" 2011-03-23 . ID # 1520 "Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement
>> about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05" 2011-03-27 . ID #
>> 1524 "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05" 2011-03-29 . ID # 1526 "Broadcom
>> Corporation's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05" 2011-03-29 . ID # 1525 "Skype Limited's
>> Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
>> 2011-07-23 . ID # 1602 "Skype Limited's Statement about IPR
>> related to
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-07"
>> 2012-01-25 . ID # 1670 "Microsoft Corporation's Statement about
>> IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-10" 2012-03-12 . ID # 1712 
>> "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (1)" 2012-04-02 . ID # 1741 "Huawei
>> Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (2)"
>> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAu1zwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxYzgCg5KnKpp5fIgoA54YB7XLev2Rk
xO0An0+JXgD7RgnRTQVvyg+Z3WqC6MMQ
=DFvE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----