Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

+1 on this.

Lorenzo

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> ha scritto:

>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" <richard@shockey.us> 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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 PM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> 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)"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb