IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Thu, 17 January 2013 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 AA0F211E80EA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
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 8082G-ZWcPXm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-bl2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93F511E80E5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2FFO11FD005.protection.gbl (10.1.15.203) by BY2FFO11HUB012.protection.gbl (10.1.14.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.596.13; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:25:21 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD005.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.596.13 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:25:21 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.144]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:24:23 +0000
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consensus vs. Voting (was Re: Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs)
Thread-Index: AQHN81KfpB57SfiuGUmjZvYBMt3d/5hMpY4AgAAFJBA=
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:24:22 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484161A0D14@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.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:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(79102001)(16406001)(51856001)(23726001)(59766001)(55846006)(74502001)(74662001)(44976002)(77982001)(47446002)(54356001)(76482001)(31966008)(53806001)(47776002)(4396001)(49866001)(47976001)(50466001)(50986001)(56776001)(47736001)(54316002)(56816002)(46102001)(33656001)(5343655001)(46406002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB012; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0729050452
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 00:25:31 -0000

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Thomson

> 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?

Actually, as there's only a small finite number of browser vendors, all of them with their own constraints about which codecs they can/will include, and several of them will ship before the spec is anywhere near final either here or in W3C, it wouldn't matter even if it *was* a 2119 MUST, would it?

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email