IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 14 January 2013 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 5C23E21F8B4C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 S7K93I3AZwzB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E6C21F8B49 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hq4so1594060wib.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=HKRYycHPkapI1erRnAeuUVf3VXohNm/m29Ou/eu3YU8=; b=H7dO4oj2axyDFbPbO7FUixoH1eJpaioGjPeivkuQhnJ+DGqk8VPFTAIZZjil6S2Guh jSxTj8yQ7vKa1khFKE3m8k+8uAlxgsYDa+Hu5yBedXqhV8ktD9dEweDOQs8qMdImyjEN VyCvBbyL9sK0xHfwvXfnWU2NZdMcS8TGM/r4iK95hpQYPDVG7D3O9PW1Sqpo83cevFrH 0hdAXSzPGXjbCNBrx86950Cysji9HoIzao8PTEWUA8+5/SpxY0zFpllaIT4/zlNR46U+ 6XMlPyvdr15Ay9mYVsGp9j4SRhphAHXdfr9MyaLGaRqECqgGu39vX8v6ooPbhe8lxJYQ KT4A==
X-Received: by 10.194.240.233 with SMTP id wd9mr19270557wjc.54.1358194503569; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex6sm311883wid.3.2013.01.14.12.15.01 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn17so1598614wib.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.80.73 with SMTP id p9mr36805393wjx.4.1358194500916; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.16.134 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:15:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50F4619F.7040208@nostrum.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>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:15:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxu3_JJ3zS8hCeG-nHM72t=0j--ihUR8E5NvL9--wmmnEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb04daec3567f04d3454c47"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRxMnuwD1SKPPAsD3YwYqqLIZ1YG9CGjsDgP4JxMDZik0Lj1+gH2ykQxBdXDPeCMvf05SG
Cc: 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: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:15:05 -0000

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> I am not making an argument supporting G.722 per se, and I think its
> merits and/or drawbacks are red herrings in this conversation. The argument
> is against *normatively* specifying support of *any* additional codecs. I
> don't think it was a good idea to have 2 MTIs to start with. A single MTI
> gets us interop. Anything beyond that rises to the level of "MAY," and no
> higher.
>
> I would be making the exact same set of arguments if G.722 were MTI, and
> the ongoing discussion were on whether Opus "SHOULD be supported."
>

We already have two MTI OPUS and G.711. From my point of view OPUS gets us
all the future end points; G.711 gets us PSTN; and G.722 would get us
legacy HD Audio.

AMR-WB (as well as AMR and GSM) from my point of view deserve some mention
in the specification but do not warrant a SHOULD. AMR-WB would be nice to
have to connect to mobile networks but there are serious IPR related issues
preventing its support. Furthermore, even though AMR-WB is supported by a
significant number mobile phones, AMR-WB network interconnects are
virtually non-existent, so, from practical point of view, support for this
codecs is a lot less critical.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email