Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:57 AM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In addition, we believe that two additional requirements are necessary to make WebRTC a future proof technology and suitable for a wide range of applications and environments:
> Firstly, the optional support of other widely deployed legacy codecs must be allowed which includes at least the codecs implemented in millions of mobile terminals: AMR and AMR-WB.
> Secondly, the technology must be open enough to facilitate the usage of any other codecs supported by the device but external to the browser.
>
>
 Stephane,

On you first point, the fundamental design of RTCWEB allows for the
negotiation of any codec mutually supported.  The decision to chose a
Mandatory-to-implement was not made to eliminate other choices, but to
eliminate interoperability failures by ensuring that at least one
common codec is always available.

On your second point, the group presumes that codec support does not
come from the downloadable Javascript application, but from the
application environment into which it is downloaded (commonly a
browser or mobile environment using similar technology).  Promoting
support for those environments to have access to codecs supported by
the underlying hardware is the best way to further this goal, at least
in my personal opinion.

best regards,

Ted Hardie