Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

I've received a bunch of emails on this. So just to try and be clear, what the chairs sent out was there was "no consensus" on the questions we asked. The question of what, if any additional MTI audio codecs might get added is not resolved in any way. 

On Jan 28, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We chairs was considering inclusion in draft-ietf-webrtc-audio, but we
> didn't have any strong opinions on this. Based on that several WG
> participants thinks this should be an independent document, I thus
> decided that we will start out with an independent document. If the WG
> feels differently later we can always fold the text into the audio codec
> and processing requirements document.
> 
> I would recommend that the individuals interested in contributing a
> codec writes an independent submission with focus on the codec
> considerations around the codec(s) they are interested in. Then we can
> merge this into a common WG document.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> On 2013-01-27 10:14, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Hi WG chairs,
>> 
>> Clarification question: 
>> 
>>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
>> 
>> Inclusion where? 
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
>>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
>>> call
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting
>>> Recommended Audio Codecs.
>>> 
>>> At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus".
>>> 
>>> We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of
>>> potentially important codecs including a description why they should be
>>> considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations.
>>> 
>>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
>>> That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific
>>> contexts, along with a short description of the context for each.
>>> Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the advantages
>>> and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden
>>> understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
>>> 
>>> The WG chairs
>>> Magnus, Ted and Cullen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb