Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

On 08/30/2012 12:16 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Fine works for me but please 722 WB for SHOULD. Of course none of this will
> be of any significance if you can't agree on a reasonable offer/answer model
> that interoperates with public SIP networks ( previously called the PSTN )
We've already got people writing Javascript that interworks with 
Asterisk, so I don't think this is going to be a problem (unless someone 
decides to start over again).

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:22 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
>
> Since the number of people stating their opinion has been large, I'll just
> reiterate the opinion I had (and hummed for) in Vancouver:
>
> Opus and G.711 should be mandatory to implement for RTCWEB.
>
> Since the question of whether there's any value to making the decision now
> has been raised:
>
> The first interoperable products implementing RTCWEB are shipping within a
> very short timeframe. Those first implementations will shape the market for
> what's actually used in practice.
> In order to allow applications requiring high quality sound to be among the
> first ones developed, those first products need to include a common choice
> of a high quality codec.
>
> Having the RTCWEB WG state as a decision that this codec should be Opus
> helps in making sure these products ship with Opus.
>
> The time to decide is now.
>
>                     Harald
>
> [Note - the same logic applies to video codecs, but I've accepted that it's
> impossible to make a consensus decision at this time on that issue.
> We'll just live with the consequences of that.]
>
> On 08/16/2012 07:15 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> 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
>