Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

["Asveren, Tolga" <[e-mail]>]

i- But is “X told so” really a technical argument and shouldn’t we base our decisions on technical aspects? What I am suggesting (browsers supporting “default” values instead of “enforced ranges”) has the technical merits that it both provides flexibility for application, which know what they are doing and need the flexibility, and at the same time covers the case of non-savvy users.

ii- RTCWeb is not only about browsers. There are gateways and native applications as well. RTCWeb specifications should cover use by all these types of entities IMHO.


Thanks,
Tolga

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:10 PM
To: Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]>
Cc: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>; Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>; Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
“that there will be a range imposed by browsers”
Why are we assuming this? There should be some justification for this statement (and this is what I fail to see/understand but am really open to good explanation for the need for this). The model I presented has a “default value” for browsers not an “enforced range”. Those two are different things.

We are assuming it because some of the browser vendors participating have said so. Other data would be, of course, welcome.
Ted


Thanks,
Tolga

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tolga,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Asveren, Tolga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

ii- As another general principle, introducing a restriction without a good reason is a bad idea IMHO. So far, I yet have to see a good argument in favor of an enforced range (other than that we should assume that intelligence level of app. developer’s is equal to a chimpanzee)

This is not a fair characterization of the point that has been made, and I'd appreciate your being careful with your wording.  The point that has been made is that there will be a range imposed by browsers and that standardizing that range avoids the complexity of discovery and/or random failure modes.  If you are arguing that there will be no enforced range at all, then the browser makers' assertion to the contrary seems to be problematic for accepting your argument.
regards,
Ted