IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Mon, 03 September 2012 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 89FDA21F86AA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sJAThWQ8CUUJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EAABC21F86A3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 12:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16953 invoked by uid 0); 3 Sep 2012 19:50:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2012 19:50:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=vBJ4NNE7U/xMptbWCG2zP7hcRQAIEfXqpSCBb83ItBo=; b=csF9Em1jp4UWPfG/dVDfIwjpjl2gFDQuY4mFJxH/xX/hc+Fa1n8wcmYPVMH2342NBVzxw1O/WBU9HS6TReuIdPa5P1fwT2TIcE1exTtV1bm22ABuZ/IG8DEBgDYkD3Gs;
Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=51543 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1T8cep-0006x0-QV; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:50:04 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: 'Randall Gellens' <randy@qualcomm.com>
References: <p06240603cc63f3f41ca9@[99.111.97.136]> <503F46C5.2090607@alvestrand.no> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE240CBCCD8@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel- lucent.com> <503F61CC.1010709@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D278D@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <503FC1BF.5020004@alvestrand.no> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D2B0F@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <5040541C.5020008@alvestrand.no> <20120831133845.GW72831@verdi> <5040CE32.5050003@jesup.org> <20120831151247.GY72831@verdi> <p06240608cc66e4862829@[99.111.97.136]> <00a701cd89fc$e681e9d0$b385bd70$@us> <p06240601cc6aa58a7171@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240601cc6aa58a7171@[99.111.97.136]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:50:02 -0400
Message-ID: <00d401cd8a0d$4ff81a00$efe84e00$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Ac2KAlErvWZRI7gCTya8SNG4ps6/owACn42Q
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
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, 03 Sep 2012 19:50:07 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Randall Gellens [mailto:randy@qualcomm.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Richard Shockey; 'John Leslie'; 'Randell Jesup'
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

At 1:52 PM -0400 9/3/12, Richard Shockey wrote:

>  So why, pray tell, did the IETF go through the grief of developing 
> OPUS if  its most useful application will not mandate its implementation.

So OPUS won't be used unless it's mandated?
 
[RS> ] Presumably we should try and make things better rather than just
accept the status quo which is the very definition of G.711


If OPUS has the benefits ascribed to it here, then developers will flock to
it and it doesn't need to be mandated.  (If it doesn't have the benefits,
then it shouldn't be mandated.)


 [RS> ] Humm should like a old argument for IPv6.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email