Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Let's not pretend that we got 500 different implementations of WebRTC and
that every one is making one. We got 4 or 5 that potentially matter, with 3
of them currently sharing the same code based for audio. All of the
currently available WebRTC implementations support G.711. Opus, and (most
likely deprecated in near future) ISAC. So far, the feedback I got was that
if codec is not MTI, it will not be implemented by the major browsers. For
instance, G.722 is part of current WebRTC code base, but it is disabled in
compile time from being accessible in the browsers.

So, if I, or anyone else, is implementing a web browser, I can add other
codecs, but this would serve no purpose whatsoever and is irrelevant to
this discussion.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/13/13 11:42, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
>> I don't think everyone gets the that selecting a small subset as
>> mandatory for WebRTC does NOT exclude all other codecs. Feel free to add
>> everything you got. Have fun. Let the best mutual codec with the best
>> mutual properties win the session.
>>
>
> Olle hit the nail squarely on the head. This is exactly the purpose of
> offer/answer negotiation: to find the best intersection of endpoint
> capabilities for the desired communication session. I'm bewildered by the
> fairly consistent misinterpretation that having an MTI codec somehow
> implies that every other codec becomes "MNTI".
>
> /a
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>