Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

I agree that Opus and G.711 should be the MTI audio codecs for WebRTC.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote:

> I also support the selection of OPUS and G.711 as MTI. G.722 can be a
> SHOULD; it is widely supported.
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:24 PM, "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
>
> > Reading this list is occasionally an act of torture banned by several
> > conventions ..but since you ask.
> >
> > I completely support the selection of Opus and G.711 as mandatory to
> > implement audio codec's ..however I'm very very open minded about
> supporting
> > G.722. It has it merits.  It should be totally obvious to most that if
> you
> > even think about interconnecting to public E.164 networks the default
> option
> > for VoLTE and Enterprise Voice networks is going to be G.722.
> >
> > If it is your goal to create globally useful stove pipes fine,  but
> > interconnection with existing carrier real time networks is IMHO a
> rational
> > goal.
> >
> > As for Video .. for goodness sakes just get over it people. H.264 is
> totally
> > implemented everywhere on the planet Earth. So what about the
> intellectual
> > property problems. It's not like VP8 doesn't have problems either.
> >
> > I'll save my comments about the SDP offer/answer issue for another day.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of
> > Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 PM
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
> >
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>