IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 14 January 2013 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 BA82C21F88B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 o+CS-sR-xCSm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA0621F888E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU002-W63 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:34 -0800
X-EIP: [0SCFNffhdtebqvpqNBM1/hXY1mCV1yUa]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU002-W63654595DB97DBFD848309932E0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6c7d0852-319f-43ba-b9fe-26a9bd3f05d1_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "stephane.proust@orange.com" <stephane.proust@orange.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:34 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <161DAF1D-E35A-4D75-9155-18E70F66EE77@phonefromhere.com>
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com>, <6515_1357907583_50F0067F_6515_1738_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A0747CC@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>, <161DAF1D-E35A-4D75-9155-18E70F66EE77@phonefromhere.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2013 14:34:34.0650 (UTC) FILETIME=[45DEE7A0:01CDF264]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
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, 14 Jan 2013 14:34:45 -0000

Stephane said:

"In addition to G.711, these 3 codecs cover almost all legacy devices dedicated to voice services. They are consequently needed and sufficient to be supported by WebRTC to make it an attractive and future proof technology"

[BA] The use of the terms "legacy" and "future proof" here is puzzling.   "Future proof" would seem to imply the ability to adapt to future developments, whereas "legacy" relates to compatibility with what has gone before.   Unless the "past" is the same as the "future" (which implies no progress at all), those two objectives are distinct (and possibly conflicting).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email