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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

I would also vote for G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Richard Shockey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1 .. 722 AMR AMR-WB was and still is the optimal choices for SHOULD. That
> would cover interoperability with existing enterprise SIP PBX systems and
> the VoLTE deployments that are rolling out now and will gather market
> momentum in 2014.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:24 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
> Audio Codecs
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we should make an attempt at 1), i.e. to at least find out if there
> is a consensus on such as small set of recommended codecs. I don't know
> what
> is small, but I would say no more than 1-3. And there has to be a
> convincing
> case for each why they add value over G.711 AND Opus.
>
> My proposal would be to recommend AMR, and perhaps AMR-WB. The rationale is
> that those codecs are widely supported in mobile devices and in Circuit
> Switched and IMS/LTE based VoIP telephony. So they are helpful for
> transcode-free interoperability with the current and future :-) legacy
> systems, and in that dimension they would add value to G.711 and Opus. It
> is
> not a relevant use case for all WebRTC services, but to a large enough set
> I
> believe. Quite many people even proposed AMR/AMR-WB as mandatory for
> WebRTC.
> The main reason it was not acceptable was the IPR situation, which quite a
> few saw inhibitive. That has not changed, but I think the deliberations in
> that regard are different for "recommended" than "mandatory".
>
> Markus
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of ext Magnus Westerlund
> >Sent: 20 December, 2012 10:30
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
> >Audio Codecs
> >
> >WG,
> >
> >As an outcome of the Vancouver IETF meeting codec discussions we did
> >promise to run a call for consensus regarding if the WG was interested
> >in specifying a small set of recommended audio codecs. We are sorry
> >this has been delayed until now.
> >
> >The question for the call of consensus is between two options.
> >
> >1) Run a process in the WG to select and specify a small set of
> >audio/speech codecs that would be RECOMMNEDED to implement by a WebRTC
> >end-points
> >
> >2) Do nothing and let the already specified Mandatory to Implement
> >Audio codecs be the only audio codecs mentioned in the WebRTC
> specification.
> >
> >Please indicate your position by January 16th 2013.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Magnus Westerlund
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> >Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> >SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtcweb mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>