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

[邓灵莉/Lingli Deng <[e-mail]>]

+1

 

发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 James Rafferty
发送时间: 2012年12月21日 3:33
收件人: Roman Shpount; Richard Shockey
抄送: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

 

+ 1

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

 

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] <tel:%2B46%2010%207148287> 
>Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone] <tel:%2B46%2073%200949079> 
>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