Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
From: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
To: "ext Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 18:18:02 +0100
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

My thoughts are in line with the ones from Andrew. Using normative language may be too strong, but we should document the ecosystem to allow interoperability with terminals not implementing 
RTCWeb MTI codecs without introducing too big transcoding needs in RTCWeb gateways in the network. 

E.g., a mobile terminal natively implementing codecs such as AMR-WB anyway could offer them in addition to the MTI codecs in RTCWeb session set-ups. A gateway connecting such a terminal to non-RTCWeb terminals in the mobile network would prefer such a mobile-specific codec over the MTI ones, as this decreases the use of the transcoding resources in the gateway.

Guidelines of that kind could be part of the text to be written, too. 

Kind regards,
Uwe 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Hutton, Andrew
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Andrew Allen; Harald Alvestrand; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

I previously indicate support for 1) but I note the arguments put forward by Adam Roach and agree that normative recommendations for additional codec's are not necessary here.

However I think it would be helpful to have some non normative text describing how the implementation of particular codec's would improve interoperability in specific environments (E.g. mobile) and although this could be left to browser vendors to work out for themselves I don't think that is a good argument for not doing it. We are here to promote interoperability after all.

I also disagree that the MTI codec's already agreed are sufficient to ensure interoperability with non RTCWEB environments which according to the rtcweb charter should be considered.

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Allen
> Sent: 03 January 2013 17:25
> To: Harald Alvestrand; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting
> Recommended Audio Codecs
> 
> I also support 2)
> 
> I really don't think it helps much to describe what other codecs are
> out there that you might want to think about implementing if you want
> to interoperate with certain other non RTCweb deployments. I think
> anybody who is seriously thinking about developing such a product can
> easily find this out for themselves - if you want to interoperate with
> 3GPP devices then take a look at the CURRENT 3GPP Codec specifications!
> 
> It should be realized that the codec life cycle tends to be somewhat
> shorter than that of the signaling technology so the codec information
> is likely to become out of date long before the signaling
> specifications become obsolete (possibly already dated by the time the
> RFC is published) - 3GPP is already working on a new codec for LTE!
> 
> As everyone has a favorite codec they would like to see deployed the
> downside of this is that this will likely become a distraction that
> generates a lot of discussion and consumes a lot of cycles that would
> be better spent on addressing the basic interoperability issues facing
> RTCweb.
> 
> So I think the MTI audio codecs already agreed is enough to ensure
> interoperability.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting
> Recommended Audio Codecs
> 
> Speaking as an individual:
> 
> I am putting my name on 2), because I believe RECOMMENDED is too strong
> for secondary codecs.
> 
> On 12/20/2012 09:29 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > 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  +46 10 7148287
> > Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-
> public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and
> delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination,
> distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb