Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-03-14 11:04, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 14 mar 2013 kl. 10:58 skrev Stefan Håkansson LK
> <[e-mail]>:
>
>> On 2013-03-13 23:14, [e-mail] wrote: ...
>>>
>>> Then if the issue is that "conditional MUST/SHOULD are a too
>>> complicated requirement. We could also live as a compromise with
>>> a formulation that has already been suggested on the reflector:
>>>
>>> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to
>>> use it is recommended that they are also included in the offer in
>>> order to maximize the possibility to establish the session
>>> without the need for audio transcoding"
>>
>> To me, that sounds reasonable. The document could also reference
>> some informational RFC (to be written) that list codecs, and under
>> what circumstances they are suitable.
>
> That informational RFC would count as training material, but that
> never hurts.
>
> I agree with this - but please change "audio codecs" to "multimedia
> codecs" since we now have both audio, video, text and other "codecs"
> under discussion.

I think the intention was to add this text to draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-01 
which would mean that only audio is in scope. But I agree, the sentence 
is equally valid for video.

> Also "the browser" is too limiting, since this
> applies to every piece of software using WebRTC, even though browsers
> have the highest priority.

I agree to this.

>
> /O
>