IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ken Fischer" <ietf@kenfischer.net> Thu, 27 December 2012 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kenfischer.net>
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 5C44F21F8D6E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:10:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 gSsd4kGGWZ2C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191F321F8D8D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8640E2AC06A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:10:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=kenfischer.net; h=from:to :references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=kenfischer.net; bh=G+ 4aCk9Sk0CLOiIu1JwEONcZzSk=; b=fzw9AoEt3HPnhZV+Y9+TrSe68+qbv2OOSi nQxI0HM/H8rBqLKzoiszSiECfP2N+kHfm7UihvbpqaIbUo64OVcWvSY5/nogrWW9 geoO+uQI+aHsUh3spX8q44GZBtYWQIw4D3+l7AssdubWaD3P9Hw6JGOfhc9uKl8R KOBmhJeJw=
Received: from XPMACVM (c-67-176-36-142.hsd1.co.comcast.net [67.176.36.142]) (Authenticated sender: ietf@kenfischer.net) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 55CF42AC05D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:10:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Fischer <ietf@kenfischer.net>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <095DB9F1-E82E-471E-95F9-1472FFAC68E2@standardstrack.com> <CD01BF34.2BA21%ken.fischer@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD01BF34.2BA21%ken.fischer@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:10:03 -0700
Message-ID: <000001cde44c$a1a7f980$e4f7ec80$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: Ac3kS6b5OI3BmCNqT5+E/yCRC2nCqQAAOnvg
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: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:10:09 -0000

+1

Ken




On 12/27/12 7:31 AM, "Eric Burger" <eburger-l@standardstrack.com> wrote:

>Bernard said this as a joke, but as many think there is some truth 
>behind every joke, this *is* the issue. By the time we finish the work 
>group, ideally in 2015 (Cullen - thanks for the CDN 100!), *all* of the 
>codecs that someone thinks is really important to have implemented OR 
>ELSE will be passé, obsolete, or their patents expired.
>
>That is why I do not see the value of publishing a long list of SHOULD 
>codecs to implement. It would be much more useful to implementers to 
>explain which codecs go to what and why.
>
>Now, if we can agree on some good codecs that MUST be implemented, I 
>can get behind that.
>
>Happy Holidays,
>Eric
>
>On Dec 26, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I quite liked "thawing" actually - since the audio codecs in question 
>>are frozen from a distant era :)
>> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: 12/26/2012 1:14 PM
>> To: Eric Burger; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting 
>>Recommended Audio Codecs
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 26, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > On Dec 25, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Eric Burger
>><eburger-l@standardstrack.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> We then either have a nice big section in this present document
>>describing the current state of the art of various networks with 
>>various codecs *OR* we have an Informational Implementor's Guide that 
>>describes the current state of the art of various networks, as well as 
>>the pitfalls of popular but hard codecs, like G.722.
>> > 
>> > Would someone be willing to summarize a list of codecs that at some
>>people have argued strongly in favor of along with the main advantage 
>>of thawing that codec. I'm thinking of a list that looks something 
>>like
>> > 
>> > AMR-WB   Gets you interop with existing 3GPP
>> > 
>> > Having a list like this would be a handy quick references to
>>discussion.
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> Change  "thawing"  to "having" in above
>> 
>> (Curse you autocorrect)
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email