Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 08:40:43AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> Agree with the above. G.711 for mti only.
>>
>> I want to push Opus and promote its use, but MTI is not the right method
>> for that.
>
> I haven't got the impression from this discussion that anybody thinks it
> is about "pushing Opus" at all.  The question is what is best for rtcweb.
>
> Since the charter of this group is to produce a standard that facilitates
> "direct interactive rich communication", using things that already exist
> as much as possible - I thought it was clear that the only important point
> is that all this engineering work to produce rtcweb should not be a complete
> waste of time for the people actually implementing it, and produce something
> that gives such a poor experience in its baseline configuration that nobody
> would ever actually want to use it for any of its intended purposes.
>
> That Opus is a very obvious choice of existing technology, which no other
> single codec comes anywhere close to matching for this purpose, stands out
> like an elephant in the room.  Blind men might argue about whether it is a
> pillar or a brush, or whether enough double blinded men have yet touched it
> to be sure of this, but no amount of "pushing" is going to realistically
> move it from that position one way or the other.
>
> Pretending that other much-poorer codecs could fill this role is abandoning
> the "rich communication" part of the charter, and condemning this group to
> an embarrassing failure to achieve its goals in any meaningful way.
>
> Let's not do that shall we.  It seems quite clear that many people have an
> intense interest in its success.  Delaying this indefinitely, or selecting
> poorer options than are already available today do not seem like the choices
> that rational people who actually do want this to succeed would make.
>
> Interoperability requires an adequate MTI codec.  Nobody has proposed an
> alternative codec that is not clearly inadequate by comparison to Opus.
> In a room full of clever engineers who want rtcweb to excel as a best of
> breed specification, this decision should be a total no-brainer.
>

MTI is not about a room full of clever engineers, this thread and the
position statements from XYZ companies should make that clear.  MTI is
about the least common denominator for a series of latent issues,
including IPR FUD and legacy baggage.

Consenting adults are free to offer and answer whatever codecs they like.

CB

> This time would be much better spent on the Actually Hard questions that
> still remain for rtcweb.
>
>  Best,
>  Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb