Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Thu, 16 August 2012 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 758FA11E808A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9CeJs9LdzPE8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.38.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C2B1621F8484 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31214 invoked by uid 0); 16 Aug 2012 23:23:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2012 23:23:46 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=NjM6ua1O8Kr3rFIILq/HuGkQMit9LzObTeMBKP+5f9E=; b=Ei9t9BNnIU7L2ghsrCSz+iX/D94RhP9+yBQtwmKJCT5uaLvOupPoLpjts8gu0eGF3+AK/A1nYEBSS9OBDj9uKwgT9i9HD6IbKuP9odSpy45F5ZosMLjtDpRokRIFyY9h;
Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=52869 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1T29Pm-00028q-1B; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:23:46 -0600
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us>
To: "'Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:23:43 -0400
Message-ID: <000801cd7c06$2de34710$89a9d530$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHNe9LENUMF/Hj3nEmo2lnRJlNz25ddEQPw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on 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, 16 Aug 2012 23:24:13 -0000

Reading this list is occasionally an act of torture banned by several
conventions ..but since you ask.

I completely support the selection of Opus and G.711 as mandatory to
implement audio codec's ..however I'm very very open minded about supporting
G.722. It has it merits.  It should be totally obvious to most that if you
even think about interconnecting to public E.164 networks the default option
for VoLTE and Enterprise Voice networks is going to be G.722. 

If it is your goal to create globally useful stove pipes fine,  but
interconnection with existing carrier real time networks is IMHO a rational
goal. 

As for Video .. for goodness sakes just get over it people. H.264 is totally
implemented everywhere on the planet Earth. So what about the intellectual
property problems. It's not like VP8 doesn't have problems either. 

I'll save my comments about the SDP offer/answer issue for another day. 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs


At the last meeting we took a hum on selecting Opus and G.711 as the
mediatory to implement audio codecs. If there is any new opinions please
send them to the list by August 30th, after which the chairs will make a
determination of consensus.

Thanks,
Cullen

Please note that the following IPR disclosure have been made on these
codecs. They can be found at 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/


2010-11-07	
. ID # 1445
"Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (1)"
2010-11-07	
. ID # 1446
"Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-00"
2010-11-12	
. ID # 1447
"Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (2)"
2011-03-23	
. ID # 1520
"Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
2011-03-27	
. ID # 1524
"Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
2011-03-29	
. ID # 1526
"Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
2011-03-29	
. ID # 1525
"Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
2011-07-23	
. ID # 1602
"Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-07"
2012-01-25	
. ID # 1670
"Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-10"
2012-03-12	
. ID # 1712
"Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (1)"
2012-04-02	
. ID # 1741
"Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (2)"



_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb