IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 16 July 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 9139521F9DCF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQaebVqVZbhR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E14721F9EE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6GK7550005445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:07:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51E5A7E4.5020408@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:07:00 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DEE3029@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <51E55A2E.8090303@telecomitalia.it>
In-Reply-To: <51E55A2E.8090303@telecomitalia.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional 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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:07:19 -0000

On 7/16/13 09:35, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> On 7/15/13 5:15 PM, Bo Burman wrote:
>> In that draft, I would prefer something more in line with:
>>
>> "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".
> Yes, in fact this is happening already:
> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/01/firefox-development-highlights-h-264-mp3-support-on-windows-scoped-stylesheets-more/
>

You have misread that article. What that article says is that Mozilla is 
adding select platform-supplied codecs to Firefox for non-WebRTC uses.

Our implementation of audio codecs for WebRTC continues to support PCMU, 
PCMA, Opus, and nothing else; our implementation use VP8 exclusively for 
video.

/a

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status