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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 5D39E11E814D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 RSxnu1V8I824 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F414211E80D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hq4so4229989wib.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ieW+Lm5X2CU3cWThOuyFpdrN5+WtrwibxjBVRB8DX0E=; b=aXEVBWVtiMOwTlpczo5YjIERnVcA0mLslItehNfytJsgYxiIxTaF7lfT6kNj5rOimr OCcmDSbezArLarRzVY1X5k2RAJmNQt/b84+OZQg4+2/uLqeFVpwR53f9VLdSsQxBpM6M yyg2sWncMYp2hwyfBHDX64VK06Hyq7ykFpCQhKBCGR2ST5CAynOIkCgR/1amHXtmYuYa tFgZKYiLVTf1gn2zBG31/dba1Cg8QM0Ytv+bEr9zXW2dgkKVVu4yTyFz704QsFGHG+wJ BQy54BWzZnleHQ40q1pecH1SQiBvnMyhqxsX/iMegBk5OpdvDvj6VsQpE7oV5dc0jLvT 9ikQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.185.176 with SMTP id fd16mr6766393wic.31.1363295834914; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ek4sm11381736wib.11.2013.03.14.14.17.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hm11so4654077wib.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.21.233 with SMTP id y9mr7010694wje.47.1363295832266; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.107.135 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2B178@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
References: <c686ee114a494e6ca76354227f92423e@DFM-CO1MBX15-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2B178@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:17:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxt8QbBQ0oSmiMt-7HP8kfthA4O-qBrs+NmcKQSCP8-9BA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d2774ce614b04d7e90b19
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsz8htja4dB5Z/4MZAufZrEvAyizIMFeCaONJinXvGC4hBIEl4k+olzS84bKbiMZXzi8n5
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "xavier.marjou@orange.com" <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
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, 14 Mar 2013 21:17:17 -0000

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> wrote:

>
> Koen is right that there are many more obstacles to RTCweb and legacy
> network interop than just a common codec. First there will need to be
> RTCweb signaling gateways to interface between the RTCweb signaling and the
> legacy networks (SIP, H.323 etc) and there will need to be in place
> mechanisms for peering, federation and address resolution between networks
> as well as service agreements in place between the players.
>
> Until those are resolved supporting codecs used in those networks is
> pointless.
>

These issues are resolved. See one example here: http://webrtc2sip.org/.
These solutions do suffer from the need to transcode, this is why this
codec discussion has been going on.
_____________
Roman Shpount