Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

[<[e-mail]>]

The mandatory-to implement (MTI) codec for rtcweb should ensure interoperability and good quality. 
It should be possible to implement the codec without hurdles.

The G.722 provides wideband quality at 64 kbit/s. It is easy to implement and causes no additional costs.
Hence G.722 should be a MTI codec for rtcweb. 
It provides also interoperability to other voice communication services.

For interoperability reasons to other voice communication services G.711 should be a MTI codec for rtcweb. 
It provides only narrow-band quality. But it is easy to implement and causes no additional costs.
 
For interoperability reasons to other voice communication services  AMR and AMR-WB should be supported.
As these codecs are not that easy to implement and may cause additional costs, they should not be MTI codecs for rtcweb.
If rtcweb is used for calls to mobile phones, it is likely that these codecs will be supported as this guarantees the best quality. 
  
Other  low bitrate codec may be supported , but should not be MTI codec for rtcweb. The codecs cause additional hurdles. Interoperability is already guaranteed by the MTI codecs. The implementer can decide on its own to support the codec.  

Best regards,
Bernhard


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Sent: Donnerstag, 16. August 2012 19:16
To: [e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb