IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 18:22 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 6734D21F8F18 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:45 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ZjFc3JgKGrU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (la-in-x0235.1e100.net [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A236421F8F10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id fr10so8925036lab.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:40 -0800 (PST)
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=ytlfkktnRX8zOpLBRwBb7y2KThQc/F0pUDJKE2gbnDo=; b=PvX2h/gDiCfpqE3u/W7ZCeyRzEiTy+1oM7UyLQ/MamiYDnONOrzdSgzKI2GaUPsXuI bJuSy8FqRh0uSuzG/awRT9acAs/7owlKUyPOAtjvIvQVC9M5tB1l824X+erU7+DPY5IU zDCT3JTXBKOxHyjgh3hwMNjduuzm83I5o7Z7YJIRCdoN8aC31PhvdiKq9q3A8UAHqffh 7KB77aD+z6sr95/dZnVDFsdyGrG3KRoA7M5cKCFNXORNrQzAj5FAcFcYMOVHtUoGGtbx XTt1cmZ5HQLfRclXQSfV5llJCjKE6kcTQKxbnCo5vxx27vMQ9dl2x88WzAhdH8uDWyI/ AIdA==
X-Received: by 10.152.132.170 with SMTP id ov10mr21963117lab.21.1361470960768; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m2sm2167237lbz.7.2013.02.21.10.22.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fs13so8949783lab.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.26.10 with SMTP id h10mr10677106lbg.63.1361470958969; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.170.229 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:22:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D19277@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
References: <CAD5OKxsZ3s=SKTBeWQrUiE=jV9f6VKzwYUX78NsoM+4hECz_Fg@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D19277@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:22:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtSe2Py0Vw4MNx41CoKBr8+piNdLrwu+AtEvOArmSKq=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@rim.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec553ffc0e1a4d504d64028b2"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4uqXrWz29Lx7uQPhD4K18D2YLlHTil7sIsBXjfUdmISCZkJ3apazFEY/97gRvN3TZrYsH
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "xavier.marjou@orange.com" <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call
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, 21 Feb 2013 18:22:45 -0000

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Allen <aallen@rim.com> wrote:

> It seems you are re-visiting an already decided question of which are the
> mandatory to implement audio codecs and the concensus call already was made
> months ago that they are OPUS and G.711.
>

I know there is a consensus regarding this issue. What I was saying that in
the proposed document, the hurdle that a codec MUST be supported if
provided by the platform should not apply to G.722. It does not matter if
G.722 is provided by the platform since complete implementation of G.722
would probably take less effort then integration with platform provided AMR
or AMR-WB codec.
______________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email