[rtcweb] Consensus Statement for Re: Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 3235821F85AF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ThcTCdmetYF1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3783721F85A4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f046d00000644c-dc-504a0e8c50b6
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 76.48.25676.C8E0A405; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:11:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.264.1; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:11:08 +0200
Message-ID: <504A0E8C.5070405@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:11:08 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpnluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VreXzyvAYGYDq8Xaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKuPb9BUvBVP6KxQs2sDcwLufpYuTkkBAwkVjVs4sVwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkMApRonmA+ugnGWMEmf/LGAGqeIV0JZ4+vE4C4jNIqAisa7hGZjNJmAhcfNHIxuI LSoQKLH67EcmiHpBiZMzn4DViAgIS2x91QsWFxaIlFhwYw9YXEjARuLgv81g8zkFbCX2njrE DnGRpMSbyTfBapgFDCSOLJrDCmHLS2x/O4cZoldboqGpg3UCo+AsJOtmIWmZhaRlASPzKkbh 3MTMnPRyI73Uoszk4uL8PL3i1E2MwMA8uOW36g7GO+dEDjFKc7AoifNab93jLySQnliSmp2a WpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoEx074w7bryyRk5lSZr/iVfvabeybKuXXnCv5U+J5rreV2OVuz2 Xxi11kNkQ9W0oNC9lz7OXe5VZfdIVI1dudD/iI/T/aRmodmaJ7gORf2TUM536vus68itVSC0 TuxC1gzWHWsbHsX5f1v6oXR73aKloYdfqq/5e0afXXnHv72JT5KEn+RKGLUosRRnJBpqMRcV JwIAHvEvaRoCAAA=
Subject: [rtcweb] Consensus Statement for Re: 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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:11:11 -0000

WG,

We chairs can confirm a strong consensus for both G.711 and Opus as
mandatory to implement audio codecs for RTCWeb based on the WG meeting
and the mailing list.

There have been individuals with other views. Several wanted G.711 only,
which is one of the alternative in the WG meeting's consensus decision.
These additional opinions have not altered the chairs view that there is
strong consensus for G.711 and Opus.

The Chairs take note of two other aspects which were raised in the
discussion on the mailing list;

First, that some argued for including also G.722 as mandatory to
implement codec and several more have proposed it to be listed as SHOULD
be implemented. Based on the consensus in the WG this is clearly not
mandatory to implement. When it comes recommending additional codecs to
be implemented there has been views expressed previously that any such
recommendations would not be particular useful and only increase the
amount of contention in the WG.

Based on the discussion to date, the chairs will run a consensus call on
whether the WG should recommend specific codecs which will not be
mandatory to implement (i.e. will the document contain SHOULDs as well
as MUSTs for codec implementation)".  If the response to that consensus
call indicates consensus for non-mandatory to implement recommendations,
we will run consensus calls on those codecs to be included at that level.

Secondly, there were views and suggestions that we should not make a
decision for mandatory to implement codecs at this point in time.  The
working group had previously indicated strong consensus to choose a
mandatory to implement codec in this space, to avoid interoperability
failure.  We do not believe that reconsideration of this decision is
required at this time, and we believe that the support for the current
consensus is strong, if not perfect.

The WG chairs
Ted, Cullen and Magnus