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

Eric

I totally agree.

I think this document as well as being purely informational is also likely to become obsolete long before the mandatory to implement codecs are no longer required to be implemented. As a result making this part of the normative document will likely mean regular updates or obsoletions of the normative document.

I also think such information with a scope as defined by Cullen discussing what codecs are currently used in other deployments and what the costs are is not just relevant to RTCweb but also SIP and MMUSIC as well so maybe this should be RAI area director sponsored and not a RTCweb WG document.

Andrew 

----- Original Message -----
From: Burger Eric [mailto:eburger@cs.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 01:38 PM Central Standard Time
To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

A different document would be good. No need to to have an argument over non-normative text hold up publication.

On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:14 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:

> Hi WG chairs,
> 
> Clarification question: 
> 
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
> 
> Inclusion where? 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
>> call
>> 
>> 
>> We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting
>> Recommended Audio Codecs.
>> 
>> At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus".
>> 
>> We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of
>> potentially important codecs including a description why they should be
>> considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations.
>> 
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
>> That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific
>> contexts, along with a short description of the context for each.
>> Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the advantages
>> and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden
>> understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
>> 
>> The WG chairs
>> Magnus, Ted and Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.