IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 01 March 2016 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6920B1B3FB6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7bcDNuYoUb_S for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA25C1B3FCA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s5so73083398qkd.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:58:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vo84afoRKT5IrGQlN4nRPkj0Tb6HZhhlYc+hBc2jL/8=; b=xfVSQi0Kx8zdc+eMnUvBunMXZaOJiHGWsMeMks0AmDt+cpARv/cTdDXNwsYsVbXXI+ z9cMA9RaKyGfWbBShFdtBrZjNwHYqyuzBUZFtRo0tN+GLZBwoOgERaFkZDhvBh5UkalF MXUYlfEGFmudvuh7G4pXCbkSX+qjvnnZEFwVqOh8PN0An3oslG+JpStjedOs/EdHnh5h ZwPi4w5Gfgao33/43pv3wOgfK0WpUf5ZZ90IIVkmZhN8wNHAfC00W/LUvsP8q+Vqv5vs idhgYModsvzNWyWDqok3NmgV9IJt8QUmEXCvlBlQuLDSyVy1RC5yMaMS2EY+hOsYM7VS h7ZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vo84afoRKT5IrGQlN4nRPkj0Tb6HZhhlYc+hBc2jL/8=; b=AczNckdZ5WNMs4s74BBfJPDflkqIELJP8zkh/TlARCdmSetKoApSkwVWpQjFGIC+4R OmRzKN37Dcp3/ncsgiA3R+GS4E0fdm6JY1+/6f49DrdFI/bYXhSzqBNucnav3zO1UsfZ 8sLdLNfNH3kRFvPaw/lLY7l+QKbKOZTgwDM7Fd3DALndoUgFmmz/AWT1YJvJ16cOIFsb ToDF+PybEorMrR3V4TAD9qnkFmfkOh4J6KgbJfGKoEb0+9BgeF6t06mguI/YoA/z7/Zq coL/bk7le3hrZW+SLEDIBWBVICz5irqQ0/kTDog9G8lhQcFvfPx3rBYx+fYj48Tj8i1B Qr8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLntqGB2NsFGgMBWgIWrxPROmGK4UWbxKlNiQk/c1iJgjgtu4bhgFdwb8uOsFeGNK+Yta7fLJeXLh3jSQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.49.11 with SMTP id x11mr28145894qkx.86.1456858719803; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:58:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.6.13 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:58:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR0301MB1551006A8D73179743E85322B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160224213121.376.85278.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD5OKxuQT2hdDHWdVxHGEcC3PuMMDjpaBpfAygRBa7-kdv79Rg@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB15519E82B0384EF6EC348B72B2B80@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56D1A080.7050901@alvestrand.no> <SN1PR0301MB1551A6D49F18116A70A107CCB2B80@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMB5pye7-tXgBFrzk+F-3dApY-4pEX_1Foob-ug6dmztXg@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551506B16DC14D555E98AD4B2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMAxR0_HzpqM3aQwVBX51G87+ZnYpd7AEwHsw0unpcPV1w@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551C791B62BC7311DB3897CB2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtonFCucoou8Es+0RCuBx-oa++w5__=EBXT7kVToksE4A@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB155111CC2AAC4D3B0962B3E6B2BA0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+9kkMAk_jPu5Pd1kU6aEh2au5x-tE4v+c9zU5nzx64t47DUmQ@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB15518F98FD31A3BAE6505079B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56D55FE9.60408@alvestrand.no> <SN1PR0301MB15512FBBCA5186B4829FEFA8B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B374B9596@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <SN1PR0301MB1551D1333297368D66B150ACB2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxvf+HBknqxXXY=_t9sCFGUFMUczu6k5DkMS-M8aV0Sjxw@mail.gmail.com> <SN1PR0301MB1551006A8D73179743E85322B2BB0@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:58:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBGzjJFbLpo4te12tpaFFS_aoEXmoARudkq1EbZ5AnuYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114780787b694d052d015adc"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/vpUuQHWqjReJwE2G7ZXssprRxEg>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt> (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 18:58:42 -0000

Hi Tolga,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ii- As another general principle, introducing a restriction without a good
> reason is a bad idea IMHO. So far, I yet have to see a good argument in
> favor of an enforced range (other than that we should assume that
> intelligence level of app. developer’s is equal to a chimpanzee)
>
>
> This is not a fair characterization of the point that has been made, and
I'd appreciate your being careful with your wording.  The point that has
been made is that there will be a range imposed by browsers and that
standardizing that range avoids the complexity of discovery and/or random
failure modes.  If you are arguing that there will be no enforced range at
all, then the browser makers' assertion to the contrary seems to be
problematic for accepting your argument.

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email