Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I'd really like to understand how the chairs coming to the conclusion
that there was *no consensus* on recommended codecs can result in a
draft that includes 3 MUSTs and 1 SHOULD. This draft effectively makes
3 new codecs MTI for a range of devices. I understand that it's an
individual draft and you can write whatever you like in there, but it
definitely goes against the result of the WG discussion.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

On 03/13/2013 09:14 AM, Xavier Marjou wrote:
> Here is a summary of the
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00 presentation that I
> had prepared for yesterday's session:
> 
> - The co-authors want to underline that non-WebRTC voice endpoints 
> usually use one of the following codecs: AMR, AMR-WB or G.722,
> which will result in massive transcoding when there will be
> communications between WebRTC endpoints and non-WebRTC endpoints.
> 
> - On one side, transcoding is bad for many reasons discussed in
> the draft (cost issues, intrinsic quality degradation, degraded 
> interactivity, fallback from HD to G.711...);
> 
> - On the other side, it is recognized that implementing additional 
> codecs in the browsers can generate additional costs.
> 
> - In order to reach a compromise, we would like to add some text in
> the WG draft draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio providing incentives for the
> browser to use these three codecs: make them mandatory to implement
> when there is no cost impact on the browser (e.g. if codec already
> installed, paid by the device vendor...).
> 
> Any opinion on that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Xavier
> 
> PS: I will be ready to present the slides on Thursday if time
> permits it.
> 
> (c.f. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-rtcweb-6.pdf
> )
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Magnus and I discussed this this morning, and we encourage you to 
> prepare something.  If the discussion of working group last call
> items runs short, we may be able to fit this in at that time or at
> the end of day one if its full agenda his finished.  This is not a
> commitment, however, so please try and get discussion on the list
> on the points from the draft you feel need resolution.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg) 
> <espeberg@cisco.com <mailto:espeberg@cisco.com>> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to request agenda time for:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The document  presents use-cases underlining why WebRTC needs
> AMR-WB,  AMR
>> and G.722 as additional relevant voice codecs to satisfactorily
>> ensure interoperability with existing systems.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A 10-minute time slot should be sufficient for presentation and
> discussion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Espen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>> list rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
> list rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
> list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQNJZAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9vNYIAL64nPUsZfKfxSYteqTQRPmg
CzVXzr8GEBtR8gugL6KO5Lxgux+3fYKm7BJHirZyyCF1uPWIvXNevE2ad1KvHFwC
yT9XlzgiiHX79SOEyd3bIn9thycBXBSAAiqyCkz5E/eEYskPFQ4e5AVDezjjvMGF
L1Fx1PtsYuMRWEXZNB8wglH9sk3xeWe02o9s4TqLxwiseTS3CJ1kTwoHfIo5e4oX
26NMjBBiEy/eKK9qtmry9Octjr93OgtFVavPoXN/sNqCW8u8kreVOSxeegJ233n9
WQYhkctybnS22RTjbu3W6mZafpyOGi41rIzdGyUocmTelsFfT3hban5OU+1kQRw=
=P8Jl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----