Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Andrew Allen said:


> I really still don't see what the value is as part of RTCweb in describing the other codecs that are used by other VoIP and audio over IP and other digital audio systems and the perceived pros and cons of each.

[BA] I agree. 

> I think this is a waste of time and a distraction from solving the real interoperability issues like agreeing a common video codec and making sure JSEP and SIP/SDP interoperate well together.

[BA] Also agree that the WG can better spend its time on other things. 

Onn reviewing the RFC 2119 definition and previous uses, I agree with Adam that the threshold for SHOULD is not met here: 

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.Since we have already mandated support for G.711 and OPUS,  other audio codecs such as G.722 are more "might be useful in some circumstances" category rather than the "full implications must be understood" if not implementing.  That's not a SHOULD, it's a MAY.  If we are only talking about a MAY there is little point in devoting time to the issue, since every codec other than G.711 and OPUS would fall into that category.  I especially would not want to delay publication of documents while we haggle about the text to be associated with various  codecs. 

Count me in favor of Option 2.