Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 09/04/2012 11:30 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
> Maybe an stupid question, but how it is planned to enforce the 
> mandated codecs implementation? What prevents any of those 
> "corporations" not implementing a mandated codec in their WebRTC 
> products?

My first chance to quote the new, Web-page-format Tao of IETF:

"One more thing that is important for newcomers: the IETF in no way 
"runs the Internet", despite what some people mistakenly might say. The 
IETF makes voluntary standards that are often adopted by Internet users, 
but it does not control, or even patrol, the Internet. If your interest 
in the IETF is because you want to be part of the overseers, you may be 
badly disappointed by the IETF."

http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

There is no protocol police; anyone can implement a product that 
implements only part of an IETF standard. They just can't truthfully 
claim to have implemented that IETF standard.

>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> El 04/09/2012 5:13, Basil Mohamed Gohar escribió:
>> History has shown time and again the companies with sufficient market 
>> power will opt to implement their own proprietary and/or patented 
>> formats, or formats which benefit them financially, over royalty 
>> free, widely-available formats, even when their own formats are 
>> technically inferiors. Take, for example, Windows Media Audio, MP3, 
>> and AAC in the audio realm (in contrast to Vorbis) and Windows Media 
>> Video and also Quicktime formats (when, at the time, technically 
>> superior, more standardized formats exists, such as the MPEG family, 
>> though that has it's own problems).
>>
>> Mandating the implementation a royalty free format is about the only 
>> way to get such corporations to implement it, even if it is 
>> technically superior, as the above examples demonstrate.
>>
>> On 09/03/2012 02:23 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>> At 1:52 PM -0400 9/3/12, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>>
>>>>  So why, pray tell, did the IETF go through the grief of developing 
>>>> OPUS if
>>>>  its most useful application will not mandate its implementation.
>>>
>>> So OPUS won't be used unless it's mandated?
>>>
>>> If OPUS has the benefits ascribed to it here, then developers will 
>>> flock to it and it doesn't need to be mandated.  (If it doesn't have 
>>> the benefits, then it shouldn't be mandated.)
>>>
>>>>  SHOULD for 722 AMR-WB is very helpful in integration with 
>>>> Enterprise and
>>>>  Mobile networks.
>>>>
>>>>  Its August .. clearly the silly season for technical discussions.
>>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>  From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>>  Randall Gellens
>>>>  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:09 PM
>>>>  To: John Leslie; Randell Jesup
>>>>  Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>  Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec
>>>>
>>>>  At 11:12 AM -0400 8/31/12, John Leslie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   Our issue here is Mandatory-to-Implement. It is very important 
>>>>> to  have at least one MTI audio codec. I could live with that 
>>>>> being G.711,  because I trust the market to _actually_ implement 
>>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>>  Exactly.  The discussion has been going in my view off-track into 
>>>> debates
>>>>  about which codec is best for which environments.  The real issue is
>>>>  mandatory versus recommended.
>>>>
>>>>  We can pick G.711 as MTI and rely on implementers to support others.
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  Randall Gellens
>>>>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself 
>>>> only
>>>>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- One never 
>>>> sits in
>>>>  hotel lobby chairs, my dear.  One never knows whom has been 
>>>> sitting in them
>>>>  before one.
>>>>      --unknown
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  rtcweb mailing list
>>>>  [e-mail]
>>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb