Re: [rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D7D11E8132 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGwvMWbIwHGS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADC611E8111 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.55.203] (helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1Svv1b-0004Va-9l for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:49:03 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48143D887D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:49:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id adQJprBM4UVT for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:49:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.19.142] (sligo.digium.internal [10.24.19.142]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00C93D887A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:49:02 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <5016D714.4030908@digium.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:48:52 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAD5OKxuy5UB1WjM7CtKy6oczbP8ELKjA7ohmfxUZx=artoND7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuy5UB1WjM7CtKy6oczbP8ELKjA7ohmfxUZx=artoND7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Should we also make G.722 a mandatory to implement codec?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:49:05 -0000

On 07/30/2012 12:21 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> Should we consider adding G.722 as a mandatory to implement audio codec?
> It is low complexity and carries no royalty or license restrictions, it
> is very good quality for voice audio communications at the
> same bandwidths as G.711, and it is very widely implemented by the
> desktop IP phones.

I would certainly support making G.722 mandatory to implement.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org