Hello Christian,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:27, Christian Hoene
<hoene(_at_)uni-tuebingen(_dot_)de> wrote:
Dear Xavior Marjou,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from
Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks
(gateways, service plate-forms, mediaservers...) and in terminals
represents high costs for service providers, manufacturers and chipset
providers in terms of development, deployment and testing with risks
to create bugs and problems affecting customers. Furthermore, this
multiplies the problems of interoperability with already deployed
codecs and the transcoding needs to be addressed with related costs
(gateways) and quality degradations.
I have heard similar concerns from German traditional telcos, too. However,
the currently envisioned codec is based on a more Internet like scenario: a
dumb network and smart end terminal. This means: fewer gateways and less
transcoding inside the network but smarter end terminals (=phones). Also,
the codec is intended to be used in an end-to-end fashion with the encoding
and decoding done at the Internet phones.
This is not entirely right. This codec should be also useful in conference
scenarios, where you have to decode it at conference server and encode
mixed signal again. And if I haven't missed something, this use-case was
explicitly listed in codec requirements.
On the other hand, it was stated in the same requirements, that interoperability
with older codecs is not a goal.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf