Skip to main content

Additional WebRTC Audio Codecs for Interoperability
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-06

Yes

(Alissa Cooper)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2016-04-20 for -05) Unknown
I remember that the "but what about THIS audio codec?" discussions were pretty contentious for a while, and wanted to say that this document does a really good job of handling that question. Thanks for producing it.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-04-18 for -05) Unknown
Shucheng LIU's OPS DIR review:

**** Editorial ****

 

* Section 2, page 3:

> 

>    o  Legacy networks: In this document, legacy networks encompass the

>       conversational networks that are already deployed like the PSTN,

>       the PLMN, the IP/IMS networks offering VoIP services, including

>       3GPP "4G" Evolved Packet System[TS23.002]

 

Missing space in "Evolved Packet System[TS23.002]"

 

 

* Section 2, page 3:

>  o  PSTN:Public Switched Telephone Network

 

Missing space.

 

 

* Section 3, page 4:

>  Consequently,

>    a significant number of calls are likely to occur between terminals

>    supporting WebRTC endpoints and other terminals like mobile handsets,

>    fixed VoIP terminals, DECT terminals that do not support WebRTC

>    endpoints nor implement OPUS. 

 

Seems should  s/terminals, DECT terminals/terminals, and DECT terminals/

 

 

* Section 3: each of the bullets is separated by two blank lines rather than a single one.

 

 

* Section 4.1.1, page 5:

> especially

 

s/especially/specially/

 

 

* Section 4.1.3, page 5:

>    The payload format to be used for AMR-WB is described in [RFC4867]

>    with bandwidth efficient format and one speech frame encapsulated in

>    each RTP packets

 

s/packets/packet/

 

 

* Section 4.2.1, page 6:

>  This include both mobile phone calls using GSM and 3G

 

s/include/includes/

 

 

* Section 4.2.1, page 6:

> such as, GSMA voice IMS profile for VoLTE in [IR.92].

 

Please remove the comma.

 

 

* Section 4.2.1, page 6:

>    degrading the high efficiency over mobile radio access.References

> for

 

Missing space.

 

 

* Section 4.2.3, page 7:

>    The payload format to be used for AMR is described in [RFC4867] with

>    bandwidth efficient format and one speech frame encapsulated in each

>    RTP packets.

 

s/packets/packet/
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-04-18 for -05) Unknown
Will Liushucheng performed the opsdir review.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-04-19 for -05) Unknown
section 3: MOS could do with a reference
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05) Unknown